Hamilton v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.
Decision Date | 07 April 1888 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | M. F. HAMILTON v. THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY |
Error from Atchison District Court.
This action was brought by M. F. Hamilton, the widow of M. C Hamilton, to recover from The Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company $ 5,000 as damages for the death of her husband, alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the agents and employes of the railroad company. The petition set out in the record was filed July 10, 1886, and, omitting title and caption, is as follows:
The defendant company answered, stating that M. C. Hamilton was at the time of his injury a citizen of Buchanan county Missouri, and that the plaintiff resided in the same place, and that whatever injuries were sustained by him were occasioned solely by his own carelessness and neglect, and denied the other allegations contained in the petition. The case came on for trial on January 3, 1887; a jury was called, and thereupon the railroad company objected to the introduction of any evidence, because the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan
... ... 38 Ind.App. 637, 75 N.E. 832, 78 N.E. 353; Boyd v. Brazil ... Block Coal Co., 25 Ind.App. 157, 57 N.E. 732; Barker ... v. Hannibal & St. J. Ry. Co., 91 Mo. 86, 14 S.W. 280; ... Harshman v. Northern P. Ry. Co., 14 N.D. 69, 103 ... N.W. 413; Fulgham v. Midland Valley Ry. Co ... Hunt et al., supra; Boyd v. Brazil Block Coal Co., supra; ... Hunt v. Monroe, 32 Utah, 428, 91 P. 269, 11 L. R. A ... (N. S.) 249; Hamilton v. McIndoo et al., 81 Minn ... 324, 84 N.W. 118; Harshman v. Northern P. Ry. Co., ... 14 N.D. 69, 103 N.W. 413. Hence, in such a case, a ... ...
-
Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan
...59 P. 677; Vaughn v. Kansas City, N.W. R. Co., 65 Kan. 685, 70 P. 602; Walker v. O'Connell, 59 Kan. 306, 52 P. 894; Hamilton v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 39 Kan. 56, 18 P. 57; Nash v. Tousley, 28 Minn. 5, 8 N.W. 875; Barker v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 91 Mo. 86, 14 S.W. 280; Major v. Burli......
-
Lee v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
...occurred, for the acts and omissions complained of. 8 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 881; Debevoise v. Railroad, 99 N.Y. 377; Hamilton v. Railroad, 39 Kan. 56. Plaintiffs have no legal capacity to maintain this suit. At common law no one could maintain an action on account of the death of ......
-
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co. v. Adcock
...295; 50 Id. 155; 155 U.S. 190; 98 Ark. 240; 194 U.S. 120; 26 Cyc. 1079. See, also, 79 F. 934; 59 N.Y.S. 66; 28 Id. 446; 35 Am. Rep. 705; 39 Kan. 56; 126 Pa. 296. The Texas law governs. 60 Tex. 334; 67 S.W. 438; 65 Tex. 281; 73 Id. 29; Speer on Married Women, § 227; 223 S.W. 270. The husband......