(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A treatise on the measure of damages, or, An inquiry into the principles which govern the amount of pecuniary compensation awarded by courts of justice"

The original of tiiis book is in 
tine Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 



http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018784821 





QfnrttfU Slam ^rljaol SItbrarg 



A TREATISE 



ON THE 



MEASURE OF DAMAGES 



OR 




AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLES WHICH GOVERN 

THE AMOUNT OF PECUNIARY COMPENSATION 

AWARDED BY COURTS OF JUSTICE 



BY 



THEODORE ^DGWICK 

AUTHOR OF " A TREATISE ON STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ' 



' !!um pro eo quod interest dubitationes antiquffi in infinitum pioductse sint, melius nobis Tiaum 
, hujusmodi prolixitatem, prout possibilc est, in angustum coarctare. 

Cod. De sent, guw pro eo quod int. prof. lib. vii, tit. xlvii 



NINTH EDITION 

REVISED, REARRANGED, AND ENLARGED 
BY 

ARTHUR G. SEDGWICK 

AND 

JOSEPH H. BEALE 



VOL. IV 



NEW YORK 

BAKER, VOORHIS & CO. 

1912 



~h ^^y (I^/^Z-^ ^^»H^ Ij 



Copyright, 1891, bt 
ARTHUR G. SEDGWICK 

COPYBIGHT, 1912, BY 

ARTHUR GEORGE SEDGWICK 



PRESS OF T. MOREV & SON 
GREENFIELD, MASS.. U. S. A. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

VOL. IV 

f 

VOLUME I 

Chapter _ , Page 

I. General view ot the subject 1 

II. Compensation 42 

III. Reduction of the original loss 86 

IV. Compensation for injury to a limited interest in property 109 

V. Entire and prospective damages 137 

VI. Nominal damages 164 

VII. Proximate and remote damages 192 

VIII. Natural consequences 259 

IX. Certain and uncertain damages; profits 317 

X. Avoidable consequences. . 385 

XI. Replacement 450 

XII. Expenses of litigation 463 

XIII. The measure and elements of value 489 

XIV. Medium of pajrment 529 

XV. Interest 551 

XVI. Exemplary damages 686 

XVII. Liquidated damages 757 

VOLUME II 

Chapter Page 

XVIII. Tortious injuries to personal property 827 

XIX. Malicious torts 856 

XX. Personal injury. . .• 911 

XXI. Actions for the conversion of personal property 944 

XXII. Higher intermediate value 991 

XXIII. Actions for the recovery of specific personal property 1029 

XXIV. Actions against officers 1053 

XXV. Actions for the death of a human being 1093 

XXVI. Damages in admiralty 1134 

XXVII. Damages in actions on contracts 1159 

XXVIII. Breach of promise of marriage 1272 

XXIX. Contracts of construction 1289 

XXX. ImpUed or quasi contracts 1307 

XXXI. Contracts of service \ 1339 

XXXII. Actions upon bonds 1378 

XXXIII. Actions upon negotiable instruments 1465 

iii 



IV 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Chapter Page 

XXXIV. ContractB of insurance 1485 

XXXV. Actions upon contracts of sale of personal property 1628 

XXXVI. Actions upon contracts of indemnity 1638 



VOLUME III 
Chapter 

XXXVII. Actions involving agency 1685 

XXXVIII. Actions by and against carriers 1739 

XXXIX. Actions against telegraph and telephone companies 1808 

XL. Actions for possession of real property 1864 

XLI. Wrongful interference with real property 1898 

XLII. Actions upon real covenants. . '. 1965 

XLIII. Actions between landlord and tenant 2044 

XLIV. Actions arising from the sale of real estate 2090 

XLV. Set-off and recoupment of damages 2151 

XLVI. English statutes of eminent domain 2209 

XLVII. Statutes of eminent domain in the United States 2241 

XLVIII. The allowance of benefits 2293 

XLIX. General considerations under statutes of eminent domain .... 2348 

L. Elements of compensation under statutes of eminent domain. 2396 

LI. New York statutes of eminent domain 2460 

LII. Suits for infringement of patents, copyrights, and trade-marks. 2517 



CHAPTER LIII 



DAMAGES UNDEE THE CIVIL DAMAGE STATUTES 



2561 



1247. 


