« PreviousContinue »
tions or the complaint held sufficient to ad-1 A passenger may alight from his train at a
In an action against a carrier for refusal to
A passenger with means of ascertaining
§ 6. Personal injuries.
It is not sufficient that a street car should
dangerous position, before putting the car in
motion.—Little Rock Traction & Electric Co.
Carriers are not insurers of the safety of
sions, but are required to exercise a high de
gree of care to secure their safety.- Little
A passenger held not entitled to recorer for
the direction of a porter.-Brezewitz 5. St.
In an action for injuries to a passenger, the
petition held sullicient to support a verdict for
plaintiff on the theory of negligence, with an
In an action for injuries to a passenger of 2
In an action for injuries to a passenger while
In an action for injuries to a passenger og
Springfield Traction Co. (Mo. App.) 24.
In an action for injuries to a passenger, mod.
cause of plaintiff's injuries held not error.-
That a locomotive boiler exploded, injuring a
cago & A. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 583.
that witness spoke to third parties of the de
fective step held inadmissible.- Texas Midland
graphs of a charge in an action for injury to a
passenger while boarding a train.-Houston
of.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas, cover exemplary damages.-Little Rock Tracv. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 387.
tion & Electric Co. v. Winn (Ark.) 1025. In an action for injnries to a passenger, a A passenger held entitled to recover for expulphrase by way of illustration in an instruction sion from a train, owing to refusal of agent to held not to have rendered it erroneous.—St. lindorse a return trip ticket.—Texas & P. Ry. Louis Southwestern Ry, Co. of Texas v. Martin Co. v. Payne (Tex. Sup.) 330. (Tex. Civ. App.) 387.
That a passenger, ejected for refusing an unIn an action for injuries to a passenger, an warranted demand for fare, had sufficient instruction held not to have made the defend- money with him, held admissible on the question ant an insurer of the absolute safety of passen-' of damages.—Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Lynch gers. — St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Tex- : (Tex. Civ. App.) 884. as v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 387.
§ 9. Passengers' effects. In an action against a carrier for injuries to
Evidence as to the loss of a passenger's baga passenger from the discharge of hot cinders gage held sufficient to make a prima facie case. from a locomotive, evidence held sufficient to
-Hubbard v. Mobile & 0. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) show that the engine was negligently handled 52. and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the escape of the cinders.—Missouri, Petition against a carrier for the loss of K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Mitchell (Tex, / baggage held not converted into a petition for Civ. App.) 841.
negligence by mere allegation that the baggage Carrier held liable for injury to passenger for 0. Ry. Co. (M0. App.) 52.
was lost by negligence.-Hubbard v. Mobile & failure to furnish car capable of being made comfortably warin. - Missouri, K. & T. Ry. The mere fact that a passenger received her Co. of Texas v. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.) 879. baggage from a terminal association, and not
from the carrier. held not to show that the In an action for injuries to a passenger by i latter's liability, both as carrier and as ware being struck by a car door, plaintiff held en; houseman, had ceased.—Hubbard v. Mobile titled to recover in the event the proof showed & 0. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. some degree of negligence on defendant's part on any one or more of the grounds alleged in In an action against a carrier for the loss the petition.---Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Leakey of baggage, the burden is on the carrier to (Tex. Civ. App.) 1168.
show facts reducing its liability to that of ware
houseman.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. $ 7.
Contributory negligence of (Mo. App.) 52. person injured.
A carrier which agrees to transport a pas In an action for injuries to a passenger, an
senger and baggage to destination is responsiinstruction held erroneous for failure to define ble throughout the journey for the loss of the plaintiff's negligent conduct, referred to as not baggage by itself or by any other carrier.constituting a defense in case it was not the Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) immediate cause of the injury:-Little Rock 52. Traction & Electric Co. v. Kimbro (Ark.) 121, 644.
The status of warehouseman sets in and that
of carrier ceases when the passenger has had In an action for injuries to a passenger, in a reasonable time in which to take his bagstructions held erroneous as excluding the ques gage away.-Hubbard v. Mobile & 0. Ry. Co. tion whether, in the exercise of reasonable (Mo. App.) 52. foresight, the conductor should have anticipated that plaintiff would be injured by alight- either as carrier or warehouseman, for a pas
Carrier under a through contract is liable, ing from the car when in motion, as he did.Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Kim- senger's baggage until it delivers the same.bro (Ark.) 121, 614.
Hubbard v. Mobile & 0. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.)
52. In an action against a street railroad company for injuries to a passenger, an instruction
Jewelry carried in a woman's trunk, for on the care required of defendant held defective wear, may be found by a jury to be baggage.and misleading.-Little Rock Traction & Elec- Hubbard v. Mobile & 0. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) tric Co. v. Kimbro (Ark.) 614.
52. A passenger on a street car held justified,
A carrier's common-law liability for baggage by the custom of disobeying an ordinance re
embraces only such articles as are baggage in quiring street cars to stop on the far crossing, a technical sense.—Hubbard v. Mobile & 0. to suppose the car, stopping before it had reach- Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. ed the far crossing, had stopped to let her off. Carrier held an insurer against every loss of -Franklin v. St. Louis & M. R. R. Co. (Mo. baggage, except one due to the act of God or Sup.) 930.
of a public enemy: -Ilubbard v. Mobile & 0. Passenger, guilty of contributory negligence Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. in attempting to board a moving train, could not recover, whether he was negligent in other
CASE CERTIFIED OR RESERVED. respects or not.--Texas Midland R. R. v. Ellison (Tex, Civ. App.) 213.
