Farlow v. Kelly
| Decision Date | 16 April 1883 |
| Citation | 108 U.S. 288,2 S.Ct. 555,27 L.Ed. 726 |
| Parties | FARLOW, Receiver, etc., v. KELLY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
While the Cincinnati, Sandusky & Cleveland Railroad was being operated by John S. Farlow, a receiver appointed by the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio, in a suit for the foreclosure of a mortgage on the road, Sylvanus Kelly, a passenger on the of the trains, was injured by the collision of a car in which he was riding with a freight car standing on a side track. Kelly thereupon petitioned the circuit court for leave to sue the receiver in the court of common pleas of Sandusky county, Ohio, to recover for the injuries he had sustained. This was denied. He then asked leave to file his complaint against the receiver in the suit for foreclosure. This was granted, and the receiver ordered to make his defense. Kelly thereupon filed in the circuit court his complaint, in which he set forth his claim growing out of the alleged carelessness and neglect of the receiver and his agents, and prayed that an inquiry might be had as to the amount of his damages and the receiver ordered to pay the same. The receiver answered, denying that the injury* com- plained of was occasioned by his negligence, or that of his servants or agents, and averring that it was 'caused by the negligence and want of care by the said Sylvanus Kelly in improperly exposing himself to injury while riding on said car, by so placing his arm in an open window of said car that it projected outside thereof, and thereby came in contact with said standing car.' After the issue was thus made up, the matter was referred to a special master, on the application of Kelly, 'to hear the matters set forth in said complaint, answer, and replication, and such evidence as the parties may offer relevant and pertinent to the issues therein made, and determine and report whether, under the law, the said receiver is liable for the injuries complained of by the said Sylvanus Kelly; and, if so, the amount of compensation which said Sylvanus Kelly shall be entitled to receive for the same; * * * and that he report his findings, together with the evidence and costs of his proceedings, to this court as soon as possible, at the January term thereof.' Under this order the master heard the case and reported in substance the following facts:
Bellefontaine is a station on the line of the road at which passenger trains stop and pass each other. Immediately south of the town is a side track of about 1,000 feet in length, with a switch at each end, uniting it with the main track. This side track has a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
...Railroad, 5 Mo.App. 471; Carroll v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 663; Husenkamp v. Railroad, 37 Mo. 537; Sweeney v. Railroad, 150 Mo. 385; Farlow v. Kelley, 108 U.S. 288; v. Railroad, 29 S.C. 381; Summers v. Railroad, 34 La. Ann. 139; Kreimelman v. Jourdan, 107 App. 64; Langan v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 392;......
-
Gage v. St. Louis Transit Co.
...N.Y. 589; Francis v. New York Steam Co., 114 N.Y. 380; Cummins v. Railroad, 166 Mass. 220; Kird v. Railroad, 109 La. Ann. 552; Farlow v. Kelley, 108 U.S. 288; Schneider v. Orleans, etc., Co., 54 F. 466; Fort Wayne Traction Co. v. Hardendorf (Ind.), 72 N.E. 593; Railroad v. Williams, 140 Ill......
-
Waterbury v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co.
... ... Co. v. Morris, 31 ... Grat. 200, 203 ... [ 68 ] Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S ... 451, 458 ... [ 69 ] Farlow v. Kelley, 2 S.Ct. 555, (Sup. Ct ... U.S. 1883.) There is some authority for the view that the act ... of a passenger in riding with his elbow on ... ...
-
Smith v. St. Louis Transit Co.
...gross negligence, utterly inconsistent with the care required for the protection of passengers. Winter v. Railroad, 39 Mo. 468; Farlow v. Kelly, 108 U.S. 288; Schneider v. Orleans, etc., Co., 54 F. 466; McCord v. Railroad, 134 N.C. 53. (3) Whether a street car passenger riding in a position......