Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

TABLE

PAGE

I

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Adamson, Indiana, Bloomington & Carlson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. 215

W, R. Co. v

127 Central R. Co. of New Jersey, New

Allerton v. Boston & Maine R. Co. 563 Fruit Exchange v..

592

Atchison, Topeka & S. F. R. Co. Central Pac. R. Co., Martin v..... 612
v. Gants

290 Central Pass, R. Co., Winnegar v.. 462
Atchison, Topeka & S. F. R. Co. v. Central Railroad & Banking Co. v.
Johos.

Smith.

Atchison, Topeka & S. F. R. Co., Central Railroad & Banking Co.,

Maxwell v....

574

Smith v....

Atchison, Topeka & S. F. R. Co., Central R. & Banking Co., Ste-

Sachrowitz v

382

vens v, .

413

Augusta & Summerville R. Co. v. Chapin, People ex rel. New York,

Randall...

439

O. & W. R. Co v.....

136

Bates v. Old Colony R. Co
355 Cheshire R. Co., Bucher v

389
Battishill v. Humphreys..

69 Chicago & Northwestern R. Co.,

Beidelman, Dow v..

322 Business Men's Assoc. v

711

Black v. Brooklyn City R. Co... 526 Chicago & Northwestern R. Co.,

Blumenthal v. Maine Cent. R. Co.. 247

Fick v....

378

Boozer, Houston & Texas Cent. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co.,

R. Co. V

Quackenbush v....

545

Boston & Maine R. Co., Alerton v. 563 Chicago, Birunglon & Pau R. Co.,
Boston & Maine R. Co. v. Chipman 336 Templin ?

107

Boston & Providence R. Co., Stew Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. Co.,

art V...

499

Lincoln Board of Trade v...

Brady v. Pennsylvania R. Co.... 603 Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. Co.,
Breen v. New York Cent. & H. R. Pershing v...

405

R. Co

523 Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. Co. ?'.

Brooklyn City R. Co., Black v.... 526 Schoffer...

174

Brooklyn City R. Co., Donnelly v. 103 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P.

Broussard, Sabine & East Texas

R. Co., Pallee v....

399

R. Co. v...

199 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co.,

Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co.... 389 Schilling v...

60

Bunch, Great Western R. Co. v... 224. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.

Burlington, Cedar Rapids & N. Co., Way v...

286

R. Co., Graham v..

397 Chicago, St. Paul, M. & O. R. Co.,

Burlington & Missouri R. R. Co., Business Men's Assoc. V. .... 7244

Lincoln Board of Trade v..... 583 Chicago, St. Paul M. & O. R, Co.,

Business Men's Assoc. v. Chicago Mykleby v...

387

& Northwestern R Co.... 711 Chipman, Boston & Maine R.Co. v. 336

Business Men's Assoc, v. Chicago, Cincinnati Southern R. Co., Camp-

St. Paul, M. & O. R. Co...

724

113

Butler v. White Water V. R. Co... 467 City of Minneapolis, State ex rel. v.

Campbell v. Trustees Cincinnati St. Paul, Minneapolis & M. R.Co. 168

Southern R. Co...

113 City R. Co. v. Lee...

566

Cape Fear & Y. V. R. Co., Troy v. 13 Cornell, Jardine v......

307

PAGE

PAGE

Covington v. Western & Atlantic Hobbs v. Texas & Pacific R. Co... 268

R. Co......

469 Houston & Texas Cent. R. Co. v.

Davis, Philadelphia, Wilmington & Boozer..

Balt. R. Co. v..

143 Houston & Texas Cent. R. Co. v.

Denver, South Park & P. R. Co.,

Hill..

363

Kennedy v..:

40 Houston & Texas Cent. R. Co. V.

Donnegan, Louisville, Evansville & Lee...

452

St. L. R. Co. v.

116 Houston v. Vicksburg, Shreveport

Donnelly v. Brooklyn City R. Co.. 103 & P. R. Co...

76

Dougherty v. Missouri R. Co.. 488 Hughes v. Galveston, Houston &

Dow v. Beidelman..

322 S. A. R. Co.....

66

Dunden, Union Pac. R. Co. v..... 88 Humphreys, Baltishill v...

