Boston Co v. Reilly, No. 197
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | SHIRAS |
| Citation | 39 L.Ed. 1006,158 U.S. 334,15 S.Ct. 830 |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1895 |
| Docket Number | No. 197 |
| Parties | BOSTON & A. R. CO. v. O'REILLY |
v.
O'REILLY.
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.
Page 335
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.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Henderson v. Munn, No. 4343.
...must ordinarily be specially pleaded in order that the defendant may not be taken by surprise. Boston & Albany R. R. Co. v. O'Reilly, 158 U.S. 334, 15 S.Ct. 830, 39 L.Ed. 1006; Manufacturing Co. v. Gray, 111 N.C. 87, 15 S.E. 939; Id., 111 N.C. 92, 93, 15 S.E. 940; American Pure Food Co.......
-
Doe v. Hampton, No. 76-1090
...yardstick approximating that traditionally utilized on appeals from lower court civil proceedings. See Boston & A. R. R. v. O'Reilly, 158 U.S. 334, 337, 15 S.Ct. 830, 831, 39 L.Ed. 1006, 1008 (1895) (likelihood of same result must be beyond doubt); Chichester Chem. Co. v. United States,......
-
Bosler v. Coble
...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. 14; Nat Biscuit Co. v. N......
-
Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co., 2,354.
...119 U.S. 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, 20 C.C.A. 3, ......
-
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Henderson v. Munn, No. 4343.
...must ordinarily be specially pleaded in order that the defendant may not be taken by surprise. Boston & Albany R. R. Co. v. O'Reilly, 158 U.S. 334, 15 S.Ct. 830, 39 L.Ed. 1006; Manufacturing Co. v. Gray, 111 N.C. 87, 15 S.E. 939; Id., 111 N.C. 92, 93, 15 S.E. 940; American Pure Food Co. v. ......
-
Doe v. Hampton, No. 76-1090
...a yardstick approximating that traditionally utilized on appeals from lower court civil proceedings. See Boston & A. R. R. v. O'Reilly, 158 U.S. 334, 337, 15 S.Ct. 830, 831, 39 L.Ed. 1006, 1008 (1895) (likelihood of same result must be beyond doubt); Chichester Chem. Co. v. United States, 6......
-
Bosler v. Coble
...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. 14; Nat Biscuit Co. v. N......
-
Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co., 2,354.
...119 U.S. 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, 20 C.C.A. 3, ......