Henderson v. Louisville Co
| Decision Date | 31 October 1887 |
| Citation | 8 S.Ct. 60,31 L.Ed. 92,123 U.S. 61 |
| Parties | HENDERSON v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
O. B. Sansum, for plaintiff in error.
T. L. Bayne and Geo. Denegre, for defendant in error.
This was an action against a railroad corporation by a passenger to recover for the loss of a hand-bag and its contents. The plaintiff, a married woman suing by authority of her husband, alleged in the original petition that on October 25, 1883, the defendant, being a common carrier of goods and persons for hire, received her into one of its cars as a passenger from her summer residence at Pass Christian, in the state of Mississippi, to her winter residence, in New Orleans, having in her hand, and in her immediate custody, possession, and control, a leathern bag of a kind usually carried by women of her condition and station in society, containing $5,800 in bankbills, and jewelry worth $4,075; that while the plaintiff, holding the bag in her hand, was attempting to close an open window next her seat, through which a cold wind was blowing upon her, the bag and its contents, by some cause unknown to her, accidentally fell from her hand through the open window upon the railroad; that she immediately told the conductor of the train that the bag contained property of hers of great value and requested him to stop the train, and to allow her to leave the car and retake the bag and its contents; but he refused to do so, although nothing hindered or prevented him, and, against her protestations, caused the train to proceed at great speed for three miles to Bay St. Louis, where he stopped the train, and she despatched a trusty person to the place where the bag had fallen; but before he arrived there the bag with its contents was stolen and carried away by some person or persons to the plaintiff unknown, 'and was wholly lost to the plaintiff by the gross negligence of the defendant as aforesaid.' The further averments of the petition, undertaking to define specifically the nature and effect of the obligation assumed by the defendant to the plaintiff, are mere conclusions of law, not admitted by the exception, in the nature of a demurrer, which was filed by the defendant, in accordance with the practice in Louisiana, upon the ground that the petition set forth no cause of action. The circuit court sustained the exception, and ordered the petition to be dismissed. 20 Fed. Rep. 430. On the day the judgment was rendered, and before it was signed, it was amended, on the plaintiff's motion, by adding the words, 'unless the plaintiff amend her petition so as to state a cause of action within five days.' Within that time the plaintiff filed an amended petition, alleging that the defendant received the plaintiff as a passenger, and the bag and its contents as part of her luggage, to be safely kept and carried by the defendant as a common carrier to New Orleans, and there delivered to the plaintiff; that the defendant did not so carry and deliver; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Ins Co Kennedy Bogash Springfield Fire Marine Ins Co v. Same Liverpool London Globe Ins Co Limited v. Same 8212 755
...70; Sampliner v. Motion Picture Patents Co., 254 U.S. 233, 239, 41 S.Ct. 79, 80, 65 L.Ed. 240. 4 Henderson v. Louisville, etc., Railroad, 123 U.S. 61, 64, 8 S.Ct. 60, 31 L.Ed. 92; Amy v. Watertown, No. 1., 130 U.S. 301, 304, 9 S.Ct. 530, 32 L.Ed. 946; Barrett v. Virginian Ry. Co., 250 U.S. ......
-
Mims v. Reid
... ... the conformity statute. West v. Smith, 101 U.S. 263, ... 265, 25 L.Ed. 809; Stone v. Speare (C.C.) 175 F ... 584; Henderson v. L. & N.R., 123 U.S. 61, 8 Sup.Ct ... 60, 31 L.Ed. 92; Fitzpatrick v. Flannagan, 106 U.S ... 648, 1 Sup.Ct. 369, 27 L.Ed. 211; Tilton v ... ...
-
Sweeney v. Greenwood Index-Journal Co., Civil Action No. 181.
...the Conformity Act (Mexican Central Ry. Co. v. Duthie, 189 U.S. 76, 78, 23 S.Ct. 610, 47 L.Ed. 715; Henderson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 123 U.S. 61, 64, 65, 8 S.Ct. 60, 31 L.Ed. 92; Howe v. Haterius, 8 Cir., 66 F.2d 835, 837; In re Griggs, 8 Cir., 233 F. 243, 244), yet, by its very terms, ......
-
United States v. French
...the Conformity Act (Mexican Central Ry. Co. v. Duthie, 189 U.S. 76, 78, 23 S.Ct. 610, 47 L.Ed. 715; Henderson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 123 U.S. 61, 64, 65, 8 S.Ct. 60, 31 L.Ed. 92; Howe v. Haterius, 8 Cir., 66 F.2d 835, 837; In re Griggs, 8 Cir., 233 F. 243, 244), yet, by its very terms, ......