Principles on \yhich the stat- 


§ 1251. 




utes rest. 


1252. 


1248. 


Where death ensues. 


1253. 


1249. 


Means of support. 


1254. 


1249a. 


Injury to property. 


1255. 


1250. 


Other damages. 


1256. 



Sales by several persons. 
Acquiescence a bar. 
Avoidable consequences. 
Exemplary damages. 
Consequential damages. 
Mental suffering. 



CHAPTER LIV 



DAMAGES IN EQUITY . . . 

§ 1256a. Allowance of damages by a 

court of equity. 
1256b. Power of English court of 

equity to award damages. 
1256c. Damages as incidental relief. 
1256d. Damages on failure to obtain 

equitable relief. 
1256e. No damages where plaintiff 

should not have sued in 

equity. 



.- 2579 

Damages granted for the pro- 
tection of the defendant. 

Taking of an account. 

Damages against a trustee for 
breach of trust. 

Time to which damages are 



§ 1256f. 

1256g. 
1256h. 

12561. 

1256 j. Damages assessed on legal 

principles. 
1256k. Interest. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER LV 



PLEADING AND PRACTICE 2588 

I. — Damages as Affected by the Plaintiff's Pleadings 



1257. 


Averment of damage. 


1258. 


Damages beyond amount 




laid. 


1259. 


Method of curing the error. 


1260. 


Averment of damage not 




otherwise material. 


1261. 


Special damages. 


1262. 


Prospective damages. 


1263. 


Exemplary, double and treble 



§ 1272. 

1273. 
1274. 
1275. 
1276. 



1277. 
1278. 
1279. 
1280. 



1264. Interest. 



Damages upon 
overruled. 

Upon plea in abatement. 

Upon plea to the damage. 

Upon default. 

Entire or several damages — 
Joinder of good and bad 
counts. 

Judgment when arrested. 

Count bad in part. 

Joint torts. 

Several torts by different de- 
fendants in the same suit. 



§ 1265. 

1266. 
1267. 
1268. 

1269. 

1270. 

1270a. 

1271. 

1271a. 

II. — Practice 

demurrer § 1281. 
1282. 
1283. 



1284. 
1285. 

1286. 

1286a. 

1286b. 



Special damages — Actions for 
injury to real estate. 

For breach of contract. 

Against carriers. 

For injury to personal prop- 
erty. 

For loss of business. 

For personal injury. 

Extent of allegation required. 

For other torts. 

Answers. 



Award of arbitrators. 

Costs. 

Obsolete judgment of "dam- 
age clear." 

Form of verdict. 

Damages as affecting juris- 
diction. 

Right to begin. 

Damages on appeal. 

Damages on dissolution of in- 
junction. 



CHAPTER LVI 



EVIDENCE 

§ 1287. Mode of proof. 


• • • 

§ 1294. 


1288. 


Exceptions to common-law 


1295. 




rule excluding testimony of 


1296. 




party. 




1289. 


Abrogation of common-law 


1297. 




rule. 


1298. 


1290. 


Witness to testify to facts, not 
opinions. 


1299. 


1291. 


Experts. 


1300. 


1292. 


Confined to matters of art and 






skill. 


1301. 


1293. 


Opinions as to quantum of 


1302. 




damages. 


1303. 



2623 



Value — Opinions of value. 

Vahie of lands and leases. 

Of chattels — Opinions of 
value. 

Market value. 

Evidence of sales. 

Offers — Price-lists — Quota- 
tions — Appraisals. 

Presumption against defend- 
ant. 

Estoppel. 