69

East Line & Red River R. Co. v. Hungerford, State v,

265

Rushing...

367 Hurlburt v. Lake Shore & M. S.

Ehrman, Pullman Palace Car Co, v. 362 R. Co....

596

Fick v. Chicago & Northwestern Hurt v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain

R. Co..

378

& S. R. Co.....

422

Fitchburg R. Co., Maguire v 9 Indiana, Bloomington & W. R. Co.
Gainesville Street R. Co., Hays v.. 97 V. Adamson..

127

Galveston, Houston & S. A. R. Co., International & Great Northern

Hughes v...

66 R. Co. v. Underwood.

570

Galveston, Houston & S. A. R. Co. International & Great Northern
v. Ryon.....
30 R. Co. v. Wilkes...

331

Gants, Atchison, Topeka & S. F. Isley, North Hudson County St.

R. Co. v.

290

R. Co. v.

94

Gascamp, Gulf, Colorado & S. F.. Jardine v. Cornell.

307

R. Co. v....

6 Johns, Atchison, Topeka & S. F.

Graham v. Burlington, Cedar Rap-

R. Co. V....

480

ids & N. R. Co...

397 Jones, Louisville & Nashville R.

Graville v. Manhattan R. Co. .... 375

417

Great Western R. Co. v. Bunch... 224 Kansas City, Ft. Scott & G. R. Co.

Greenville L. & S. R. Co., Wal v. Kelley.

281

drop v...

204 Kansas City, St. Joseph & C. B.

Guenther v. St. Louis, Iron Moun.

R, Co. v. Rudebach

219

tain & S. R. Co....

47 Kelley, Kansas City, Ft. Scott &

Gulf, Colorado & S. F. R. Co. v.

G. R. Co. v....

281

Gascamp.

6 Kennedy, Denver, South Park & P.

Gulf, Colorado & S. F. R. Co. v.

R. Co. v..

40

McGowan...

210 Kentucky & Indiana Bridge Co. v.

Gulf, Colorado & S. F. R. Co. v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co.. 630

Mannewitz....

428 Lake Shore & Michigan Southern

Gulf, Colorado & S. F. R. Co. v.

R. Co., Hurlburt v.

Pool...

187 Lake Shore & Michigan Southern

Hall v. South Carolina R. Co...... 311

R. Co., Scofield v.

685

Hannibal & St. Joseph R. Co. v. Lakin v. Oregon Pac. R. Co.. 500

Missouri River Packet Co....... 157 Lee, City R. Co. v...

566

Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co., Reilly v. 81 | Lee, Houston & Tex. Cent. R.Co. v. 452

Hardenbergh v. St. Paul, Minne Lincoln Board of Trade v, Burling-

apolis & M. R. Co...

359

ton & M. R. R. Co....

583

Hayman v. Pennsylvania R. Co... 478 Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v.

Haysıv. Gainesville Street R. Co.. 97 Jones...

Hecht, Ohio & Mississippi R. Co. v. 447 Louisville & Nashville R. Co., Ken-

Hereford v. Southern Pac. R. Co.. 133 tucky & Indiana Bridge Co. v... 630

Herkimer & Mohawk St. R. Co., Louisville & Nashville R. Co.,
Webber v.....

580 Nichols v..
Higgs, Topeka City R. Co. v...... 529 Louisville, Evansville & St. L.
Hill, Houston & Texas Cent.

R. Co. v. Donnegan..

116

R. Co. v.

363 Louisville, New Orleans & T.R.Co.,

Hill v. Ninth Avenue St. R. Co... 522 Reary v..

277

Hinsdale, Southern Kan. R. Co. v. 256! Maguire v. Fitchburg R. Co... 9

37

PAGE

PAGE

Maine Cent. R. Co., Blumenthal v. 247 Quackenbush v. Chicago & North-

Manhattan R. Co., Graville v......

