Boston Co v. Reilly

Decision Date20 May 1895
Docket NumberNo. 197,197
PartiesBOSTON & A. R. CO. v. O'REILLY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

In October, 1890, Patrick J. O'Reilly, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, brought an action against the Boston & Albany Railroad Company for personal injuries received while riding as a passenger on one of that company's trains.

The declaration contained three counts, alleging negligence on the part of the company in respect to the condition of a certain truck attached to the tender of the engine which drew the train, in respect to the journal of the tender, and in respect to the condition of the defendant's track, rails, and roadbed. The defendant's answer consisted of an general denial. The trial resulted in a verdict for the sum of $15,000, and to the judgment entered for that amount a writ of error was sued out of this court.

Samuel Hoar, for plaintiff in error.

Chas. W. Needham and John B. Cotton, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

The first three specifications of error complain of the action of the court in permitting the plaintiff, O'Reilly, to testify as to what he had made out of his business for several years before the accident, and to give an estimate of how much he made annually by his own individual exertions; and also, in view of the fact that he had sold the business, good will, and everything connected with the business before the accident occurred, to testify that, when he so sold out, he did it with the intention of continuing the business.

The first objection urged to the admission of this evidence is that it went to show special damage caused to the plaintiff by the loss and interruption of his business, whereas there were no allegations of such special damage contained in the declaration. It does not appear, however, that objection was specifically made to the evidence on the ground that the declaration contained no allegations of the special damage sought to be shown; and it is perfectly well settled in this court h at where a case has gone to a hearing, testimony been admitted to a jury under objection, but without stating any reasons for the objection, and a verdict rendered, with judgment on the verdict, the losing party cannot, in the appellate court, state for the first time a reason for that objection which would make it good. Roberts v. Graham, 6 Wall. 578; Patrick v. Graham, 132 U. S. 627, 10 Sup. Ct. 194.

Objections were made in the present case to the admission of the evidence in question, but such objections did not, in our judgment, apprise the court of the specific ground of objection now urged, and hence did not afford an opportunity of permitting an amendment of the declaration, upon such terms as the interests of justice might seem to require.

If, then, this were the only ground on which we were asked to proceed in disposing of these assignments of errors, we should not feel disposed to disturb the judgment; but, when we come to examine the objections that were sufficiently taken to the evidence in question, we find error so serious as to compel a reversal.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 14 Abril 1904
    ...... complained of did not prejudice and could not prejudiced the. rights of the party who assigns it. Boston & Albany. Railroad v. O'Reilly, 158 U.S. 334, 337, 15 Sup.Ct. 830, 39 L.Ed. 1006; Deery v. Cray, 5 Wall. 795, 807,. 18 L.Ed. 653; Gilmer v. ......
  • Cosfriff Brothers v. Miller
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 31 Marzo 1902
    ...... the evidence is offered, it is deemed to have been. waived." ( Lashus v. Chamberlain (Utah), 24 P. 188; Boston & Ry. Co. v. O'Reily, 158 U.S. 334;. Patrick v. Graham, 132 U.S. 627; Roberts v. Graham, 6 Wall., 578; Moshier v. Lawrence, 4. Den., 421; ......
  • Bosler v. Coble
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 2 Abril 1906
    ......Bk., 104 U.S. 625; Gilmer v. Higley, 110. U.S. 47; R. R. v. O'Brien, 119 U.S. 99;. Mexia v. Oliver, 148 U.S. 665; R. R. Co. v. O'Reilly, 158 U.S. 334; Lucas v. Brooks, 85. U.S. 436; U. S. v. Gentry, 119 F. 70-75; Assn. v. Schryock, 73 F. 774; R. R. Co. v. Field, 137. F. ... Kan. 449; Detroit v. Brennan, 93 Mich. 338;. Noyes v. Smith (Me.), 10 A. 462; McGonigle v. Victor &c. Co., 186 Mass. 310; Kaplan v. Boston G. L. Co., 177 Mass. 15; Warner v. Jones, 140. Mass. 216; Coal Co. v. Utley, 167 Mass. 558;. Gilleland v. R. Co., 119 Ga. 789; Ins. Co. v. ......
  • Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 27 Abril 1907
    ......99, 103, 7 Sup.Ct. 118, 30 L.Ed. 299; Mexia v. Oliver, 148 U.S. 664, 673, 13 Sup.Ct. 754, 37 L.Ed. 602; Railroad Co. v. O'Reilly, 158. U.S. 334, 337, 15 Sup.Ct. 830, 39 L.Ed. 1006; Railroad. Co. v. McClurg, 8 C.C.A. 322, 325, 326, 59 F. 860, 863;. Association v. Shryock, ...409; Barreda v. Silsbee, 21 How. 146, 167, 16 L.Ed. 86; Turner v. Yates, 16 How. 14, 23, 14 L.Ed. 824; Richardson v. City of Boston, 19 How. 263, 270, 15 L.Ed. 639; Nash. v. Classon, 45 N.E. 276, 277, 163 Ill. 409; Roberts. v. Bonaparte, 20 A. 918, 73 Md. 191, 10 L.R.A. ......
  • 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