Value of construction. 

Of services. 



VI 



TABLE OF COl^TENTS 



§ 1304. Other value. 

1305. Evidence of malice or inten- 

tion — Appraisals. 

1306. Of the duration of life. 

1307. Of pain. 



§ 1308. Of a former verdict. 

1309. Physical examiination. 

1310. Approximate evidence. 
1310a. Damage imported from the 

circumstances. 



CHAPTER LVII 



COURT AND JURY 



1311. 


Relative power of judge and 
jury. 


§ 1318. 


1312. 


Analogies of Roman juris- 


1318a, 




prudence. 


1319. 


1313. 


Formulse. 




1314. 


Changes wrought by the Em- 
pire. 


1320. 


1315. 


Origin and development of 
the Anglo-Saxon judicial 


1321. 




procedure. 


1322. 


1316. 


Former indefinite separation 






between province of court 


1323. 




and of jury. 




1317. 


Present separation of func- 
tions. 


1324. 



2652 

Exemplary damages — Aggra- 
vation and mitigation. 

Double and treble damages. 

Modifications — Setting aside 
verdict. 

Instructions on questions of 
damages. 

Effect of erroneous instruc- 
tions. 

Power of jury to act without 
evidence of damages. 

Wrong measure of damages 
adopted by jury. 

Modes of computing damages 
allowed the jury. 



CHAPTER LVIII 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 


§ 1325. 


Power of court to set aside 
verdicts. 


§ 1339. 


1326. 


What damages are excessive. 


1340. 


1327. 


Successive verdicts. 


1341. 


1328. 


Cases in which the court will 


1342. 




act. 


1343. 


1329. 


Practice. 




1330. 


Remission of the excess. 




1331. 


When a remittitur will be en- 


1344. 




tered. 


1345. 


1332. 


Action of appellate courts on 
excessive damages. 


1346. 


1333. 


What amount is excessive. 


1347. 


1334. 


Pecuniary loss. 


1348. 


1335. 


Defamation. 




1336. 


False imprisonment. 


1349. 


1337. 


Malicious prosecution. 


1350. 


1338. 


Alienation of affections. 


1351. 



2667 

Breach of promise of mar- 
riage. 

Seduction. 

Telegraph companies. 

Carriers. 

Other malicious torts, or 
wrongs causing mental suf- 
fering. 

Exemplary damages. 

Assault and battery. 

Physical injury; doubtful 
physical consequences. 

Slight or temporary injury. 

Broken bones: bones of leg 
and hip. 

Bones of arm or shoulder. 

Bones of the trunk. 

Bones of the head. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



VU 



1352. 


Surgical operation. 


§ 1363. 


Other permanent injuries. 


1353. 


Pain and suffering. 


1364. 


Doubt as to permanence of 


1364. 


Permanent injuries: disability 




injury. 




to labor. 


1365. 


Loss of service. 


1355. 


Permanent crippling. 


1366. 


Civil damage act. 


1356. 


Loss of a member: leg or foot. 


1367. 


Damages for death. 


1357. 


Loss of a member: arm, hand, 


1368. 


Inadequate damages. 




or finger. 


1369. 


Failure to allow damages 


1358. 


Disfigurement. 




where compensation should 


1359. 


Impairment of sight or hear- 




be given. 




ing. 


1370. 


What damages are inade- 


1360. 


Nervous disorders. 




quate: torts in general. 


1361. 


Insanity and loss of mental 


1371. 


Personal injuries. 




power. 


1372. 


Death. 


1362. 


Shortening of life. 







CHAPTER LIX 



THE CONFLICT OP LAWS . 

§ 1373. General principles. 

1374. Actions against telegraph 

companies. 

1375. Action on a bill or note. 

1376. Damages for death. 

1377. Rate of interest. 

1378. Interest on judgments. 



2758 

§ 1379. Presumption as to legal rate 
of interest. 

1380. Exemplary damages. 

1381. Liquidated damages. 

1382. Medium of payment. 

1383. Matters of procedure. 



TABLE OP CASES 
INDEX . , . 



2769 

3087 



CHAPTER LIU 

DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL DAMAGE STATUTES 



1247. 


Principles on which the stat- 


§ 1251. 


Sales by several persons. 




utes rest. 


1252. 


Acquiescence a bar. 


1248. 


Where death ensues. 


1253. 


Avoidable consequences. 


1249. 


Means of support. 


1254. 


Exemplary damages. 


1249a. 


Injury to property. 


1255. 


Consequential damages. 


1250. 


Other damages. 


1256. 


Mental suffering. 



§ 1247. Principles on which the statutes rest. 

The statutes of many States contain provisions giving dam- 
ages against the seller of intoxicating liquors for injuries re- 
sulting from their sale. Sometimes the act gives the right of 
action to every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, em- 
ployer, or other person, who shall be injured in person, property, 
or means of support, against the seller, and also against any 
person or persons owning or renting, or permitting the occupa- 
tion of any building or premises, and having knowledge that 
intoxicating liquors are sold therein, for all damages sustained, 
and for exemplary damages; sometimes no action is given 
against the person owning the premises on which the liquor is 
sold. The statute in New Hampshire gives the right of action 
when the liquor has been unlawfully sold; ^ and in Wisconsin 
only against a person who has been notified, or requested in 
writing, not to part with liquor to a minor or habitual drunk- 
ard.^ In Michigan it has been said that the intention of the 
statute is that if there has been an injury which the defendant 
has contributed to produce, he shall be liable for the whole in- 
jury; but that where it appears that the defendant's act in 
supplying liquor had no appreciable effect in causing the dam- 
age, the jury cannot find for the plaintiff.' In the same State, 
a wife suing under the civil damage act cannot show that she 

1 Gen. St. 1878, ch. 109, § 33. ' Steele v. Thompson, 42 Mich. 594. 

" Sanborn & Berryman's Annot. Stat. 
1889, § 1556. 

161 2561 



2562 DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL DAMAGE STATUTES § 1248 

has children, as, under the statute, each child has a separate 
action; * and this has been held in Iowa also.^ 

In Massachusetts a statute * provides that the husband, wife, 
parent, child, guardian, or employer of any person having the 
habit of drinking to excess, may have a civil action against any 
one who sells such person intoxicating liquor after notice not 
to do so; and may recover "such sum, not less than $100 nor 
more than $500, as may be assessed as damages." The action 
under this statute is held to be penal, and hence common-law 
rules as to damages cannot in aU respects be apphed to it.'' In 
Pennsylvania the language of the statute is that "any one 
aggrieved may recover full damages" for "any injury to person 
or property." Under this statute it has been held that a father 
cannot recover money spent for medical service, nursing, etc., 
in the case of his son, the latter being of full age, and no family 
relation subsisting.* In Illinois also the damages must be for 
injury to the person, property, or means of support of the 
plaintiff; * and since it is impossible to compute actual damages 
upon any specific basis, the jury must determine the amoimt 
as practical men on the evidence as best they can.^" In a case 
in Indiana ^^ evidence was offered in mitigation of damages that 
plaintiff had abused her husband on the street, and had as- 
saulted him; that at another time she went to defendant's 
saloon and attempted to demolish it with a hatchet; and that 
during the months when the sales were alleged to have been 
made to the husband she would (go downtown and whip her 
husband on the way home. But this evidence was held irrele- 
vant. 

§ 1248. Where death ensues. 

Whether damages can be recovered where death has ensued 
from the sale of intoxicating liquors has been considered in 
several cases, and the courts, even in the same State, have 

* Rosecrants v. Shoemaker, 60 Mich. ' Veon v. Creaton, 138 Pa. 48, 20 

4, 26 N. W. 794. Atl. 865. 

