Page images
PDF
EPUB

GENERAL INDEX.

on

ABUTTERS.

ACCIDENTS ON TRACK-
See Injuries to Property.

Continued.

Motorman not chargeable with
ACCIDENTS ON TRAOK.

negligence in failing to appre-
See Carriers of Passengers.

hend that boy will jump from
Frightening Teams.

wagon and go upon the track.
Contributory Negligence.

Baier v. Camden & S. Ry. Co.

(N. J.), 911.
Contributory negligence of
persons

Speed of train and failure to
street injured
through negligence in man-

keep lookout not cause of in-

jury where horse backed buggy
agement of street car does
not preclude a recovery un-

against train after engine had
less it enters directly into

passed.
and forms a part of the effi-

Pedigo v. Louisville & N. R.
cient cause of the accident.

Co. (Ky.), 631.
Oates v. Metropolitan St.

Sufficiency of evidence of such

wanton and gross negligence
Ry. Co. (Mo.), 916.
Doctrine that remote negligent

as will render unavailable a
act of injured party will not

plea of contributory negli-

gence in action for killing per-
bar recovery was not appli-
cable where act of plaintiff

son on track in railroad yard.
in driving in front of electric

King v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
car and that of conductor or

(C. C. A.), 875.
motorman was So substan-

AOT OF GOD.
tially concurrent that it was
impossible to separate con-

See Master and Servant.
duct of injured party from

Personal Injuries.
injury itself.

ADJACENT LANDS.
Rider Syracuse Rapid
Transit Ry. Co. (N. Y.),

See Public Lands.
635.

AGE.
Of mail carrier in stopping his
push cart too near the train.

See Children.
Mabbott v, Illinois Cent. R.

AGENCY.
Co. (Iowa), 114.
Of man killed on track in

See Carriers of Goods.
railroad yard.

AID BONDS.
King v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
(C. C. A.), 875.

See Bonds.
Sufficiency of evidence of such

APPEAL.
wanton and gross negli-
gence as will render una-

Review,
vailable a plea of contribu- Assignment of error making
tory negligence, in action release of liability for injury
for killing person on track to employee basis of special
in railroad yard.

instruction.
King v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v.
(C. C. A.), 875.

Wilder (C. C. A.), 493.
Sufficiency of evidence where Contributory negligence, re-

person was injured by train quested instruction where
seen by him before attempte one could not be given with-
ing to cross tracks.

out giving undue promi-
Alexander v. Louisville & N. nence to that defense.
R. Co. (Ga.), 572.

International & G. N. R.
Liability for injury to mail car-

Co. v. Branch (Tex.), 230.
rier, sufficiency of evidence. Estoppel to object on appeal
Mabbott v. Illinois Cent. R. that proper measure of dam-
Co. (Iowa), 114.

ages was not considered, in

[ocr errors]

APPEAL-Continued.

ATTORNEYS.
action for damages to live See Death by Wrongful Act.
stock in transit.
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Mc- BAILEES.
Carty (Tex.), 654.

See Carriers of Freight.
Weight of evidence.
Pence v. Wabash R. Co. BAGGAGE MEN.

(Iowa), 77.
Would not lie from decision of

See Master and Servant.
lower court from allotment by

BARRIERS.
county surveyor to landowner
for destruction of ditch.

See Master and Servant.
Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. Ry.
Co. v. Gillespie (Ind.), 394. BILLS OF LADING.

See Carriers of Goods.
APPLIANCES.

Carriers of Live Stock.
See Master and Servant.

Common Carriers.

Connecting Carriers.
ARREST.

Pledge, effect of subsequent
Effect of act of police officer in delivery of bill where property

changing the charge, in action had been seized at suit of
for false imprisonment of per- pledgee's creditor.
son for using car as refuge

Cameron v. Orleans & J. Ry.
from weather.

Co., Limited (La.), 829.
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Cope Rights of transferee under Wash-
(Tex.), 906.

ington statute declaring bills
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Parker of lading to be negotiable in-
(Tex.), 906.

struments.
Effect of plaintiff being found First Nat. Bank of Pullman

guilty of another charge, in V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
action for false imprisonment. (Wash.), 4.
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Cope Under commercial usage carrier
(Tex.), 906.

should deliver articles only
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Parker on productions of bill of lad-
(Tex.), 906.

ing though it names the con-
Effect of plaintiff's unlawful act signee.
in action for false imprison-

First Nat, Bank of Pullman v.
ment of person using car as

Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
refuge from weather.

(Wash.), 4.
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Cope
(Tex.), 906.

BONDHOLDERS.
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Parker Amendment of South Carolina
(Tex.), 906.

statute withdrawing right of
False imprisonment of person bondholders to reorganize in

using car as refuge from case of foreclosure of rail-
weather.

road mortgage, except on con-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Cope dition of submission to certain
(Tex.), 906.

rates for transportation, not
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Parker an impairment of property
(Tex.), 906.

rights.
False imprisonment of person Com’rs of Railroads v. Grand
using car refuge from

Rapids & I. Ry, Co. (Mich.),
weather, scope of employment. 665.
Texas & P. Ry, Co. v. Cope
(Tex.), 906.

