Gilmer v. Higley

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMILLER
Citation110 U.S. 47,3 S.Ct. 471,28 L.Ed. 62
Decision Date07 January 1884
PartiesGILMER and others v. HIGLEY

110 U.S. 47
3 S.Ct. 471
28 L.Ed. 62
GILMER and others
v.
HIGLEY.
January 7, 1884.

Nath. Wilson and J. Hubley Ashton, for plaintiffs in error.

R. T. Merrick a d M. F. Morris, for defendant in error.

MILLER, J.

This was an action in the territorial court of Montana, in which a judgment was rendered in favor of defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error for an injury received by the

Page 48

upsetting of a stage coach used by the latter as common carriers of passengers. The plaintiff below founds his action on this contract of carriage, and the negligent manner in which it was performed. He 'alleges that on the day and year last aforesaid, at the said Boulder City, the said defendants received the said plaintiff as a passenger upon their coach, to be carried thence to said town of Helena.' The answer of defendants to this part of the declaration or petition is that 'they deny that the said Higley was received as a passenger on their coach, as in said complaint alleged, but say that from the city of Jefferson to the said town of Helena, the said plaintiff was wrongfully and unlawfully thereon, and contrary to the request and demand of these defendants, by their agent, who then and there having been refused, upon his request therefor, the fare of said Higley on said coach, did not consent or agree to his becoming a passenger of defendants thereon, but forbade him so to continue thereon, and did not consent thereto.' It will thus be seen that the issue was fairly raised whether the plaintiff was a trespasser in forcing himself into or on the stage of the defendant without paying his fare, or whether he was there under a contract of passenger carriage, either express or implied.

The following bill of exceptions was taken on the trial, and the ruling of the court thereon is assigned for error:

'Be it remembered that on the trial of this cause plaintiff, being a witness upon the stand, upon his examination in chief, testified that he had taken passage as a passenger from Boulder City to Helena; that the driver received him as such; and that after the accident had happened, and while he was sick in the hospital, that the defendant O. J. Salisbury said that he had ordered his drivers to receive him without paying fare until he got to Helena; and that he had frequently traveled over the road before without paying his fare until he arrived in Helena,—was asked on cross-examination:

'What was said to you at Jefferson City, the first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
72 practice notes
  • Bosler v. Coble
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 2, 1906
    ...resulted therefrom." (Seska v. R. R. Co., 77 Iowa 137; Deery v. Cray, 5 Wall, 795; Moores v. Nat. 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. Gentr......
  • Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co., 2,354.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 27, 1907
    ...927, 42 L.Ed. 302; Smith v. Shoemaker, 17 Wall. 630, 639, 21 L.Ed. 717; Moores v. Bank, 104 U.S. 625, 630, 26 L.Ed. 870; Gilmer v. Higley, 110 U.S. 47, 50, 3 Sup.Ct. 471, 28 L.Ed. 62; Railroad Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 103, 7 Sup.Ct. 118, 30 L.Ed. 299; Mexia v. Oliver, 148 U.S. 664, 673,......
  • Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma, 2,600.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 26, 1909
    ...substantially and fairly exercised that the allowance of cross-examination becomes discretionary with the trial court. Gilmer v. Higley, 110 U.S. 47, 50, 3 Sup.Ct. 471, 28 L.Ed. 62; Chandler v. Allison, 10 Mich. 460, 473; Heath v. Waters, 40 Mich. 457, 471; Sperry v. Moore's Estate, 42 Mich......
  • Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co., 1,789.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 14, 1904
    ...substantially and fairly exercised that the allowance of cross-examination becomes discretionary with the trial court. Gilmer v. Higley, 110 U.S. 47, 50, 3 Sup.Ct. 471, 28 L.Ed. 62; Chandler v. Allison, 10 Mich. 460, 473; Heath v. Waters, 40 Mich. 457, 471; Sperry v. Moore's Estate, 42 Mich......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
72 cases
  • Bosler v. Coble
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 2, 1906
    ...resulted therefrom." (Seska v. R. R. Co., 77 Iowa 137; Deery v. Cray, 5 Wall, 795; Moores v. Nat. 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. Gentr......
  • Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co., 1,789.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 14, 1904
    ...substantially and fairly exercised that the allowance of cross-examination becomes discretionary with the trial court. Gilmer v. Higley, 110 U.S. 47, 50, 3 Sup.Ct. 471, 28 L.Ed. 62; Chandler v. Allison, 10 Mich. 460, 473; Heath v. Waters, 40 Mich. 457, 471; Sperry v. Moore's Estate, 42 Mich......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Raines
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 10, 1909
    ...of a material transaction he may be cross examined in full detail concerning the omitted portion. 91 F. 614; 206 Pa.St. 135; 142 U.S. 488; 110 U.S. 47; 42 Ill.App. 225; 112 Ind. 494; 28 Ore. 1. See also 9 Mich. 381; 37 Ill. 465; 89 Ala. 563; 94 Mich. 343; 69 F. 808; 83 Md. 536; 70 Ark. 420;......
  • Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma, 2,600.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 26, 1909
    ...substantially and fairly exercised that the allowance of cross-examination becomes discretionary with the trial court. Gilmer v. Higley, 110 U.S. 47, 50, 3 Sup.Ct. 471, 28 L.Ed. 62; Chandler v. Allison, 10 Mich. 460, 473; Heath v. Waters, 40 Mich. 457, 471; Sperry v. Moore's Estate, 42 Mich......
  • 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