' Huggins V. Kavanagh, 52 la. 368, ' Kellerman v. Arnold, 71 HI. 632. 

3 N. W. 409. w Brown v. Butler, 66 111. App. 86. 

« R. L. 1902, c. 100, § S3. " Gough v. State, 32 Ind. App. 22, 

' Sackett v. Ruder, 152 Mass. 397, 25 68 N. E. 1043. 
N. E. 736, 



§ 1248 WHEEE DEATH ENSUES 2563 

sometimes arrived at opposite conclusions. In Hayes v. 
Phelan,^^ where the plaintiff's husband died from intoxication, 
it was held in an action against the seller of the liquors that 
"injured" in the statute meant a legal injury; that the object 
of the action was to allow a recovery against the remote wrong- 
doer: to wit, the seller of the liquor, in addition to the action 
against the immediate wrongdoer, and that there could only 
be an action against the seller, where an action existed against 
such a wrongdoer, and that hence there could be none in this 
case. In Jackson v. Brookins,^' where the plaintiff's husband 
was killed in an affray while intoxicated, it was held that she 
could recover damages resulting from the death. In Quain 
V. Russell " the same view was adopted; while in Brookmire 
V. Monaghan ^^ the opposite view was taken. The Court of Ap- 
peals has, however, held, in the case of Volans v. Owen," that 
a new cause of action is given by the statute, and that an action 
against the seller can be maintained for injury to the means of 
support, although no other action would lie. The same view 
has been taken in Illinois; " and so, too, in Nebraska.'* But 
the rule, that the plaintiff cannot recover damages for the 
death of her husband arising from the sale of intoxicating 
liquors, is adopted in a case in Ohio," where the same view of 
the statute is taken, as in the opinion of the majority of the 
court in Hayes v. Phelan, above cited. Mcllvaine, J., in deliv- 
ering the opinion of the court, says : 

"She had an interest in his labor, and in his capacity to labor, 
as a means of support, during his life; but after his death this 
means of support no longer existed, and was not the subject of 
injiu-y or diminution. But to avoid any charge of hypercriti- 
cism, we place our decision upon the ground that in view of the 
previous state of the law, and the mischief sought to be rem- 

12 4 Hun, 733; but see dissenting Am. Rep. 409, 2 N. W. 715. The fact 

opinion in this case of James, J., re- that property of deceased came to 

ported in 5 Hun, 335. plaintiff at his death does not mitigate 

" 5 Hun, 530. the damages. Houston v. Gran, 38 

» 8 Hun, 319. Neb. 687, 57 N. W. 403. 

" 15 Hun, 16. " Davis v. Justice, 31 Oh. St. 359, 27 

•* 74 N. Y. 526; ace, Davis v. Stand- Am. Rep. 514; ace, Kirchner v. Myers, 

ish, 26 Hun, 608. 35 Oh. St. 85, 35 Am. Rep. 589. And 

" Emory v. Addis, 71 111. 273. see Pegram v. Stortz, 31 W. Va. 220, 

" Roose V. Perkins, 9 Neb. 304, 31 6 S. E. 486. 



2564 DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL DAMAGE STATUTES § 1248 

edied, we can find no expression in the statute that indicates 
an intention on the part of the legislature to bring the loss of 
labor caused by the death of the person intoxicated within the 
meaning of the term 'means of support,' for an injury to which 
the right of action is given by the statute." ^° 

