State v. Baltimore & L. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1893 |
| Citation | 26 A. 865,77 Md. 489 |
| Parties | STATE, to Use of DODSON et al. v. BALTIMORE & L. R. CO. et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Baltimore county.
Action in the name of the state, for the use of Jemima Dodson and others, against the Baltimore & Lehigh Railroad Company and another. Defendants had judgment on demurrer to the declaration, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed, and cause remanded for new trial after amendment of declaration.
Argued before ALVEY, C. J., and ROBINSON, BRYAN, McSHERRY, and ROBERTS, JJ.
Geo. Y. Maynadier, Herman Stump, J. T. C. Hopkins, and John S. Young, for appellants.
R. R. Boarman and W. J. Taylor, for appellees.
This suit was brought against the Maryland Central Railroad Company and the Baltimore & Lehigh Railroad Company to recover damages ensuing from the death of James A. Dodson for the benefit of the equitable plaintiffs, the widow and children of the deceased, A demurrer was filed by the defendants and sustained by the court, but the plaintiff obtained leave to amend its declaration, and afterwards filed two successive amended declarations. The second of them is involved in this appeal. The court sustained a demurrer to this lastmentioned declaration, and rendered judgment for the defendants.
It was averred in the declaration that Dodson was a conductor in the employment of the Maryland Central Railroad Company, and that he was killed while in the discharge of his duty by the falling of a trestle, part of the track of said corporation, which, by its negligence, wrongful act, neglect, and default, was suffered to be and remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition, insufficient and improper for the purpose for which it was erected, namely, for the passage of a train of cars over it. whereby it broke and fell under a train of cars, and the said Dodson was killed it was also averred that, shortly after the killing of Dodson, a consolidation was effected between the Maryland Central Railroad Company and the York & Peach Bottom Railway Company, so that these two corporations became one, known as the Baltimore & Lehigh Railroad Company; and it was further averred that by the consolidation said lastmentioned corporation acquired the rights and franchises of the said Maryland Central Railroad Company, and became subject to its obligations and liabilities then existing. The legal consequences of this consolidation must depend on the act of assembly by which it was authorized. Act 1890, c. 553, contains very few details. It enables two railroad companies whose tracks form a continuous line to consolidate with each other. It must be the result of this proceeding that the two original corporations cease to exist, and a third one comes Into being, which comprehends both of them. It is composed of both. It is, in effect, both united into one. Nothing is destroyed by the consolidation. Whatever appertained to either of the constituent bodies now, in the same measure, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
... ... 1 JACKSON v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. No. 88.Court of Appeals of MarylandJanuary 11, 1939 ... Appeal ... from Baltimore Court of Common Pleas; Joseph N. Ulman, Judge ... Action ... by Nathaniel Jackson against the Pennsylvania Railroad ... Company ... decisions of this Court are uniformly in accord with this ... statement of the law. In Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v ... State, to Use of Allison, 62 Md. 479, 50 Am.Rep. 233, it ... was argued that there was a path along the track, and people ... were in the habit [176 Md ... ...
-
People ex rel. Manhattan Ry. Co. v. Barker
...E. 31;Mt. Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 514, 25 L. Ed. 699;New Bedford R. Co. v. Old Colony R. Co., 120 Mass. 397;State v. Baltimore & L. R. Co., 77 Md. 489, 26 Atl. 865; Railroad Co. v. Boney, 117 Ind. 501, 20 N. E. 432; Railroad Co. v. Moffit, 75 Ill. 524;Tompkins v. Railroad Co., 102 G......
-
State for Use of Bohon v. Feldstein
...before us allege that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. In State, to Use of Dodson v. Baltimore & Lehigh R. Co., 77 Md. 489, 26 A. 865, a judgment had been obtained in favor of a defendant for failure to allege that the person injured was using due care at t......
-
Phila. Tr. Co. v. Northumberland Co. T. Co. et al.
...Jersey Midland Ry. Co. v. Strait, 35 N. J. L. 322; Smith v. Los Angeles & Pac. Ry. Co., 98 Cal. 210; State, use of Dodson et al., v. Baltimore & Lehigh R. R. Co., 77 Md. 489. The receivers were appointed on a creditors' bill filed on the equity side of the court by the Pennsylvania Steel Co......