Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

for defendant in action to recover duties pald; Famous Smith v. United States, 151 U. S. 55, 38 L. 70, 14 S. Ct. 235, holding, in absence of evidence, question of defendant's nationality could not be left to jury; Sparf v. United States, 156 U. S. 100, 101, 39 L. 360, 361, 15 S. Ct. 292, 293, holding jury properly instructed that they could not, from the evidence, find defendants guilty of manslaughter; Rosen v. United States, 161 U. S. 43, 40 L. 610, 16 S. Ct. 439, holding court might have instructed jury that paper was obscene, etc.; Coughran v. Bigelow, 164 U. S. 307, 41 L. 446, 17 S. Ct. 119, holding plaintiff, in suit against sureties, properly non-suited; In re Seeley, 21 Fed. Cas. 1009, holding question of fraudulent transfer by insolvent ought to have been decided by the court; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Hester, 2 McCrary, 421, 6 Fed. 808, sustaining peremptory verdict for plaintiff, in action on bonds; Candee v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 4 Fed. 144, holding evidence of termination of policy by consent, too scanty to submit; Miller v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 41 Fed. 911, sustaining demurrer to evidence in action for malicious prosecution; Southern Pac. Co. v. Johnson, 64 Fed. 957, 29 U. S. App. 201, and S. C., 69 Fed. 565, 44 U. S. App. 1, both holding jury should have been instructed to find for railroad, in action for damages; Franklin, etc., Co. v. Phoenix Ass. Co., 65 Fed. 776, 25 U. S. App. 119, directing verdict for defendant, in action on insurance policy; Sullivan v. Colby, 71 Fed. 466, 34 U. S. App. 432, and Baldwin v. Shannon, 43 N. J. L. 603, affirming judgment upon verdict directed by the court in action of ejectment; Mt. Holly, etc., Co. v. Caraleigh, etc., Works, 72 Fed. 249, 25 U. S. App. 669, holding evidence, conceding it to be true, insufficient to establish contract: People's Bank v. Ætna Ins. Co., 74 Fed. 512, 42 U. S. App. 81, nonsulting plaintiff in action on fire insurance policy; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Selden, 78 Fed. 290, 42 U. S. App. 253, directing verdict for defendant in action on accident policy; Sloss, etc., Co. v. South Carolina, etc., Co., 85 Fed. 138, 42 U. S. App. 748, non-suiting coal company in action on contract; United States v. Kuhl, 85 Fed. 627, 632, holding evidence insufficient to support an indictment under Federal statute; Chapman v. Yellow, etc., Lum. Co., 89 Fed. 905, 61 U. S. App. 502, sustaining peremptory instruction to find verdict for defendant in suit on lumber contract; Smyth v. New Orleans, etc., Co., 93 Fed. 927, holding plaintiff properly non-suited in action to recover lands: First Nat. Bank v. Comfort, 4 Dak. 172, 28 N. W. 857, and Knapp v. Sioux Falls, etc., Bank, 5 Dak. 395, 40 N. W. 589, both affirming directed verdict for defendant in action for conversion; Simmons v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 110 Ill. 346, holding evidence insufficient to prove negligence of company in excavating hill; Rack v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 173 Ill. 291, 50 N. E. 668, 44 L. R. A. 128, directing verdict for defendant, in action for injury by cable-car; Weis v. Madison, 75 Ind. 254, holding similarly in action against city for injury to land; Purcell v. English, 86 Ind. 35, and Faris v. Hoberg, 134 Ind. 273, 39 Am. St. Rep. 264, 33

