United States Courts of Appeals Reports (Volume 4); Cases Adjudged in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. V. 1-63 Oct. 1891-Feb. 1899 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1893. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Syllabus. KANSAS CITY, FORT SCOTT AND MEMPHIS RAILROAD COMPANY v. STOKER ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. No. 26. Argued January 20, 1892.--Decided February 1, 1892. In an action brought against two railroad companies for personal injuries sustained by a passenger on a train of one of the companies from a collision with a train of the other company at a crossing of the two roads, a request made by one of the companies, which by the verdict of the jury was found solely in fault for the accident, that the court charge the jury in a matter relating wholly to the degree of care its co-defendant should have exercised, and which request was not framed with a view to elucidating its own duty, but for the purpose of casting as large a measure of responsibility upon its co-defendant as possible, was properly refused, as the case had been submitted to the jury under directions which properly defined the relations existing between the two companies, as well as the degree of care the company found in fault was bound to exercise when its train approached the crossing, or, if given, the instruction should have been made applicable to both companies. Where a request to charge contains a clause which has no necessary relation to preceding propositions of law contained in the request, and neither qualifies nor explains them, but is an abstract proposition not directed to any particular matter or fact In controversy, and is in effect a general admonition to the jury that the quality of an act alleged to be negligent ought not to be determined exclusively in the light of subsequent events, it is not error for the court to refuse to charge the same. Where a collision occurred in broad daylight at a level c...

R1,007

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles10070
Mobicred@R94pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1893. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Syllabus. KANSAS CITY, FORT SCOTT AND MEMPHIS RAILROAD COMPANY v. STOKER ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. No. 26. Argued January 20, 1892.--Decided February 1, 1892. In an action brought against two railroad companies for personal injuries sustained by a passenger on a train of one of the companies from a collision with a train of the other company at a crossing of the two roads, a request made by one of the companies, which by the verdict of the jury was found solely in fault for the accident, that the court charge the jury in a matter relating wholly to the degree of care its co-defendant should have exercised, and which request was not framed with a view to elucidating its own duty, but for the purpose of casting as large a measure of responsibility upon its co-defendant as possible, was properly refused, as the case had been submitted to the jury under directions which properly defined the relations existing between the two companies, as well as the degree of care the company found in fault was bound to exercise when its train approached the crossing, or, if given, the instruction should have been made applicable to both companies. Where a request to charge contains a clause which has no necessary relation to preceding propositions of law contained in the request, and neither qualifies nor explains them, but is an abstract proposition not directed to any particular matter or fact In controversy, and is in effect a general admonition to the jury that the quality of an act alleged to be negligent ought not to be determined exclusively in the light of subsequent events, it is not error for the court to refuse to charge the same. Where a collision occurred in broad daylight at a level c...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

General Books LLC

Country of origin

United States

Release date

2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 16mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

306

ISBN-13

978-1-154-20927-3

Barcode

9781154209273

Categories

LSN

1-154-20927-X



Trending On Loot