LEASE-Continued.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS-Con-
Co. i'. Sellers (Pa.), 372 n.

tinued.
Liability of railroad company for taken where the railroad has
torts of lessee, 371 n.

been constructec. Texas W.
Ratification of lease voidable on R. Co. v. Cave (Tex.), 164 .

account of fraud. Action to re- Prosecution for penalty barred by
cover rent by stockholders of statute ; party cannot then re-
leased road. Complaint erro!

fuse to discover matters expos-
neously dismissed. Barr 7. New ing him to penalty. Manchester
York, L. E. & W. R. Co. (N. & L. R. Co. v. Concord R. Co.
Y.), 329.

(N. H.), 359.
Trackage rights. Execution of LOCATION.

contract held sufficient to bind Filing map and profile held not a
lessor company, having been condition precedent to appoint-
signed by officers and author. ment of commissioners to as-
ized by stockholders. Chicago, certain compensation. Wheels
R. I. & P. R. Co. v. L'nited Pac. ing B. & T. R. Co. v. Camden,
R. Co. (Neb.), 3.40.

C. 0. Co. (W. l'a.), 27.
Joint possession not interfer- Legal location ; engineer alone
ing with use of track by lessor ; cannot make, so as to give com-
contract not ultra rires. Chica-

pany title. Williamsport & X.
go R. I. & P. R. Co. 2. United B. Ř. Co. v. Philadelphia & E.
Pac. R. Co. (Neb.), 340.

R. Co. (Pa.), 224.
Specific performance not re- Location of railroad ; rights of
fused on ground that rental was rival railroad companies over
inadequate or that disastrous located line, 228 11.
competition would result. Chi- Location of road within city as
cago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. United directed by city council ; power
Pac. R. Co., (Neb.), 340.

to condemn land outside of such
Specific performance of con- location. Tudor v. Chicago &
tract for use of Union Pac. S. S. R. T. R. Co. (III.), 70 .
bridge by Rock Island railroad Pleading. When validity of lo-
enforced. Chicago, R. 1. & P. cation is put in issue by one
R Co. v. United Pac. R. Co.

company to restain another
(Neb.), 340.

company from locauing its road
Tracks and terminals ; construc-

over same land. Williamsport
tion of contract for use of. Chi. & N. B. R. Co. v. Philadelphia
cago, R. I. & P. R. Co. a'. Den-

& E. R. Co. (Pa.), 224.
ver & R. G.R. Co.(C. C.), 358 ». Preliminary survey which has
llra l'iris contract ; lessee held never been adopied does not

not entitled to alleged, in an. constitute legal location giving
swer to bill for accounting and company priority over other
return of property. Manchester companies. Williamspori & N.
& L. R. Co. 2. Concord R. Co. B. R. Co. v. Philadelphia & E.
(N. 11.), 359.

R. Co. (Pa.), 224.
LICENSE.

Title by location as against land-
Licensee train, See Pas- owner and in favor of company
SENGERS.

is only conditional. Williams.
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.

port & N. B. R. Co v. Phila-
Action to have damages assessed delphia & E. R. Co. (Pa.), 224.

for taking land held not an ac- Title by location as against third
tion of trespass, nor

persons and rival corporation is
liability created by a statute, complete. Williamsport & N.
within statute of limitations. B. R. Co. v. Philadelphia & E.
Land v. Wilmington & W. R. R. Co. (Pa.), 224.
Co. (N. Car.), 161.

on

one

on a

MECHANIC'S LIEN- Continued. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-
& St. L. R. Co. (Ind.), 271.

Continued.
Sale of road and transfer of lien tracks in city streets. See

to fund derived from sale. STREET RAILWAYS.
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Canada NEGLIGENCE. See CONTRACTORS;
& St. L. R. Co. (Ind.), 271.

PASSENGERS.
Statute making railroads subject Disputed facts, question is for

to lien held not unconstitution- jury; but where facts are undis.
al on account of title and sub- puted and there is but one in.
ject of act. Kansas City & 0. ference, the question is for
R. Co. v. Frey (Neb.), 295 n.

court. Dewald v. Kansas City,
Street railway; lien for labor up- F. S. & G. R. Co. (Kan.), 557.

on, not maintainable under stat. Findings on the facts. Review of
ute. Front Street C. R. Co. v. verdict by supreme court. See
Johnson (Wash.), 287.

VERDICT.
mechanic's lien upon, 290 n. NEW TRIAL.
Sub-contractor; laborer or mater- Argument of counsel. See Trial.

ial man delivering ties is not, NUISANCE.
within meaning of law. Farm- Cause of sickness produced by
ers' L. & T. Co. v. Canada & St. nuisance. Evidence. Striking
L. R. Co. (Ind.), 271.

out part of answer where there
Sub-contractor's lien. Fact that was a variance, Atlanta & F.

materials were delivered out- R. Co. v. Kimberly (Ga.), 307.
side of state held immaterial. Independent contractor; creation
Thompson v. St. Paul C. R. Co. of nuisance by. See CONTRAC-
(Minn.), 286 n.

TORS.
Time of "filing mechanic's lien, OATH. See EMINENT DOMAIN, Pro.
295 11.

no

more

If pre-

PASSENGERS. See Baggage; SLEEP- PASSENGERS.

ING CARS ; TICKETS AND FARES. Duty to Carry-Continued.
Who are.

fact that there was
Employes of company borrowing room on :rain will not excuse

car and engine and meeting with company, if it could have pro-
accident, held not to have been vided more accommodations,
passengers,

Davis v. Chicago, Purcell v. Richmond & D. R.
St. P. M. & O. R. Co. (C. C.), Co. (N. Car.), 457.
457 n.

Failure to stop at station for pas-
Express messenger is a passen- senger waiting for regular train.

ger. Effect of stipulation lim- Company liable for punitive
iting carrier's liability between damages. Purcell

Rich-
express company and railroad mond & D. R. Co. (N. Car.),
company. Brewer v. New York,

457.
L. E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.),

to take on passengers.

Ac-
485.

tion for tort. Sufficiency of
- on railroad train ; stands in complaint. Purcell 2.. Rich-
relation to passenger, 489 n.

inond & D. R. Co. (N. Car.),
Fraud; person inducing conduct. 460 n.

or to carry him without charge, Passenger left owing to failure of
is guiity of, and cannot claim train to start from platform of
rights of passenger.

McVeety station. Special regulations.
V. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. Connell v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
(Minn.), 471.

(Miss.), 461 n.
Man walking towards station with Presumption of Negligence.
intention of buying ticket is not

Collision ; case of prima facii neg.
a passenger. June v. Boston & ligence arises in case of, where
A. R. Co. (Mass.), 533 11.

passenger is injured.
Old employes accepting conduct- sumption is not rebutted, pas-

or's invitation to ride on freight senger may recover. McGoffin
train without payment of fare. v. Missouri P. R. Co. (Mo.),
Liability of company for injury. 489.
Powers v. Boston & M. R. Co.

Instruction of court as to pre-
(Mass.), 472 n.

sumption of negligence from
Postal clerk. United States mail unusual occurrence, held erro-

clerk in posi al car, is a passen- neous as being on the weight of
ger so far as company's duty to the evidence, Texas C, R. Co.
carry him is concerned. Mellor v. Burnett (Tex.), 492 n.
v. Missouri P. R. Co. (Mo.), Derailment; evidence that pas-
450.

senger was injured by, entitles
in U. S. mail car, is entitled him to recover unless company
to recover for injuries received. shows due care. Montgomery
Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wil.

E. R. Co. V. Mallette (Ala.),
son (Tex.), 491 n.

499 n.
occupies the position of pas.

in case of, prima facie case of
senger. Statutory penalty may negligence is made out and
be required for his death. Mc. burden of proof is on company.
Goffin v. Missouri P. R. Co.

Southern Kan. R. Co. 7'. Walsh
(Mo.), 489.

(Kan.), 493.
Traveler taking seat in freight

Presumption of negligence
caboose without buying ticket. arises from proof of accident.
Declaration held not to show Alabama G. S. R. Co. 2. Hill
relation of passenger and car- (Ala.), 501.
rier. Powell v. East Tenn., V. Freight train ; passenger in,
& G. R. Co. (Miss.),

thrown down by concussion of
Duty to Carry

cars. Presumption of negli-
Damages ; $50 held excessive, for gence held to arise. Georgia
failure to carry passenger

P. R. Co. 7. Love, 492 n. :
agreed. Eddy v. Harris (Tex.), Landslide ; where passenger is
473.

57 n.

as

cases

use.

PASSENGERS.

PASSENGERS.
Presumption of Negligence- Defective Track and Roadbed-
Continued.

Continued.
0. Virginia M. R. Co. (U. S.), ; Evidence of condition of track at
513.

other places than place of ac-
Prima facie case may be rebutted cident. Grant v. Raleigh & G.

by showing inevitable accident R. Co. (N. Car.), 513 n.
or impossibility of foreseeing - of defects in track that may
it. Southern Kan. R. Co. v. have caused accident, held ad.
Walsh (Kan.), 493.

missible under the complaint.
Defective Track and Roadbed.

Richmond & D. R. Co. 7. Vance
Break in track caused by fall of (Ala.), 513 n.

water during rain. Conflicting Exemplary damages for injuries
evidence as to whether rain

to passenger caused by defect-
was unusual. Texas & P. R. ive track, 512 n.
Co. v. Barron (Tex.), 520 n.

for injury caused by derail.
Degree of care. Company owes ment, not confined to

to passengers more than ordi. where there is entire want of
nary care in construction and

care. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v.
maintenance of track. It must Hill (Ala.), 501.
exercise best precaution known

may be recovered, where in-
to practical

Southern jury was caused by rotten ties
Kan. R. Co. v. Walsh (Kan.), and old rails, showing gross
493.

negligence. Alabama G, S. R.
Evidence. Admissions and re-

Co. v. Hill (Ala.), 501.
marks by president of construc-

not recoverable for injury
tion company to newspaper re- caused by defective track, un.
porter several hours after acci. less defendant was probably
dent. Chattanooga R. & C. R. conscious that accident was
Co. 2. Liddell (Ga.), 521 n.

likely. Richmond & D. R. Co.
Condition of track over which v. lance (Ala.), 512 ».
train had to pass to reach place Fences. Derailment caused by
of accident, may be shown. collision with calf. Negligence
Evidence as to condition of in failing to ferice track. Gulf
track six months after accident. C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wilson
Jacksonville & S. E. R. Co. v. (Tex.), 522 n.
Southworth (I11.), 513 n.

Landslide, Company must
- Exclusion of question as to construct the banks of its cuis,

whether there was subsequent that they will not slide from or-
accident at same switch, held dinary causes. Failure to do
harmless error. Grant a. Ral- so is negligence. Gleeson 0.
eigh & G. R. Co. (V. Car.), Virginia M. R. Co. (U. S.), 513.
513 12.

caused by ordinary rain, not
to chock block, where

“act of God" exempting
train ran off of one track and

company from liability. Glee-
ran into cars on another track.

V. Virginia M. R. Co.
Stouter 2. Manhattan R. Co. (U. S.), 513.
(N. Y.), 521 1.

SO

as

an

son