N. E. 1029, affirming verdict for defendant in action for personal injuries; Meyer v. Houck, 85 Iowa, 325, 52 N. W. 237, holding jury properly directed to find for defendant, in action to set aside conveyance; Heath v. Jaquith, 68 Me. 436, and City Nat. Bank v. Hickox, 4 N. Mex. 215, 5 N. Mex. 33, 16 Pac. 915, both affirming peremptory instruction to find for plaintiff, in action on note; Powell v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 76 Mo. 84, directing verdict for defendant where plaintiff's evidence showed contributory negligence; Alexander v. Tennessee, etc., Min. Co., 3 N. Mex. 195, 3 Pac. 741, and Couch v. Charlotte, etc., R. R. Co., 22 S. C. 563, affirming judgment on verdict directed for defendant in damage suit; Dwight v. Germania, etc., Ins. Co., 103 N. Y. 360, 57 Am. Rep. 740, 8 N. E. 662, holding verdict should have been directed for defendant, in suit on life policy; Lane v. Hancock, 142 N. Y. 519, 37 N. E. 475, holding error not to non-suit plaintiff in action against town for personal injuries; Longley v. Daly, 1 S. Dak. 261, 46 N. W. 248, affirming Judgment for defendant on verdict directed in action on claim and delivery.

Approved in concurring opinion in White v. Warren, 120 Cal. 328, 49 Pac. 131, majority holding jury correctly instructed to find for plaintiff, in action by wife to recover loan to husband; dissenting opinion in Patton v. Southern R. R. Co., 82 Fed. 986, 42 U. S. App. 567, majority holding question of negligence should have been submitted to jury. Approved, arguendo, in New York, etc., R. R. Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 27, 25 L. 533. Klanowski v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 57 Mich. 532, 24 N. W. 804, and Paine v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 58 N. H. 614, and dissenting opinion in Sparf v. United States, 156 U. S. 174, 39 L. 386, 15 S. Ct. 321. Cited generally in Southern Pac. Co. v. Burke, 60 Fed. 715, 23 U. S. App. 1, and American Ex. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 82 Fed. 964, 48 U. 8. App. 639. Cited in notes, 24 Am. Dec. 623, and 50 Am. Rep. 656.

Distinguished in Texas, etc., R. R. Co. v. Gentry, 163 U. S. 365, 41 L. 192, 16 S. Ct. 1108, and St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Toomey, 6 Kan. App. 415, 49 Pac. 820, both holding question of negligence properly went to jury; Wolff v. Connecticut, etc., Ins. Co., 2 Flipp. 362, F. C. 17,929, and Conely v. McDonald, 40 Mich. 154, where questions of insanity were held properly submitted to jury; Hudson v. Charleston, etc., R. R. Co., 55 Fed. 258, holding right to demand peremptory instruction waived; Spiro v. Felton, 73 Fed. 93, holding court could not set aside verdict, because against the weight of evidence; Mt. Adams, etc. R. R. Co. v. Lowery, 74 Fed. 469, 473, 43 U. S. App. 408, reviewing authorities, and affirming judgment upon verdict against railroad, though apparently against weight of evidence; Beatty v. Mutual Reserve Assn., 75 Fed. 68, 44 U. S. App. 527, holding question as to course of dealing be tween insurer and insured should have gone to jury; Phoenix Ass. Co. v. Lucker, 77 Fed. 246, 42 U. S. App. 111, and Travelers' Ins.

Co. v. Randolph, 78 Fed. 760, 47 U. S. App. 260, both holding, in action on insurance policy, questions properly submitted to jury; Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 82 Fed. 725, 54 U. S. App. 231, holding question as to what was sufficient space for coupling cars, properly submitted to jury; Sprague v. Southern R. R. Co., 92 Fed. 63, 63 U. S. App. 717, Offutt v. Columbian Exposition, 175 Ill. 474, 51 N. E. 651, State v. Union R. R. Co., 70 Md. 77, 18 Atl. 1034, Kaminitsky v. Northeastern R. R. Co., 25 S. C. 59, and Jucker v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 52 Wis. 151, 8 N. W. 862, all holding issues in actions for personal injuries should have been submitted to jury; Seabury v. Bolles, 51 N. J. L. 104, 16 Atl. 55, 11 L. R. A. 136, and Dunlay v. Elford, 22 S. C. 308, both holding question as to existence of partnership, one for jury to decide; Chaves v. Chaves, 3 N. Mex. 218, 5 Pac. 331, holding sufficiency of evidence on plea of set-off, a question for jury; Kirchner v. Laughlin, 4 N. Mex. 220, 17 Pac. 134, holding similarly as to question of part performance; United States v. Gumm, 9 N. Mex. 616, 58 Pac. 399, holding error to take from jury consideration of a case involving illegal cutting of timber, etc.; State v. White, 89 N. C. 465, holding evidence of defendant's guilt sufficient to go to jury; Peet v. Dakota, etc., Ins. Co., 1 S. Dak. 467, 47 N. W. 533, holding question whether sub-letting was material to risk, should have been submitted to jury.