375 western R. Co

545

Mannewitz, Gulf, Colorado & S. F. Randall, Augusta & Summerville

R. Co. v.

428

R. Co. v.

439

McCoy, Terre Haute & Indianapolis Reary v. Louisville, New Orleans

R. Co. v..

& T. R. Co

277

McGowan, Gulf, Colorado & S. F. Reilly v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co.. 81

R. Co. v.

210 Rice, Southern Kansas R. Co. v... 316

Martin v. Southern Pac. R. Co.... 612 Richmond & Danville R. Co., Por-

Maxwell v. Atchison, Topeka & S.

ter v

137

F. R. Co.....

574 Richmond & Danville R. Co.,

Missouri R. Co., Dougherty v.....

Smith v.....

557

Missouri River Packet Co., Hanni. Roach, Virginia Midland R. Co. V.. 271

bal & St. Jo. R. Co. v... 157 Robostelli v. New York & Hartford

Mosher v. Si. Louis, Iron Mountain R. Co......

515

& S. R. Co.

339 Rosenbaum v. St. Paul & Duluth

Mykleby v. Chicago, St. Paul, M. R. Co...

274
& O.R. Co....

387 Rudebach, Kansas City, St. Jo. &
New Fruit Exchange v. Central C. B. R. Co, v..

219
R. Co. of New Jersey..

592 Rushing, East Line & Red River
New York & Hartford R. Co., Ro.. R. Co. v..

367
bostelli v..

515 Ryon, Galveston, Houston & S. A.

New York Central & Hudson R.

R. Co. v..

30

R. Co., Breen v....

523 Sabine & East Texas R. Co. v.

New York Central & H. R. R. Co., Broussard.

199

Ulrich v...

350 Sabine & East Texas R. Co. v.

New York, Ontario & W. R. Co., Wood...

190

Chapin v...

136 Sachrowitz v. Atchison, Topeka &

Nichols v. Louisville & Nashville

S. F. R. Co...

382

R. Co...

37 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S.

Ninth Avenue St. R. Co., Hill v... 522 R. Co., Guenther v....

47

North Hudson County St. R. Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S.

Isley...

94 R. Co., Hurt v.

422

Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., Carlson v. 215 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S.

Ohio & Mississippi R. Co. v. Hecht. 447 R. Co., Mosher v..

339

Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v. Wochter.. 194 St. Paul & Duluth R. Co., Rosen-

Old Colony R. Co., Bates v....... 355

baum v..

274

Olson v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & St. Paul, Minneapolis & M. R. Co.,

M. R. Co. (Two Cases). ..., 152, 154 Hardenbergh v....

359

Omaha & Republican Valley R. Co. St. Paul, Minneapolis & M. R. Co.,
v. Standen...

.... 179 Olson v. (two cases).. ...152, 154

Orbann, Philadelphia Traction Co.v. 432 St. Paul, Minneapolis & M. R. Co.,

Oregon Pacific R. Co., Lakin v.... 500 State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. 168

Pattee v. Chicago, Milwaukee & Schaffer, Chicago, Burlington &

St. P. R. Co.....

399 Q. R. Co. v.....

174

Pennsylvania R. Co., Brady v 603 Schilling v. Chicago, Milwaukee

Pennsylvania R. Co., Hayman v.. 478 St. P. R. Co...

60

People, ex rel. New York, O. & W. Scofield v. Lake Shore & Michigan

R. Co. v. Chapin...

136 Southern R. Co...

685

Pershing v. Chicago, Burlington & Seaboard & Roanoke R. Co., Tay-

Q. R. Co....

405

lor v..

344

Philadelphia Traction Co.v. Orbann. 432 Smith, Cent. R. & Banking Co. v.

Philadelphia, Wilmington & Balt. Smith v. Cent. R. & Banking Co.. 456

R. Co. v. Davis....

143 Smith *v. Richmond & Danville

Pollock, Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 217 R. Co...

557

Pool, Gull, Colo. & S. F. R.Co. v... 187 South Carolina R. Co., Hall v..... 311

Porter v. Richmond & Danville South Side Pass. R. Co. v. Trich.. 549

R. Co. v.

137 Southern Kan. R. Co. v. Hinsdale. 256

Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Ehrman. 362 Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Rice... 316

Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Pollock. 217Southern Pac. R. Co., Hereford v. 133

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

I

PAGE

PAGE

Southern Pac. R Co., Martin v... 612 Union Pac. R. Co., Martin v...... 612

Standen, Omaha & Republican Val Vicksburg, Shreveport & P. R. Co.,

ley R. Co. v.....