For determination of questions of law, see "ApPassenger, boarding a moving train, knowing peal and Error," $ 7. it was dangerous to do so, held guilty of con- Sulliciency of certified question, see "Appeal tributory negligence in law.—Texas Midland and Error," § 11. R. R. v. Ellison (Tex. Civ. App.) 213. Though a passenger alighted when the train
CATTLE. was moving, it was a question for the jury See “Animals." whether he was guilty of contributory negligence.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Ratley (Tex. Civ. App.) 407.
CATTLE GUARDS. | 8.
Ejection of passengers and in- See "Railroads," $ 5.
truders. In an action for ejection of a passenger from
CAUSE OF ACTION. a street car, on the ground that his transfer was too late, plaintiff held not entitled to re- See “Action."
that where the mortgage was recorded.-Sca-
ling v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 715.
Mortgagee held entitled to sue one who con-
verts mortgaged property, regardless of the
question of other security.-Scaling v. First
Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 715.
The measure of a mortgagee's damages for
the conversion of the mortgaged property by a
stranger is the amount of his debt, if that be
Scaling v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.)
8 4. Foreclosure.
In a suit to foreclose a mortgage, the court
had no jurisdiction to enter an order of sale
before judgment of foreclosure. -- Tipton v.
Harris (Ky.) 1074.
In a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage, a
finding in favor of plaintiff for a foreclosure
against such defendant.--Martin v. Berry Bros.
Testimony describing cattle mortgaged to
plaintiff and sold to defendant held to show
gage in question. --Scaling v. First Nat. Bank
Petition to foreclose mortgage on cattle held
not to vary from the mortgage.-Scaling v.
First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 715.
A mortgagee of cattle which belonged to the
mortgagor individually cannot be postponed in
the collection of its debt to the adjustment of
eguities existing between the mortgagor and his
partner. -Scaling v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.
Part payment by, see "Accord and Satisfac-
See "Abduction"; "Bastards"; "Guardian and
Ward";., “Infants”; "Parent and Child";
Injuries to, see "Negligence," § 1.
CHOSE IN ACTION.
Assignment, see "Assignments."
Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 3327, held, that on
Instructions, see “Criminal Law,” | 18.
A stranger who converts cattle covered by Law," 8 7.
Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Car-
Congress has the power to prescribe the rules
-Barnhard Bros. & Spindler v. Morrison
be reshipped into the state to evade the local
merce.—Crigler v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 276.
Express company which carried a C. 0. D.
shipment of liquor from a foreign state into a
local option territory and there held it a week
before delivering it to the consignee held to be-
come a bailee of the liquor, and could not de-
fend a prosecution under Ky. St. 1903, $ 2557,
interstate commerce. --Adams Exp. Co. v. Com-
& Spindler v. Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 376.
§ 3. Means and methods of regulation.
Municipal ordinance requiring improvement
contracts to require the work of stone dressing
to be done within the state held not to violate
interstate commerce clause of the federal Con-
stitution.-Allen v. Labsap (Mo. Sup.) 926.
A foreign corporation may send its agents
into this state without procuring the certificate
required by Rev. St. 1895, arts. 745, 746,-
Barnhard Bros. & Spindler v. Morrison (Tex.
Civ. App.) 378.
Foreign corporation cannot ship goods to
agents in the state for sale without complying
Bros. & Spindler v. Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.)
Inquisition of lunacy, see “Insane Persons,"
To take testimony, see “Depositions."
tion," $ 7.
Of General Land Office, see "Public Lands," 1.
Of General Land Oflice, mandamus, see "Man-
damus," § 1.
Of agent, see “Principal and Agent," $ 2.
Of broker, see “Brokers," $ 3.
and Administrators," $ 7.
Agister's lien, see "Animals."
Presumption as to, see "Evidence," "$ 2.
See “Abduction," § 1.
Documentary evidence, see "Criminal Law,"
Taking property for public use, see “Eminent
See “Sales," 8 7.
Condemnation proceedings as condition preced-
ent to right to construct railroad, see "Emi-
nent Domain," $ 3.
In deeds, see "Deeds," 8 2.
In insurance policies, see "Insurance," &$ 3, 4.
In mortgages, see "Mortgages," $ 4.
Precedent to action for breach of warranty,
see “Sales," $ 6.
Lands," $ 1.
tion, see "Insurance," § 11.
Admissibility in evidence, see “Criminal Law,"
Disclosure of communications, see "Witnesses,"
Of tax title, see “Taxation," 8 7.
CONFLICT OF LAWS.
“Carriers," 8 5.
Liability for injuries to servant, see "Master
and Servant," $ 3.
CONFUSION OF GOODS.
Box Co. v. Moore & McFerrin (Tenn.) 415.
See “Carriers,” $$ 2, 5, 9.
tions," 8 2.
To search, see "Searches and Seizures."
Of contract, see “Contracts," $ 1.
Of conveyance to child, see "Parent and Child."
To support claim of bona fide purchaser, see
"Vendor and Purchaser," $ 4.