New trial. If party has not given sufficient evidence to support verdict, it is duty of court, after verdict, to grant new trial, p. 122.

Cited with approval in Henning v. Western, etc., Tel. Co., 43 Fed. 134, granting new trial in action for personal injuries; Southern Pac. Co. v. Hamilton, 54 Fed. 471, 473, 7 U. S. App. 626, and Finney v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 3 Dak. 284, 16 N. W. 505, granting new trial where verdict was against railroad, in action for injuries inflicted on being ejected from train.

Trial.- Plaintiff may submit tɔ non-suit and try his case again, if he can strengthen it, or he may abide judgment of court, subject to right of review, whether or not he has made such a case as ought to go to jury, p. 122.

Cited in Gassman v. Jarvis, 94 Fed. 604, holding motion to dismiss, made before instructions to jury, should have been granted.

22 Wall. 123-136, 22 L. 827, RAILROAD CO. v. PRATT.

Carriers. In absence of special contract, American cases generally limit carrier's liability to his own line, although there are cases which hold liability as continuing throughout whole route, and such is the English doctrine, p. 129.

General rule approved and applied as follows: Insurance Co. v. Railroad Co., 104 U. S. 157, 26 L. 685, holding first carrier, under

his agreement, not liable for loss beyond terminus of his line; Myrick v. Michigan, etc., R. R. Co., 107 U. S. 107, 27 L. 326, 1 S. Ct. 429, holding first carrier not liable for wrongful delivery at destination; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Jones, 155 U. S. 339, 39 L. 178, 15 S. Ct. 138, holding first carrier not liable for personal injuries sustained on connecting line; Stewart v. Terre Haute, etc., Co., 1 McCrary, 313, 3 Fed. 769, holding carrier not liable for injury to cattle beyond its own terminus; Harding v. International Nav. Co., 12 Fed. 169, holding defendant a forwarder of goods, and not responsible beyond its own terminus; Sumner v. Walker, 30 Fed. 263, holding ship not liable for damage to cargo occurring on connecting vessel; Cincinnati, etc., R. R. Co. v. N. K. Fairbanks & Co., 90 Fed. 470, 62 U. S. App. 236, holding connecting carrier liable for loss on its own line; Taylor v. Little Rock, etc., R. R. Co.. 32 Ark. 399, 29 Am. Rep. 3, holding contract valid, exempting carrier from liability for loss on connecting road; Little Rock, etc.. R. R. Co. v. Glidewell, 39 Ark. 490, holding initial carrier liable for its own mistake in delivery; Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co. v. Lehman, 56 Md. 232, holding intermediate carrier liable for loss by delay on its own line; Grover, etc., Co. v. Missouri, etc., R. R. Co., 70 Mo. 675, 35 Am. Rep. 445, holding initial carrier not liable for loss of goods; Dunbar v. Port Royal, etc., R. R. Co., 36 S. C. 116, 31 Am. St. Rep. 863, 15 S. E. 358, loss of watermelons, by delay on connecting line; McCarn v. International, etc., R. R. Co., 84 Tex. 354, 31 Am. St. Rep. 52, 19 S. W. 547, 16 L. R. A. 40, collecting authorities, holding initial carrier protected, by contract, from liability for loss on connecting line; Smith v. Western Union, etc., Co.. 84 Tex. 362, 31 Am. St. Rep. 61, 19 S. W. 442, connecting telegraph company held liable for delay on its line; McConnell v. Norfolk, etc., R. R. Co., 80 Va. 255, 9 S. E. 1008, holding initial carrier exempt from bearing loss of freight on connecting line. Cited in exhaustive note, 72 Am Dec. 232, 236; also in note, 42 Am. Rep. 665.

