56 N.Y. 1, Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co.

Citation:56 N.Y. 1
Party Name:SYLVIA DOUGAN, Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. THE CHAMPLAIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Respondent. [a1]
Case Date:November 11, 1873
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1

56 N.Y. 1

SYLVIA DOUGAN, Administratrix, etc., Appellant,

v.

THE CHAMPLAIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Respondent. a1

New York Court of Appeal

November 11, 1873

Argued Oct. 8, 1873.

Page 2

COUNSEL

Samuel Hand for the appellant. The evidence authorized a finding that defendant's negligence caused the accident. (Simpson v. Lond. G. O. Co., L. R. [ 8 C. P.], 390; Gee v. Met. Railway, L. R. [ 8 Q. B.], 161 [Ex. Ch.].) If defendant failed to furnish a safe boat and to use the utmost foresight, care and diligence in guarding against accident to its passengers, it was liable. (Ford v. Lond. and S.W. R. Co., 2 F. & F., 732; Knight v. Port. R. R. Co., 56 Me., 240; Burgess v. G. W. R. Co., 6 C. B. [ N. S.], 923; Hegeman v. West. R. Corp., 3 Kern., 9; Steinweg v. Erie R. Co., 43 N.Y. 125; Hall v. Conn. R. S. Co., 13 Conn., 319; Maverick v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 36 N.Y. 378; Brown v. N.Y. Cent., 34 Id., 404, 408; Bowen v. N.Y. Cent., 18 Id., 408;

Page 3

Stbt. New World v. King, 16 How. [U. S.], 280; Alden v. N.Y. Cent., 26 N.Y. 102; Ang. on Car., § 536; S. & R. on Neg., § § 279, 508; Pickard v. Smith, 10 C. B., N. S. [ 100 E. C. L.], 470; Chapman v. Rothwell, 1 E. B. & E. [ 96 E. C. L.], 168; Coupland v. Hardingham, 3 Camp., 398; Barnes v. Ward, 9 M., G. & S. [ 67 E. C. L.], 392.) The deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence. (Bernhard v. Renss. R. R. Co., 23 How., 166; Hazman v. Hoboken Co., 50 N.Y. 53; S. & R. on Neg., § § 498, 585; Pittsburg v. Grier, 22 Penn. St., 54; Gee v. Met. R. Co., 8 Q. B., 161 [Ex. Ch.]; Carroll v. N.Y. and N. H. R. R. Co., 1 Duer, 571; Edgerton v. N.Y. and H. R. R. Co., 35 Barb., 193; affirmed, 39 N.Y. 227; Caldwell v. Murphy, 1 Duer, 233; affirmed, 1 Kern., 416.) The questions of defendant's negligence and the contributory negligence of the deceased were questions for the jury. (Keating v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 N.Y. 673; Bernhard v. R. and S. R. R. Co., 23 How., 166; Ernst v. H. R. R. R. Co., 35 N.Y. 9.) The Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the action. (U. S. Stat. at Large, 76, 77.) Plaintiff's remedy was at common law. (The Belfast, 7 Wall., 644; The Eagle, 8 Id., 15; Leon v. Galcerau, 11 Id., 185, 188; Albany Ins. Co. v. Whitney, 7 Penn. St., 248; 2 Bouv. L. D., 340; 1 Story's Eq. Jur., § § 26, 27; Reubens v. Joel, 3 Kern., 488.)

A. C. Hand and Francis A. Smith for the respondent. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction of the action. (Const. U.S. art. 3, § 2; 1 U.S. Stat. at Large, 76, § 9; 1 Kent's Com., 377; U.S. Laws, 1789; Percival v. Hickey, 18 J. R., 257; 1 Conk. Admy., 75, note c [2d ed.]; 2 Story on Const., § 1672, note 2, § 1751; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. [ U. S.], 441.) This action was unknown to the common law. The statute gives an entirely new cause of action. (Blake v. Mid. R. Co., 18 Q. B., 93; 83 E. C. L.; S. C., 10 E. L. & Eq.; Whitford v. Panama R. Co., 23 N.Y. 465, 470, 480.) The United States statute of 1845 has not changed the rule as to jurisdiction. (5 U.S. Stat. at Large, 726, 727;

Page 4

The Jefferson, 10 Wheat., 428; The Propeller Jenessee Chief, 12 How., 443; 1 Conk. Admy., 16, 17...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP