STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS-Cont.
Laws of 1882, c. 53, sec. 13. Railroad commissioners. Apportionment
of salaries. 136.
Act of April 4, 1868. Right of persons engaged or employed on or
about railroad to recover for injuries. 433.
Act of 1871. Authorizing East Line & Red River R. Co. to cross or
connect with other roads. 369.
Act of July 25, 1886. Bridge across Missouri River at Kansas City.
Cases arising under. Pp. 583-739. 126.
Rev. Stat. sec. 4281. Jewelry in baggage. Notice to carrier. 216.
STREET RAILWAY. See PASSENGERS.
Application of the brake. In an action for injuries, if there is evidence
to show that when the brakes are applied the car-wheel will not re-
volve, plaintiff's boot is admissible to show that car-wheel ran over
his foot, and that the brake was not applied. Hays v. Gainesville
St. R. Co. (Tex.). 97.
Collision between wagon and horse-car. Held, that the case ought to
be left to the jury upon the conflicting evidence as to negligence.
North Hudson St. R. Co. v. Isley (N. Y.). 94.
Contributory negligence. Person driving on the track and seeing
dummy engine in front of him, who does nothing except shout to
the engineer, is so dilatory that a nonsuit ought to be entered in an
action by him for damages. Donnelly v. Brooklyn City R. Co.
(N. Y.). 103.
Duty of carrier. The exercise of utmost foresight, knowledge, and care
is required of all carriers of passengers, and not merely of railroads
operated by steam. Dougherty v. Missouri R. Co. (Mo.). 488.
Other vehicles on track. Street-cars have a right to pass upon the
track without hindrance, but when the track is not used for the pas-
sage of the cars other vehicles may use it, and when the driver of
such vehicle meets approaching car he is bound to leave the track
in time to give free passage. North Hudson St. R. Co. v. Isley
Other vehicles on track. What will be deemed due diligence in remov-
ing a vehicle from the track of a street railway when a horse-car is
approaching is a question for the jury. North Hudson St. R. Co.
v. Ilsev (N. Y.). 94.
Other vehicles on track.
Use of street-car tracks by other vehicles.
96 n.
Passengers injuries to. The cases concerning injuries to passengers
riding on street-cars are indexed under the heading PASSENGERS.
Personal injuries. Evidence. In an action by a boy against a street rail-
way for damages for personal injuries, evidence that other boys had
been in the habit of jumping on cars is inadmissible. Hays v.
Gainesville St. R. Co. (Tex.). 97.
Personal injury. Instruction that plaintiff is entitled to recover if he
STREET RAILWAY-Continued.
was injured through the carelesness of the car-driver, or by the
wilful or intentional act of such driver, held, erroneous. Hays v.
Gainesville St. R. Co. (Tex.). 97.
Unskilful employee. In an action against a street railway company for
personal injuries caused by driver's negligence, instruction as to
failure of defendant to employ prudent drivers, held, argumentative
and improper. Hays v. Gainesville St. R. Co, (Tex.). 97.
Passengers injuries to, travelling on Sunday. 396 n.
Passengers. Personal injuries. Massachusetts adjudications as to right of
persons travelling on Sunday to recover for negligence of company's
servants, will be followed by federal courts in actions arising in that
State. Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co. (U. S.). 389.
Passenger. Res adjudicata. Determination of supreme court of Massa-
chusetts that errand on which plaintiff was travelling was not one of
necessity or charity held to exclude consideration of that question
from jury in federal court, in action after he had become nonsuit
in State court. Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co. (U. S.). 389.
SURFACE WATER.
Action for damages. Limitation, 157 n.
Alteration of drains. If a railroad alters an accustomed drain the sub-
stituted outlet must be sufficient for ordinary rainfalls but need not
be constructed in view of extraordinary occurrences. Philadelphia,
etc., R. Co. v. Davis (Md.). 143.
Civil law rule. 150 n.
Common-law rule. 149 n.
Conflicting decisions.
Crops on right of way. In an action for flooding crops plaintiff may be
asked how much of crop damaged was planted within 100 feet of
track, where defendant has pleaded that injury to crops on right of
way could not sustain an action. Waldrop v. Greenville, etc., R.
Co. (S. C.). 204,
Culverts. Where a railroad constructs an embankment it is bound to
provide culverts so as to allow the escape of waters through them in
times of high waters as well as low. Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Washter
(Ill.). 194.
Damages for loss of pasture. Instruction that jury might find what
was the value for one year and then take the proportionate rate for
the length of time which plaintiff was deprived of his pasture is
erroneous, where it appears that the value varied at different sea-
sons of the year. Sabine & E. T. R. Co. v. Broussard (Tex.). 199.
Death of stock. In an action for the death of stock caused by a flood, a
witness who has stated his means of information as to the loss of
the stock may give an opinion as to the number of dead animals.
Sabine & E. T. R. Co. v. Broussard (Tex.). 199.
Discharged through ditch. A railroad has no right by means of a ditch
to turn surface waters accumulating upon its land upon the land of
another where they would not otherwise go. Olson v. St. Paul,
etc., R. Co. (Minn.). 152.
Ditch. Where a company forms a ditch across land under a revocable
verbal license having no easement it is not obliged to continue to
keep the ditch in use and is not liable for damages to a land-owner's
crops caused by the act of closing the ditch. Olson v. St. Paul,
etc., R. Co. (Minn.). 154.
Evidence of damage. In an action for injuries to crops caused by de-
fective culvert a non-suit is properly granted if plaintiff fails to in-
troduce evidence as to the amount of his loss, and an averment in
the answer that the plaintiff had agreed to take $5 in satisfaction
is not sufficient to send case to the jury. Waldrop v. Greenville,
etc., R. Co. (S. Car.). 204.
Flood. Damages for injury to pasture are not limited to the value of
grass actually destroyed, but it may be shown that the pasture was
rendered incapable of producing grass. Sabine & E. T. R. Co. v.
Broussard. (Tex.). 199.
Floods. Pleading. In an action for injuries to land from floods caused
by negligent construction, allegations of injuries to adjacent land
not belonging to plaintiff are properly stricken out. Sabine & E.
T. R. Co. v. Broussard. (Tex.). 199.
Injury to crops.
Where plaintiff alleges that the crops were owned by
himself and his tenant and that he had obtained his tenant's claim
for damages, plaintiff's recovery is limited to such crops as the ten-
ant at the time of the destruction had an interest in, and the evi-
dence of injury must be confined to such crops. Gulf, etc., R. Co.
v. McGowan. (Tex.). 210.
Instruction. Extraordinary rains. Where the jury is informed that
the defendant would not be liable if the overflow resulted from it,
is not necessary to repeat such instruction in several paragraphs
bearing upon defendant's liability. Sabine & E. T. R. Co. v. Brous-
sard. (Tex.). 199.
Insufficient culvert. Declarations of section-master concerning suffi-
ciency of culvert not falling within the scope of his duties are inad-
missible in action for overflow. Waldrop v. Greenville, etc., R. Co.
(S. Car.). 204.
Liability for insufficient culvert. A railroad by the payment of com-
pensation for injuries caused by the construction of its road-bed
does not escape liability for damages caused by the construction
of an insufficient culvert. Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Washter. (Ill.).
194.
Modified doctrine. 151 n.
Obstruction by lower proprietor. Lower proprietor cannot obstruct
flow across his land except where there is a necessity to protect his
property and there is no reasonable way of preventing the injury.
Waldrop v. Greenville, etc., R. Co. (S. Car.). 204.
Obstruction of flow. The owner of upper land has a right to the unin-
terrupted on flowage, and a lower proprietor has no right to arrest
such waters and accumulate them upon the property of his neigh-
bor. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Davis (Md.). 143.
Ownership of land. In an action for flooding lands in consequence of
the stopping up of a culvert the complaint is sufficient where some
of the acts charged are alleged to have occurred since plaintiff be-
came the owner of the land. Terre Haute & I. R. Co. (Ind.). 212.
Surface waters. 148 n.
Texas statutory provisions. 151 n.
West Virginia: dicta obiter in. 151 n.
THROUGH TRAINS. See PASSENgers.
Commutation ticket. Coupons. Stipulation on sale of commutation
tickets that coupon shall not be valid unless detached in presence
of, or by conductor, is valid. Boston & M. R. Co. v. Chipman
(Mass.).
Commutation ticket. Coupons void if detached, reasonable condition.
338 n.
Commutation ticket: ejectment for failure to exhibit. 338 n.
Commutation ticket. Refusal to allow conductor to detach coupons.
338 n.
Commutation ticket. Validity. If a person in good faith presents com-
mutation ticket which was issued to another, and is not transferable,
and he is carried as a passenger, he is entitled to the rights of a pas-
senger. Robostelli v. New York & H. R. Co. (C. C.). 515.
Conditions in ticket requiring it to be stamped and signed by the
purchaser. 344 n.
Condition requiring signature. Waiver. 350 n.
Discrimination. A railroad may charge more to those paying fare on
train than it charges for tickets. State v. Hungerford (Minn.). 265.
Drawing-room car: stipulation in free pass exempting company from
liability not abrogated by purchase of ticket for. Ulrich v. New
York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.). 350.
Ejection of passenger for refusal to pay full fare. 268 n.
Excursion tickets. Contract for sale. In action for breach of contract
to issue excursion tickets, testimony of sub-purchaser that he had
bought a large number of tickets from plaintiff at advanced price is
admissible. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hill (Tex.). 363.
Excursion ticket. Contract for sale. Person who has contract for
issue of excursion tickets, and has resold large number, can recover
full amount of damages caused by breach of contract without join-
ing sub-purchaser. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hill (Tex.). 363.
Excursion tickets. Contract. Insufficient tender. In action for breach
of contract to issue large number of excursion tickets, proof of
tender of fifteen tickets will not have effect of reducing plaintiff's
claim as to tickets tendered to difference between contract rate
and regular fare. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hill (Tex.). 363.
Excursion tickets. Measure of damages in action for breach of con-
tract to issue is net profit which would have been realized by the
plaintiff. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hill (Tex.). 363.
Facilities to procure. Where possession of ticket is essential to enable
passenger to ride on freight train, company must furnish convenient
facilities for purchase of tickets. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Hins-
dale (Kan.). 256.
Failure to procure. Freight train.
Announcement of rule requiring
passengers on freight train to procure tickets held to give it suf-
ficient publicity, and passenger could be expelled for non-com-
pliance. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Hinsdale (Kan.). 256.
Freight train: notice of change requiring procuring of tickets before
entering. 264 n.
Freight train: procuring ticket before entering. 264 n.
Limited tickets. Expiration of time limited. 349 n.
Limited ticket. Identification of holder. Where passenger who buys
limited ticket over two connecting lines is not identified at the
office of the company connecting with the line which sold the ticket,
owing to the absence of the agent, he cannot maintain an action
against the road selling the ticket on account of his expulsion by
the conductor on one of the trains of such road. Mosher v. St.
Louis, etc., R. Co. (U. S.). 339.
Limited ticket. Stamping. Waiver. Where passenger holding limited
ticket had it stamped at point other than that named in ticket,
evidence held admissible to show that agent at that point was
authorized to waive condition that ticket should be stamped at
point named therein. Taylor v. Seaboard & R. R. Co. (N. Car.). 344.
Lost ticket: expulsion of passenger for failure to produce. 336 n.
Passenger trains: tickets for. Regulations. 267 n.
Production of ticket. Conductor is bound to wait reasonable time to
enable passenger to produce ticket; what is reasonable time there-
for is question for jury. International, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkes
(Tex.). 331.
Production of ticket. Reasonable time. Evidence held to show that
conductor who expelled passenger who asked for time to find his
ticket did not wait a reasonable time for the production of the
ticket. International, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkes (Tex.). 331.
Reasonable opportunity to obtain ticket. 264 n.
Reasonable opportunity to procure. Right of carrier to discriminate
against those not buying tickets is conditioned upon its giving
reasonable opportunity to purchase tickets. How long ticket office
is required to be kept open. State v. Hungerford (Minn.). 265.
Reasonable opportunity to procure ticket. 267 n.
Reasonable time. Conductor must give passenger reasonable time to
find ticket. 336 n.
Rule requiring passengers to procure tickets before entering freight
train: evidence of non-enforcement of. 274 n.
Sufficiency of effort to procure ticket. 264 n.
Wrong train. Person on train cannot insist that he shall be permitted
to ride without proper ticket for that train in violation of company's
regulations. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Gants (Kan.). 290.
TRESPASSER. See PASSENGERS; Speed; Street RAILWAY.
Acquiescence in crossing. 20 n.
Active and passive negligence. 21 n.
Authority of servants running switch engine.
to enable jury to infer that the engine was employed in taking cer-
tain employees home for supper with the knowledge and acquies-
cence of defendant. Reilly v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co. (Mo.). 81.
Children trespassing on railroad track. 87 n.
Evidence held sufficient to justify finding of gross
negligence on part of the defendant. Battishill v. Humphreys
(Mich.). 69.
Conflicting testimony. In an action for the death of a person while
walking over a trestle, where the evidence as to negligence and
contributory negligence was conflicting, held, that there was suf-
ficient evidence of negligence to justify the refusal of an instruction
that if the jury believed the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, and
the uncontradicted evidence introduced by the defendant, that they
would find that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence.
Troy v. Cape Fear, etc., R. Co. (N. Car.). 13.
Contributory negligence. If a person remains upon the track until he
is injured by an approaching train which he might have seen and
|