179

Houston v....

76

Stale ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. Virginia Midland R. Co. v. Roach. 271

St. Paul, Minneapolis & M. R.Co. 168 Virginia Midland R. Co. v. White.. 22
Stale v. Hungerford..

265 Wachter, Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v... 194

Stevens v. Central R. & B. Co.... 413 Waldrop v. Greenville, L. & S.

Stewart v. Boston & Providence

R. Co...

204

R. Co.....

499 Wallace v.Western North Car.R.Co. 553

Taylor v. Seaboard & Roanoke Way v. Chicago, Rock Island &

R. Co...

344

Pac. R. Co....

286

Templin v. Chicago, Burlington & Webber v. Herkimer & Mohawk St.

Pac. R. Co...

107 R. Co...

580

Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. Co. West Side St. R. Co., Woodward v. 472

v. McCoy....

212 Western & Atlantic R. Co., Coving.

Texas & Pacific R. Co., Hobbs v.. 268

469

Topeka City R. Co. v. Higgs... 529 Western North Carolina R. Co.,
Trich, South Side Pass. R. Co. v.. 549 Wallace v.

553

Troy v. Cape Fear & Y. V. R. Co.

13 White, Virginia Midland R. Co. v. 22

Trustees Cincinnati Southern R. White Water Valley R.Co. v. Butler. 467
Co., Campbellv..

113 Wilkes, International & Great Nor.

Ulrich v. New York Central &

thern R. Co. v...

331

H. R. R. Co....

350 Winnegar v. Central Pass. R. Co.. 462

Underwood, International & G. N. Wood, Sabine & East Tex. R. Co. v. 190

R. Co. v. ....

570 Woodward v. West Side St. R.

Union Pac. R. Co. v. Dunden.... 88 Co.....

472

CENTRAL RAILROAD & BANKING Co.

v.

Smith.

(Georgia Supreme Court.) Negligence. - Omission of Statutory Duty. - While negligence is always a question of fact when the law is silent touching the specific act done or left undone, yet where a statute expressly enjoins an act, the act is then within all degrees of diligence, even the very lowest, and its omission is negligente as matter of law.

Same. - Statutory Limit of Speed. — Instruction. — An ordinance limiting the rate of speed in passing over crossings to ten miles an hour, does not imply that this rate may not be exceeded between crossings; and in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, it is error to instruct the court, that, if at the time of the accident the rate of speed was more than ten miles an hour, that would be negligence, if the injury was occasioned to plaintiff between crossings and sixty-five yards from the nearest.

Trespasser on Track. — Cross Negligence. – To walk along the middle of a railroad track between crossings when it is dark, without knowing or remembering whether a train is due or not, and without looking out in both directions for trains that may be due, and without listening attentively and anxiously for the noise of machinery, as well as for the sound of bell or whistle, is gross negligence. A person so trespassing must guard, not only against negligence on the part of the railroad company, which he might discover in time to avoid the consequences, but also against the ordinary danger of there being negligence which he might not discover until too late.

Same. - Recovery under Statute. — Apportionment. — Under the Georgia statute giving a right to the recovery of partial damages from a railroad company where a person injured has been guilty of contributory negligence, the plaintiff in an action cannot recover if he has trespassed upon the track, and been grossly negligent in failing to anticipate and look out for the approach of trains.

APPEAL from Superior Court, Clayton County.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while on defendant's railroad track. The opinion states the facts.

A. R. Lawton, John D. Stewart, W. L. Watterson, and John 1. Hall for plaintiff in error.

Spence & Stewart, C. W. Hodnett, and R. T. Dorsey for defend

ant.

BLECKLEY, C. J. — Smith recovered against the Central Railroad Company heavy damages for a personal injury. The railroad company made a motion for a new trial, and it was overruled. One of the grounds of the motion was, that the judge instructed the jury that, if there was a failure to

34 A. & E. R. Cas. – 1.

Facts.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »