페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

TABLE

OF THE CASES REPORTED,

PAGE

PAGE

I

450

136

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. Johns..

480 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

0. & W. R. Co v... Bates v. Old Colony R. Co 355 Cheshire R. Co., Zucher v

359 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 63 Quackenbush v.

545 Boston & Maine R. Co., Alerton v. 563 Chicago, B.irungton & Pac R. Co., Boston & Maine R. Co. v. Chipman 336 Templin ?

107 Boston & Providence R. Co., Siew. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. Co., art v.....

499

Lincoln Board of Trade 7... 583 Brady . 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. v. Brooklyn City R. Co., Black v.... 526 Schoffer...

1744 Brooklyn City R. Co., Donnelly v. 103 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. Broussard, Sabine & East Texas

R. Co., Pattee v....

399 R. Co. v..

199 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., Bucher w. Cheshire R. Co.... 359 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... 72.4

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., CampSt. Paul, M. & O. R. Co.... 724

113 Butler v. White Water V. R. Co... 407 City of Minneapolis, State ex vel. 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

beil v...

PAGE

PAGE

63

363

452

76

480

Co. v

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... Kennedy v...

40 Houston & Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Donnegan, Louisville, Evansville &

Lee... St. L. R. Co. V.

116 Houston v. Vicksburg, Shreveport Donnelly v. Brooklyn City R. Co.. 103 & P. R. Co.. 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, u. Wilkes..

331 Ganis, 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.... 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 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.

596 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, Burlingapolis & 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....

417 Hecht, Ohio & Mississippi R. Co. v. 447 Louisville & Nashville R. Co., KenHereford 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...

37 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

281

PAGE

PAGE

428

212

ter v

382

Maine Cent. R. Co., Blumenthal v. 247 Quackenbush v. Chicago & NorthManhattan R. Co., Graville v...... 375 western R. Co

545 Mannewitz, Gulf, Colorado & S. F. Randall, Augusta & Summerville R. Co. v.

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 Ř. Co. v... 316 Martin v. Southern Pac. R. Co.... 612 Richmond & Danville R. Co., PorMaxwell v. Atchison, Topeka & S.

137 F. R. Co......

574 Richmond & Danville R. Co., Missouri R. Co., Dougherty v 488

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..... 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..

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., RosenOld 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...

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, 0. & W. Scofield v. Lake Shore & Michigan R. Co. v. Chapin... 136 Southern R. Co..

685 Pershing v. Chicago, Burlington & Seaboard & Roanoke R. Co., TayQ. 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, Gulf, 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. 217 | Southern Pac. R. Co., Hereford v. 133

94

179

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

State 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 ton V....

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

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

22

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-sve yards from the nearest.

Trespasser on Track. — 'Gross 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 Fohn I. Hall for plaintiff in error.

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

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.

1

« 이전계속 »