BONDS.
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Parker

Equitable assignments, suffi-
(Tex.), 906.

ciency of evidence.
ASSIGNMENTS.

Cushing v. Chapman (Mo.),

852.
See Bonds.

Equitable liens, sufficiency of

evidence.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK.

Cushing v. Chapman (Mo.),
See Master and Servant.

852.

as

.

BONDS-Continued.
Judgment creditor of railroad

company had no enforceable
equitable interest in bonds
issued to other parties, under
contract with railroad for ac-
quisition of bonds to be subse-
quently issued.
Cushing v. Chapman (Mo.),

852.
Power of legislature to compel

creditor corporation to accept
payment of bonds before ma-
turity.
Little River Tp. v. Board of

Com’rs (Kan.), 437.

BOUNDARIES.

See Right of Way.
BRAKEMEN.

See Master and Servant.
BRIDGES.
See Crossings.

Master and Servant.
Water and Water Courses.

BURDEN OF PROOF.
See Carriers of Freight.

Contributory Negligence.

CARRIERS OF GOODS-Con-

CARRIERS.

See Damages.

CARRIERS OF GOODS.
See Bills of Lading.

Carriers of Freight.
Common Carriers.
Connecting Carriers.
Constitutional Law.
Interstate Commerce.

Mandamus.
Admissibility of evidence that

tinued.
Consignee not estopped from

showing that goods were wet
by fact that his agent looked
at them and signed clear re-
ceipt without making com-
plaint.
Mears v. New York, etc., R.

Co. (Conn.), 668.
Constitutionality of statute pro-

viding penalty for failure to
pay damages on freight.
Porter v. Charleston & S. Ry.

Co. (S. Car.), 657.
Contract requiring notice to be

given consignee of receipt of
goods at destination and its
breach must be pleaded.
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.

Darby (Tex.), 1.
Conversion of goods, sufficiency

of evidence.
Collins v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

(Mo.), 37.
Conversion of wheat recovered

and retained by carrier, during
delay in carriage and delivery.
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.

Darby (Tex.), 1.
Damages.
Excessive verdict for delay in

shipment of corpse.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v.

Hull (Ky.), 56.
Interest cannot be recovered

in actions ex delicto.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Horner

(Ga.), 47.
Legal interest on capital in-

vested the proper measure
of damages for negligence
in failing to deliver ma-
chinery, and not special
profits not claimed in com-
plaint.
Sharpe v. Southern Ry. Co.

(N. Car.), 652.
Mental suffering from delay

in shipment of corpse.
Louisville & N. Ř. Co. v.

Hull (Ky.), 56.
Special damages recoverable

under allegation as to differ-
erence between value of
goods as delivered and as
they should have been de-
livered.
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v.

Bigham (Tex.), 34.
Discrimination justifying the

issuance of mandamus to com-
pel common carrier to move
and transport interstate traffic,

expressman receipting for
goods at depot looked at box
containing them and made no
complaint, in action for dam-
age by water.
Mears v. New York, etc., R.

Co. (Conn.), 668.
Application of statute fixing

rates where reorganization by
purchaser at foreclosure sale.
Com'rs of Railroads v. Grand

Rapids & I. Ry. Co. (Mich.),

665.
Breach of contract requiring

notice to be given consignee of
receipt of wheat at destina,
tion must be pleaded.
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.

Darby (Tex.), 1.

CARRIERS OF GOODS-Con- CARRIERS OF GOODS-Con-
tinued.

tinued.
or to furnish cars or other Contracts limiting liability
facilities for transportation.

not measured by different
United States v. Norfolk & W. rules than where carriers
Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 19.

are not parties.
Duty of carrier to prorate supply Adams Exp. Co. v. Carna-
of cars on hand.

han (Ind.), 677.
United States v. Norfolk & W. Evidence that persons ship-
Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 19.

ping goods was offered two
Duty to protect employees of

modes of shipment, one
consignee unloading car.

called “ owner's risk,” at a
Ryan v. New York, N. H. & certain rate, and the other
H. R. Co. (N. Y.), 699.

“shipper's risk," and chose
Following consignee's directions the former, was admissible.
as a defense where goods were

Mears v. New York, etc., R.
injured by cold.

Co. (Conn.), 668.
Gillett v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Presumption that court prop-
Co. of Texas (Tex.), 45.

erly submitted to jury the
Jurisdiction to order destruction

question of existence of
of road and sale of materials

agreement as to value of

horse,
by receiver where operation of
road would be an actual loss.

Southern Ry. Co. v. Horner

(Ga.), 47.
Jack v. Williams (S. Car.), 10.
Liability for conversion of

Presumption that freight rate
CARRIERS OF GOODS-Con- CARRIERS OF LIVE STOOK.
tinued.

is based on valuation.
wheat destroyed by unusual

Adams Exp. Co. v. Carna-
storm during delay in car-

han (Ind.), 677.
riage and delivery.

Reduced rate as considera-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry, Co. v.

tion.
Darby (Tex.), 1.

Mears v. New York, etc., R.
Liability for injury to adjacent

Co. (Conn.), 668.
property from explosion of

Negligence in failing to deliver
contents of car during delay

car load of explosives, question
in delivery.

for jury in action for injury to
Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. property from their explosion.
Beauchamp (Tex.), 52.

Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v.
Liability of carrier as

Beauchamp (Tex.), 52.
houseman where it has refused

Negligence not inferred from
to deliver goods.

mere fact that goods are wet
Frederick v. Louisville & N. R.

while in carrier's possession.
Co. (Ala.), 43.

Mears v. New York, etc., R.
Limiting Liability.

Co. (Conn.), 668.
Authority of agent to ship Presumption as to condition of

goods carries with it author- goods from recital in shipping
ity to accept bill of lading receipt.
and enter into contract lim- Mears v. New York, etc., R.
iting carrier's liability.

Co. (Conn.), 668.
Adams Exp. Co. v. Carna- Question asked local carrier as
han (Ind.), 677.

to state of weather on day he
Burden of proving that delay carted goods to plaintiff's

was caused by carrier's neg- house inadmissible in action
ligence where carrier had for damages by rain.
contracted against liability Mears v. New York, etc., R.
for delay not caused by neg- Co. (Conn.), 668.
ligence.

Railroad cannot be compelled to
Anderson v. Atchison, T. & maintain and operate road at
S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 42.

actual loss.
Burden on carrier where goods Jack v. Williams (S. Car.), 10.

are injured by water to show Records of weather hureau as
that injury was not due to evidence in action for dam-
its negligence.

age to freight by rain.
Mears v. New York, etc., R. Mears v. New York, etc., R.
Co. (Conn.), 668.

Co. (Conn.), 668.

ware-

See Carriers of Freight.
Rev. St. U. S., secs. 3100, 3102,

Carriers of Goods.
and 1 Supp. Rev. St. U. S.

Common Carriers.
1891, pp. 294, 540, does not en-

Shipping Receipts.
title carrier to subrogation to Admission of evidence to show
lien of government on account

nature of insecurity of pens
of duties paid by him.

under general allegation as to
State v. Bland (Mo.), 38.

insecurity.
Shipper was not entitled to de- Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v.

duction from freight rates Trammell (Tex.), 685.
fixed by railroad commissioner Company contracting to ship
where his cotton was not com- cattle over its own and con-
pressed in transit.

necting line and sued for
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. injury occurring on connect-

v. Orthwein-Fitzhugh Cot- ing line could not compiain
ton Co. (Tex.), 679.

of judgment over in its favor
Shipping receipt as contract.

against connecting company.
Mears v. New York, etc., R. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Mc-
Co. (Conn.), 668.

Carty (Tex.), 654.
South Carolina statute provid- Damages.

ing penalty for failure to pay Measure of damages recover-
damages on freight within ablc against connecting car-
sixty days pot unconstitu- riers for improper treatment
tional as in violation of inter-

of cattle.
state commerce clause of Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
constitution.

Houghton (Tex.), 697.
Porter v. Charleston & S. Ry. Degree of care, instruction.
Co. (S. Car.), 657.

Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Trib-
Sufficiency of evidence of defect ble (Tex.), 32.

in car door, in action for injury Evidence as to cost of horse
to employee of consignee un- inadmissible in action for
loading car.

its loss.
Ryan v. New York, N. H. & Galliers v. Chicago, B. & Q.
H. R. Co. (N. Y.), 699.

R. Co. (Iowa), 28.
Sufficiency of evidence to raise Liability where cattle were
presumption of negligence placed in

insecure pen

at
where delay in shipment of midnight

affected by
freight.

plaintiff's refusal to receive
Anderson v. Atchison, T. & them and

pay freight
S. F. Ry. Co. (Ms.). 42.

charges.
Under count seeking recovery

Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v.
against railroad company as

Trammell (Tex.), 685.
voluntary bailee of goods de- Limiting Liability.
stroyed before delivery to con- Reduced rates as consideration.
signeee, burden of proof was Mears v. New York, etc., R.
on plaintiff to show negligence

Co. (Conn.), 668.
alleged.
Frederick v. Louisville & N.

Limiting liability, presump-
R. Co. (Ala.), 43.

tion that question was prop-

erly submitted to the jury.
Unjust discrimination in dis-

Southern Ry. Co. v. Horner
tributing cars
among coal

(Ga.), 47.
shippers.
United States V, Norfolk &

Railway company contracting
W. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 19.

to ship cattle from its own

and connecting line to cer-
Whether joinder of action ex

tain point was liable for
delicto with statutory action

injury occurring on connect-
constitutes joinder of action

ing line.
ex contractu with action ex

Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Mc-
delicto.

Carty (Tex.), 654.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Horner

Raising new issue by amend-
(Ga.), 47.

ment, in action for loss of

as

« PreviousContinue »