Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

LEASE-Continued.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS-Con-
Co. 9'. Sellers (Pa.), 372 n.

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

been constructed. 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 v. 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, Wheel
R. I. & P. R. Co. v. United Pac. ing B. & T. R. Co. v. Camden,
R. Co. (Neb.), 340.

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 vires. Chica-

pany title. Williamsport & N.
go R. I. & P. R. Co. 7'. 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 n.
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 1.
bridge by Rock Island railroad Pleading. When validity of lo-
enforced. Chicago, R. I. & P. cation is put in issue by one
R Co. v. United Pac. R. Co. company to restain another
(Neb.), 340.

company from locating 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. v. Den- & E. R. Co. (Pa.), 224.

ver & R. G. R. Co.(C. C.), 358 ». Preliminary survey which has
(ltra 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. Williamsport & N.
& L. R. Co, v. Concord R. Co. B. R. Co. v. Philadelphia & E.
(N. H.), 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 one on a 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.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
Eminent domain. Limitation of Theft of ties. Malicious prose-

actions to recover compensation, cution by railroad company,
164 n.

Probable cause. Chicago, B. &
Limitation of actions to re- Q. R. Co. v. Kriski (Neb.),
cover damages to land not

373 n.

on

MECHANIC'S LIEN-Continued.

Paul C. R. Co. (Minn.), 290.
Distribution of insufficient fund
among lien holders.

Right of
holder of general lien to com-
plain. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v.
Canada & St. L. R. Co. (Ind.),

271.
Enforcement of mechanic's lien by

equitable proceedings. Amount
awarded by decree. Damages.
St. John's & H. R. Co. v. Bar.

tola (Fla.), 293 n.
Fund in court; mechanic awarded

claim in full from, cannot com.
plain because it was not made
payable out of allowance made
to another. Farmers' L. & T.
Co. v. Canada & St. L. R. Co.

(Ind.), 271.
Lumber sold sub-contractor for

erection of shanties not within
statute granting lien. Stewart
Chute L. Co. v. Mo. Pac. R.

Co. (Neb.), 686.
Materials supplied to contractors

for the construction of railroads,

688 n.

MARKETS.

Condemnation of market prop-
erty.

See EMINENT DOMAIN,
Property subject t8 condemnation.
MANDAMUS.

Election of directors. Right of

stockholders to cumulate their
votes enforcible by mandamus.
Cross v. West Virginia C. & P.

R. Co. (W. Va.), 381.
Eminent domain. Mandamus to

compel company to deposit
amount of award held to lie.
State v. Grand I. & W. C. R.
Co. (Neb.!, 257.

Mandamus to compel deposit

of award, 262 n.
MASTER AND SERVANT. See

CONTRACTORS.
Independent contractor; employe

of, working on bridge held not
to be servant of railroad com-
pany. Contractor alone liable
for his injury. Bibb's Adm'r
v. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (Va.),
651.
Passengers; injury to, through

torts of servants. See PASSEN-

GERS, Torts of servants.
Street railway companies are not

liable for wilful torts of servants
outside scope of employment.
Laffite v. New Orleans C. & L.

R. Co. (La.), 645.
MECHANIC'S LIEN.

Acquisition. Lien need not be ac-

quired on every part of road.
If statute is complied with lien
is obtained. Farmers' L. & T.
Co. v. Canada & St. L. R. Co.

(Ind.), 271.
Action to enforce decree held not

to have been an interlocutory
one, and the parties were bound
thereby. Farmers' L. & T. Co.
v. Canada & St. L. R. Co. (Ind.),

271.
Affidavit held insufficient in stat-

ing to and for whom labor and
material were supplied. Flem-
ing v. St. Paul C. R. Co.

(Minn.), 290:
Claim of lien for articles not sub-

ject to lien. Court will permit
necessary segregation. Gor-
don H. Co. v. San Francisco &

S. F. R. Co. (Cal.), 293.
Description of property not suffi-

cient where it is stated to be a
line of street railway owned by
defendant. Fleming

v. St.

Mortgage; priority of mechanic's

lien over, 286 n.
Mortgage of road not yet built is

junior to mechanic's lien, un.
less bondholders had no notice
and hold bona fide. Farmers' L.
& T, Co. v. Canada & St. L. R.

Co. (Ind.), 271.
Notice in county where mater-

ial was furnished or work done;
filing of, creates lien on entire
road. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v.
Canada & St. L. R. Co. (Ind.),

271.
Railroad constructed by individ-

uals owning it as a co-partner-
ship; lien may exist upon.

Brown v. Buck (Ark.), 295 n.
* Railroad

or any other
ture," in statute, held not to in-
clude street railway. Front
Street C. R. Co. v. Johnson

(Wash.), 287.
Road as entirety; contractor's lien
is upon, under Ga.

statute.
Lien cannot be enforced against
part of railroad. Farmers' L.
& T. Co. v. Candler (Ga.), 296.
- mechanic's lien attaches to,

286 n.
Sale of road. Railroad must be

sold as entirety to enforce lien.
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Canada

struc-

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. quisance. 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 n.

cedure.
Claim filed within proper OFFICERS AND AGENTS.
time where obligation of con. Director. Contract with company
tractor was not extinguished. for construction of road. Com-
What is proper to count as part pany not estopped to deny va.
of the work. Gordon H. Co. v. lidity of contract in its name by
San Francisco & S. F. R. Co. such director, íor construction.
(Cal.), 293

Allemong v. Simmons (Iad.),
Verdict describing road held not 400.
to set up a lien on whole rail-

owning majority of stock,
road, but upon part only. Farm- cannot contract for construction
ers' L. & T. Co. v. Candler of road. Allemong v. Simmons
(Ga.), 296.

(Ind.), 400.
Verdict and judgment; sufficiency Election of directors. Defendant

of. Lien on specified part of company held subject to law
railroad. Farmers' L. & T. Co. allowing stockholders to cumu.
v. Candler (Ga.), 296.

late their votes. Right of stock.
MINES AND MINERALS.

holders enforced by mandamus.
Condemnation of "prospect " in Cross v. West Virginia C. & P.

mineral lands; opinion evidence R. Co. (W. Va.), 381.
as to value. See EMINENT Do. Residence of railroad company.
MAIN, Evidence.

Absence of president from state.
Condemnation of right of way

Residence of vice president.
across mining lands. Damages. Harper v. Newport News & N.

See EMINENT DOMAIN, Damages. V. R. Co. (Ky.), 373 n.
MISTAKE. See EQUITY.

Service of process. See that title.
MORTGAGE.

PARENT AND CHILD.
Mechanic's lien; priority of. See Action by parent to recover dam-
MECHANIC's Liens.

ages for injury to child. Con-
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

tributory negligence of parents
Condemnation of railroad track in permitting child to go in

for city street. See STREETS dangerous position. Avey '.
AND HIGHWAYS.

Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co.
Electrical street railways. Laying (Tex.), 565 n.

no

more

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

passenger is injured. If pre-
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 postal 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.), 191 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. v. 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.), 457 n.

thrown down by concussion of
Duty to Carry.

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

P. R. Co. 4. Love, 492 n. :
agreed. Eddy v. Harris (Tex.), Landslide ; where passenger is
473.

injured owing to, presumption
Failure to stop at station. The of negligence arises. Gleeson

499 n.

cars.

cases

use.

PASSENGERS.

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

Continued.
v. 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. v. 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. v. Liddell (Ga.). 521 n.

likely. Richmond & D. R. Co.
Condition of track over which v, l'ance (Ala.), 512 n.
train had to pass to reach place Fences. Derailment caused by
of accident, may be shown. collision with call. Negligence
Evidence as to condition of in failing to fence track. Gulf
track six months after accident. C. & S. F. R. Co. 0. Wilson
Jacksonville & S. E. R. Co. v. (Tex.). 522 n.
Southworth (III.), 513 n.

Landslide, Company must so
Exclusion of question as to construct the banks of its cuts,
whether there was subsequent that they will not slide from or-
accident at same switch, held dinary causes. Failure to do
harmless error. Grant t'. Ral. so is negligence. Gleeson v.
eigh & G. R. Co. (N. Car.), Virginia M. R. Co. (U. S.), 513.
513 n.

caused by ordinary rain, not
as to chock block, where an “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 v, Manhattan R. Co. (U. S.), 513.
(N. Y.), 521 n.

New roadbed. Road not open for
as to condition of cross ties. regular passenger trains. As.
Statement of witness according sumption of risk by passenger.
to his best recollection, held San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. 7'.
properly received. Alabama Robinson (Tex.), 521 .
G. S. R. Co. v. Hill (Ala.), 501 “Spring rail"; accident caused by
- as to condition of track in break of. Expert testimony
vicinity of accident where in- that rail appeared to be sound,
jury was caused by derailment, not necessary.

Crawford ».
owing to breaking of rail and Georgia P. R. Co. (Ga.), 520 .
defective ties. Alabama G. S. Train leaving one track and run-
R. Co. 2". Hill (Ala.), 501.

ning into cars on another track.
in reference defective Leaving freight cars on side
track and roadbed, 513 n.

track, not negligence. Grant i'.

son

to

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »