Dunlap v. Northeastern Co
Decision Date | 13 May 1889 |
Citation | 9 S.Ct. 647,32 L.Ed. 1058,130 U.S. 649 |
Parties | DUNLAP v. NORTHEASTERN R. CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 649-651 intentionally omitted] Hoke Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Pope Barrow, for defendant in error.
[Arguments of Counsel intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The circuit court erred in not submitting the question of contributory negligence to the jury, as the conclusion did not follow, as matter of law, that no recovery could be had upon any view which could be properly taken of the facts the evidence tended to establish. Kane v. Railway Co., 128 U. S. 91, ante, 16; Jones v. Railroad Co., 128 U. S. 443, ante, 118.
It is urged that the exceptions were not properly saved, and therefore that they should be disregarded. There is some obscurity in the record upon this subject, but upon the whole we think that enough appears to enable us to pass upon the question presented. The bill of exceptions shows that certain instructions, numbered 1 and 2, were requested by plaintiff and refused, and certain instructions, numbered 3 and 4, objectionable or adverse to plaintiff, were given, and it is stated by the court that But the bill of exceptions also states: We understand from this language, taken together, that the general instruction of the court to find for the defendant was excepted to at the proper time; and, while greater accuracy of expression should have been used, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jackson v. City of Grand Forks
... ... 209, 38 L.Ed. 131, 14 S.Ct. 281; ... Jones v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 128 U.S ... 443, 32 L.Ed. 478, 9 S.Ct. 118; Dunlap v. Northeastern R ... Co. 130 U.S. 652, 32 L.Ed. 1059, 9 S.Ct. 647; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Powers, 149 U.S. 43, 37 L.Ed. 642, 13 S.Ct. 748; ... ...
-
Kunkel v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
... ... Co. v. Lowell, 151 U.S. 209, 14 S.Ct. 281, 38 L.Ed. 131; ... Jones v. Ry. Co., 128 U.S. 443, 9 S.Ct. 118, 32 ... L.Ed. 478; Dunlap v. Ry. Co., 130 [18 N.D. 378] U.S ... 649, 9 S.Ct. 647, 32 L.Ed. 1058; Richmond Ry. Co. v ... Powers, 149 U.S. 43, 13 S.Ct. 748, 37 L.Ed. 642; ... ...
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Brown
...7 Wall, 53, 64; 105 U.S. 24, 29; 103 U.S. 11; 145 U.S. 593, S. C. 12 S.Ct. 905. The question of contributory negligence was for the jury, 130 U.S. 649, S. 9 S.Ct. 647; Beach, Cont. Neg. § 450; 8 Allen, 441; 150 U.S. 349; 48 Ark. 333, 348; 30 Minn. 231; 92 F. 567; 54 F. 481, 483. It was for ......
-
Everett v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
...establish the plaintiff was entitled to recover, the case should have been submitted to the jury. Railroad v. Cox, 145 U.S. 606; Dunlap v. Railroad, 130 U.S. 649; Guild Pringle, supra; Railroad v. Genry, 163 U.S. 353. The demurrer admits as absolutely true all the evidence offered favorable......