Carriers.- Railroad company may subject itself to obligations of carrier beyond its own line, under law of New York, Massachusetts and Vermont, p. 130.

Cited and approved as the established rule in Railway Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 266, 24 L. 695, holding first carrier liable for injury to cattle arising from negligence of connecting line; Milne v. Douglass, 4 McCrary, 371, 13 Fed. 39, holding three companies jointly liable for delay in delivery of goods; Davis v. Jacksonville, etc., Line, 126 Mo. 81, 28 S. W. 968, holding first carrier liable on contract to forward goods; Burke v. Concord R. R., 61 N. H. 238, holding railroad could make "business connection" with connecting roads; Page v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 7 S. Dak. 299, 64 N. W. 137, holding question properly left to jury; Texas Exp. Co. v. Dupree, 2 Tex. App. Civ. 276, holding initial carrier liable under contract to carry valise to destination; Missouri, etc., R. R. Co. v.

Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 690, 29 S. W. 570, holding carrier bound by parol contract to deliver at destination beyond its terminus. Cited generally in Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia, etc., R. R. Co., 19 S. C. 364; arguendo, in Black v. Ashley, 80 Mich. 96, 44 N. W. 1122. Approved in dissenting opinion in Talcott v. Wabash R. R. Co., 159 N. Y. 487, 54 N. E. 10, majority also holding initial carrier not liable for loss of personal baggage beyond terminus. Cited in note, 72 Am. Dec. 231.

Distinguished in Stewart v. Terre Haute, etc., Co., 1 McCrary, 314, 3 Fed. 770, holding there was no contract by which carrier was liable for loss of cattle on connecting line.

Carriers. Authority of station agent to make contract to transport beyond terminus of road is question of fact for jury, and Supreme Court cannot interfere with findings of jury if made upon evidence legally sufficient to justify them, p. 131.

Approved in Page v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 7 S. Dak. 300, 64 N. W. 137, holding question of local agent's authority properly left to jury.

Distinguished in Grover v. Missouri, etc., R. R. Co., 70 Mo. 677, 85 Am. Rep. 447, holding local freight agent unauthorized to contract for transportation beyond terminus.

Carriers.-Way-bill is admissible to prove contract of transportation, or at least as part of res gestæ, p. 132.

Approved in Wyman v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 4 Mo. App. 40, holding bill of lading proper evidence of joint contract to carry through freight.

Carriers. Receipts of entire pay for carriage over several lines affords fair presumption of an entire contract, and jury having found such to be the fact, the other companies are to be deemed agents of defendants, for whose faults defendants are liable, p. 133.

Cited approvingly and followed in Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Meyer, 78 Ala. 599, holding carrier receiving freight money and goods directed to point beyond its terminus liable for safe delivery; Pereira v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 66 Cal. 94, 95, 4 Pac. 990, 991, holding initial carrier liable for loss of fruit shipped; Beard v. St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co., 79 Iowa, 531, 44 N. W. 804, holding way-bill evidence of entire contract, and first carrier liable for injury to butter on connecting line; Wyman v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 4 Mo. App. 40, holding bill of lading evidence of through contract, which should have been submitted to jury; Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 45 Neb. 63, 50 Am. St. Rep. 543, 63 N. W. 146, holding bill of lading through contract, and railroad liable for wrongful delivery; Page v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.. 7 S. Dak. 302, 64 N. W. 138, holding giving of through price evidence to be submitted to jury; International, etc., R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 3 Tex.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »