Chicago, Burlington Quincy Railway Company v. Edgar Williams
| Decision Date | 26 April 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 154,154 |
| Citation | 214 U.S. 492,29 S.Ct. 514,53 L.Ed. 1058 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHICAGO, BURLINGTON, & QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY v. EDGAR C. WILLIAMS |
[Syllabus from page 492 intentionally omitted]
[Statement of the Case from pages 493-494 intentionally omitted.]
'And the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit further certifies that other questions of law which relate to the admission of evidence are presented by the assignment of errors in this case, and are pending for the decision of this court, but that the following questions of law are also presented by the assignment of errors, and their decision is indispensable to a determination of this case in this court; and that, to the end that this court may properly decide the issues of law presented, it desires the instruction of the Supreme Court of the United States upon the following questions of law:
'1. In a contract between an owner of cattle and a railway company for the transportation of the cattle at the regular rate, which contains the further agreement that the owner shall be transported on the cattle train free in consideration that he contracts that the railway company shall not be liable to him for any injury or damage which he sustains while he is being so carried, and that he will load, unload, feed, and care for the cattle during the transportation, is his agreement that the railway company shall not be liable to him for any injury or damage which he sustains while being so carried a valid contract?
'2. Where the owner of the cattle is not constrained, required, or requested to make the contract described in the foregoing question in order to have his cattle transported at the regular rate, but freely chooses to make such an agreement in preference to contracting for the transportation of his cattle at the regular rate at the risk of the railway company, and riding himself on a passenger train to the destination of the cattle at the regular rate, is his agreement that the railway company shall not be liable to him for any injury or damage which he sustains while being so carried a valid contract?
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy
... ... 28; Railroad Commission v. A. N ... Railway Co., 182 Ala. 357, 62 So. 749 ... information charging the Capital Traction Company with ... operating its cars within the District ... Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra; Gundling v. Chicago, 177 ... U.S. 183, 20 S.Ct. 633, 44 L.Ed. 725; ... ...
-
United States v. Julius Mayer
...168 U. S. 505, 512, 42 L. ed. 559, 561, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 167; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 452, 453, 51 L. ed. 875, 878, 879, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 559, 214 U. S. 492, 53 L. ed. 1058, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 514; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 107, 52 L. ed. 702, 705,......
-
In re Cyr
...of mixed law and fact. Mr. Justice Brewer, however, dissented. A case involving parties of the same names found in 214 U. S. 492, 495, 29 S. Ct. 514, 515, 53 L. Ed. 1058, was sent back to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the previous decision. In this case, however, Mr......
-
The Road to Bush v. Gore:1 the History of the Supreme Court's Use of the Per Curiam Opinion
...withoutan introductory heading, at 345 U.S. 600-08. On the placement of per curiam opinions, see Wasby et al., supra* note 8, at 32. 33. 214 U.S. 492 (1909). 34. Id.* at 495 (Holmes, J., dissenting). 35. See id.* at 496. 36. 281 U.S. 537 (1930). 37. Broad River Power Co. v. South Carolina, ......