46 A. 1099 (N.J.Eq. 1900), Field v. Thistle

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
JudgeFor affirmance--THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, GUMMERE, LUDLOW, BOGERT, HENDRICKSON, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH. For reversal--DIXON, LIPPINCOTT, COLLINS. For affirmance--THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, GUMMERE, LUDLOW, BOGERT, HENDRICKSON, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH--9. For reversal--DIXO...
Citation46 A. 1099,60 N.J.Eq. 444
PartiesJOSIE DOWNING FIELD, complainant and respondent, v. HUGH B. THISTLE, defendant and appellant
Docket Number.
Date18 June 1900

Page 1099

46 A. 1099 (N.J.Eq. 1900)

60 N.J.Eq. 444

JOSIE DOWNING FIELD, complainant and respondent,

v.

HUGH B. THISTLE, defendant and appellant

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey

June 18, 1900

Decided November, 1899.

On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Emery, whose opinion is reported in Field v. Thistle, 58 N.J.Eq. 339.

Mr. W. Bradford Smith, for the appellant.

Mr. Louis A. Ziegler, for the respondent.

For affirmance--THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, GUMMERE, LUDLOW, BOGERT, HENDRICKSON, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH. For reversal--DIXON, LIPPINCOTT, COLLINS.

OPINION

Page 1100

[60 N.J.Eq. 445] PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Emery.

For affirmance--THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, GUMMERE, LUDLOW, BOGERT, HENDRICKSON, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH--9.

For reversal--DIXON, LIPPINCOTT, COLLINS--3.

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • 84 N.E. 819 (Ind. 1908), 21,234, Pere Marquette Railroad Company v. Strange
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 26, 1908
    ...v. Hagblad (1904), 72 Neb. 773, 101 N.W. 1033, 106 N.W. 1041, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 254; Exton v. Central R. Co. (1899), 63 N.J.L. 356, Page 822 46 A. 1099, 56 L.R.A. 508; Warren v. Fitchburg R. Co. (1861), 8 Allen 227, 85 Am. Dec. 700; Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Rector (1882), 104 Ill. 296; Webster......
  • 50 Pa.Super. 211 (Pa.Super. 1912), 2201911, Beamer v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 1, 1912
    ...Cent. R. R. Co. v. Treat, 179 Ill. 576, 54 N.E. 290; Warren v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 90 Mass. 227; Exton v. Cent. R. R. Co., 63 N.J.L. 356, 46 A. 1099; Warner v. R. R. Co., 168 U.S. 339, 42 L.Ed. 491, 18 S.Ct. 68; Hulbert v. N.Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 40 N.Y. 145; Keefe v. Boston & Albany R. ......
  • 93 So. 151 (Fla. 1921), Hall v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • August 15, 1921
    ...as that it might have been reasonably anticipated or naturally expected to occur. See Exton v. Central R. Co., 63 N. J. Law, 356, 46 A. 1099, 56 L. R. A. 508; Batton v. South & North A. R. Co., 77 Ala. 591, 54 Am. Rep. 80; Kinney v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 99 Ky. 59, 34 S.W. 1066; I......
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 30, 1964
    ...462, 136 A.2d, at p. 894.) In Exton v. Central R.R. Co., 62 N.J.L. 7, 42 A. 486, 56 L.R.A. 508 (Sup.Ct.1898), affirmed o.b. 63 N.J.L. 356, 46 A. 1099, 56 L.R.A. 508 (E. & A. 1899), the railroad operated a passenger terminal in New York City. It had prior knowledge of scuffling between c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • 84 N.E. 819 (Ind. 1908), 21,234, Pere Marquette Railroad Company v. Strange
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 26, 1908
    ...v. Hagblad (1904), 72 Neb. 773, 101 N.W. 1033, 106 N.W. 1041, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 254; Exton v. Central R. Co. (1899), 63 N.J.L. 356, Page 822 46 A. 1099, 56 L.R.A. 508; Warren v. Fitchburg R. Co. (1861), 8 Allen 227, 85 Am. Dec. 700; Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Rector (1882), 104 Ill. 296; Webster......
  • 50 Pa.Super. 211 (Pa.Super. 1912), 2201911, Beamer v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 1, 1912
    ...Cent. R. R. Co. v. Treat, 179 Ill. 576, 54 N.E. 290; Warren v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 90 Mass. 227; Exton v. Cent. R. R. Co., 63 N.J.L. 356, 46 A. 1099; Warner v. R. R. Co., 168 U.S. 339, 42 L.Ed. 491, 18 S.Ct. 68; Hulbert v. N.Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 40 N.Y. 145; Keefe v. Boston & Albany R. ......
  • 93 So. 151 (Fla. 1921), Hall v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • August 15, 1921
    ...as that it might have been reasonably anticipated or naturally expected to occur. See Exton v. Central R. Co., 63 N. J. Law, 356, 46 A. 1099, 56 L. R. A. 508; Batton v. South & North A. R. Co., 77 Ala. 591, 54 Am. Rep. 80; Kinney v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 99 Ky. 59, 34 S.W. 1066; I......
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 30, 1964
    ...462, 136 A.2d, at p. 894.) In Exton v. Central R.R. Co., 62 N.J.L. 7, 42 A. 486, 56 L.R.A. 508 (Sup.Ct.1898), affirmed o.b. 63 N.J.L. 356, 46 A. 1099, 56 L.R.A. 508 (E. & A. 1899), the railroad operated a passenger terminal in New York City. It had prior knowledge of scuffling between c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT