« PreviousContinue »
OF THE CASES REPORTED,
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....
413 Augusta & Summerville R. Co. v. Chapin, People ex rel. New York, Randall..
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
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.....
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.....
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..
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....
422 Fitchburg R. Co., Maguire v
9 Indiana, Bloomington & W. R. Co. Gainesville Street R. Co., Hays v.. 97
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..
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....
6 Kennedy, Denver, South Park & P. Gulf, Colorado & S. F. R. Co. v.
R. Co. v.
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.
187 Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Hall v. South Carolina R. Co......
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..
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
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.,
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
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....
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
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
Texas & Pacific R. Co., Hobbs v.. 268 ton V....
Troy v. Cape Fear & Y. V. R. Co. 13 White, Virginia Midland R. Co. v.
113 Wilkes, International & Great Nor-
H. R. R. Co....
350 Winnegar v. Central Pass. R. Co.. 462
CENTRAL RAILROAD & BANKING CO.
(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.