Cleveland v. Bangor St. Ry.
Decision Date | 14 February 1894 |
Citation | 29 A. 1005,86 Me. 232 |
Parties | CLEVELAND v. BANGOR ST. RAILWAY. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Penobscot county.
Action by Lena T. Cleveland against the Bangor Street Railway. There was a verdict for plaintiff, to which defendant took exceptions, and moves for a new trial. Exceptions and motion overruled.
This was an action on the case for injuries which the plaintiff alleges she sustained September 18, 1892, through the negligence of the defendant in erecting and maintaining a pole for the support of its trolley wires upon Exchange street, in the city of Bangor.
Declaration: "In a plea of the case, for that, whereas there now is, and was at said Bangor, on the 18th day of September, last past, a public street and highway called 'Exchange Street,' in said Bangor, on and over which all citizens are entitled to pass and repass with their horses and carriages, and said plaintiff was in a carriage on the said 18th day of September, and was driving through said street, and was in the exercise of due care, and with a suitable carriage, harness, and horse, in said highway, nearly opposite the store of Stockwell, Adams & Co., there was an obstruction in said highway, to wit, a pole some twenty feet in height, standing out in said highway about eighteen inches from the curbstone; said pole being in front of said Stockwell, Adams & Co.'s store, as aforesaid; said pole having been erected and was then being used by said defendant corporation for the purpose of propelling its electric cars through said street or highway.
Plea, general Issue. The jury returned a verdict of $868 for the plaintiff, and the defendant took exceptions, and moved for a new trial.
The city ordinance of Bangor is as follows (chapter 40, § 1): "Bangor Street Railway, a corporation duly established by law, * * * is hereby authorized and licensed to locate, build, equip and maintain a street railway in the city of Bangor, for the sole purpose of transporting passengers and their baggage, cars to be run by electrical or animal power, and to locate and maintain single or double lines of poles on any street where its tracks may be laid," etc.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pugh v. Texarkana Light & Traction Co.
...& Streets, § 779; 67 N.E. 921; 93 S.W. 1057; 1 Thompson, Neg. §§ 1233, 1234; 2 Id. § 1347; 23 A. 281; 1 P. 253; 37 P. 1012; 33 F. 320; 29 A. 1005; 58 S. W: 508; 11 S.W. 2 Wood, Railroads, 970, § 269 note 1, 976; 19 S.W. 366; 27 S.W. 918; 27 S.W. 920; 37 A. 119; 1 Lewis, Em. Dom., 2 Ed., § 1......
-
Hayes v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co.
...of public safety in the use of the streets." The following eases support the general rule above stated: Cleveland v. Bangor Street Railway, 80 Me. 232, 29 A. 1005; Bevis v. Vanceburg Tel. Co., 121 Ky. 177, 89 S. W. 126; Wolfe v. Erie Tel. & Teleg. Co. (C. C.) 33 F. 320; Sheffield v. Central......
-
Clinkenbeard v. City of St. Joseph
...its poles along the street, and regardless of the pole being inside the curb. Stern v. International Ry. Co., 220 N.Y. 284; Cleveland v. Bangor Street Ry., 86 Me. 232; Lambert v. Westchester El. Ry., 191 N.Y. 248; McKin v. Philadelphia, 219 Pa. 243; Norwalk v. Jacobs, 27 Ohio Cir. Ct. 691; ......
-
Clinkenbeard v. City of St. Joseph
...its poles along the street, and regardless of the pole being inside the curb. Stern v. International Ry. Co., 220 N.Y. 284; Cleveland v. Bangor Street Ry., 86 Me. 232; Lambert v. Westchester El. Ry., 191 N.Y. 248; McKin v. Philadelphia, 219 Pa. 243; Norwalk v. Jacobs, 27 Ohio Cir. Ct. 691; ......