New York Co v. Madison
| Decision Date | 05 December 1887 |
| Citation | 31 L.Ed. 258,123 U.S. 524,8 S.Ct. 246 |
| Parties | NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R. CO. v. MADISON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
J. E. Ingersoll, for plaintiff in error.
Edward S. Meyer, for defendant in error.
This suit was brought by Madison, the defendant in error, for injuries received by him through the alleged negligence of the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, while he was in its employ as a brakeman. He charged in his petition that 'after a train of cars operated by said defendant, and on which train he was employed as aforesaid, had stopped at the town of Mantua, a station along the line of said company in the district and division aforesaid, it became necessary in the course of his duties to step between two cars of said train for the purpose of uncoupling them; and while so engaged, without any fault or negligence on his part, but through the fault and negligence of this defendant in permitting its road-bed at said town to remain in an unsafe, insecure, and dangerous condition, all of which was unknown to this plaintiff, his right foot was caught and held fast in said road-bed; and while so caught and held, being unable to extricate it, he was, without any fault on his part, but through the negligence and carelessness of defendant, struck, jammed, and run over by one of defendant's cars, so injuring his left leg as to necessitate its amputation, and cause the loss thereof.' The answer denied that the injury was caused by the negligence of the company, and insisted that it happened through the fault of the plaintiff himself. The errors assigned here are: (1) That the circuit court erred in the admission of incompetent at the trial; and (2) that the circuit court erred in its charge to the jury.
In reference to the first of these assignments, the bill of exceptions shows that at the trial several witnesses were called by the plaintiff, who were permitted to testify to certain alterations which were made in the road-bed by the section foreman, with the knowledge and approval of the road-master, after the accident occurred. This was objected to at the time, and exceptions were duly taken; but the court, in submitting the case to the jury, directed them to disregard that testimony altogether, as it had been improperly admitted, and must not be considered as tending to prove that the 'railroad track was not in a reasonably safe condition at the time.' It is true that, in one place in its charge, the court said this evidence was 'not to be regarded * * * as an admission of the defendant of the defective character of the road-bed,' but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephan v. United States
...There is nothing to indicate that the jury disobeyed the injunction to disregard their testimony. See New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Madison, 123 U.S. 524, 8 S.Ct. 246, 31 L.Ed. 258; Turner v. Amer. Sec. & Tr. Co., 213 U.S. 257, 29 S.Ct. 420, 53 L. Ed. The testimony of the Government's witn......
-
Oates v. United States
... ... regarded harmless error, if the jury are instructed to ... disregard it. N.Y. & W.R. Co. v. Madison, 123 U.S ... 524, 8 Sup.Ct. 246, 31 L.Ed. 258; Hopt v. Utah, 120 ... U.S. 430, 7 Sup.Ct. 614, 30 L.Ed. 708; Turner v. Am. S ... Co., 213 U.S ... ...
-
Johnson v. United States
...States (C. C. A.) 12 F.(2d) 852, 856; People v. Scott, 6 Mich. 287, 291." Similarly, in New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co. v. Madison, 123 U. S. 524, 526, 8 S. Ct. 246, 247, 31 L. Ed. 258, the Supreme Court thus stated the rule: "As to the other error assigned, it is sufficient to s......
-
Fellman v. Royal Ins. Co.
... ... United States, ... 57 F. 495, 6 C.C.A. 459 ... In ... Worthington v. Mason, 101 U.S. 152, 25 L.Ed. 848, and ... again in New York, etc., Railroad Co. v. Madison, ... 123 U.S. 527, 8 Sup.Ct. 247 (31 L.Ed. 258), the Supreme Court ... declared: ... 'As ... we ... ...