But see dissenting opinion of Boynton, J., in this case, re- 
ferred to below. The question is not without difficulty, owing 
to the absence from the statute of a provision expressly covering 
injuries resulting from death. It is said, however, with much 
force, that the statute does not define or enumerate the injuries 
intended to be covered, but mentions generally injuries to per- 
son, property, or means of support in consequence of the in- 
toxication of any person, and that if death ensues as the natural 
and legitimate result of the intoxication, it is covered by the 
language of the statute; that if death were excluded, then the 
minor and temporary injuries would be provided for, while the 
greatest and most permanent of all would be excluded.^' It is 
true, that at common law, in actions for wrongs, a recovery 
could only be had for injuries to person or property. But the 
question naturally arises, whether the legislative intent of the 
statute under consideration was not to go beyond the common- 
law rule, and provide a remedy for injuries produced by in- 
toxication to the means of support of the injured party, whether 
the injury arose from a temporary cause, such as sickness, or 
from a permanent cause, such as death. This view is taken by 
James, J., in the dissenting opinion in Hayes v. Phelan, and is 
very ably maintained by Boynton, J., in the dissenting opinion 
in Davis v. Justice. The learned judge regards the construction 
given to the statute by the majority of the court as violating 
both its letter and spirit, and that its provisions clearly indicate 
a purpose, on the part of the legislature, to require the seller 
and the owner of the premises, when liable, to make full and 
adequate compensation in damages to the party injured 
through their violation of the statute. He says: 

"The argument of counsel . . . and the judgment of the 

*> Davis V. Justice, 31 Oh. St. 359, the death should have been in the con- 

364, 27 Am. Rep. 514. templation of the seller; but it is enough 

" Jackson v. Brookins, 5 Hun, 530; if the proximate cause is the selling, 

in New York it is not necessary that Davis v. Standish, 26 Hun, 608. 



§ 1249 MEANS OF strppORT 2565 

court seem to be founded on the mistaken notion that the action 
is brought to recover damages for the death of the husband. 
Such is not the case. The wrongful act which constitutes the 
ground of the action, is the illegal sale of the hquor, causing the 
intoxication from which the injury results. The death of the 
husband only affects the measure of damages. It destroys his 
ability to labor, and thereby diminishes the wife's means of sup- 
port. If the husband had lost both his arms or legs, or become 
permanently insane, in consequence of the intoxication, or had 
otherwise become permanently disabled to perform physical 
labor, and had survived, the result to the wife would have been 
precisely the same. Her injury, in either case, would consist in 
the deprivation of the means of support resulting from the loss 
of her husband's ability to labor. There is not the slightest 
foundation, in reason or justice, for an intention upon the part 
of the legislature to authorize a recovery for an illegal sale 
causing intoxication resulting in injury, where death does not 
follow, and to refuse damages where death results. Indeed, 
there is much more reason to award damages for the injury in 
the latter case than in the former. That the legislature in- 
tended to authorize a recovery in the one case, and not in the 
other, is an assumption not only not warranted by, but in clear 
contravention of the express provisions of the statute." ^^ 

Where damages for death of a husband caused by the sale of 
intoxicating liquors were allowed, it was held that the jury 
might estimate the damages, with reference to the fact that it 
is the duty of the husband to provide the wife with present 
support, as well as maintenance for the future, and that she is 
entitled to such a sum as, in a pecuniary point of view, would 
make her whole. ^' 

§ 1249. Means of support. 

The plaintiff may recover for an injury to her means of sup- 
port from any cause. ^^ The damages are primarily the differ- 

22 Davis V. Justice, 31 Oh. St. 359, in estimating the damages where death 

369, 27 Am. Rep. 514. has ensued. 

2' Rafferty v. Buckman, 46 la. 195. " Indiana: Nelson v. Hunter, 32 

See also Roose ». Perkins, 9 Neb. 304, Ind. App. 88, 69 N. E. 298. 

2 N. W. 715, 31 Am. Rep. 409, for a Michigan: Thomas v. Dansby, 74 

statement of the facts to be considered Mich. 398, 41 N. W. 1088; Bowden v. 



2566 DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL DAMAOE SfATOTES | 1249 

ence in the earnings devoted to plaintiff's support, ^^ and the 
plaintiff may therefore show what the means of support were,^* 
as for instance a wife may show the occupation and business 
capacity of her husband. =' In Mulford v. Clewell,^* the plain- 
tiff's husband was an habitual drunkard. He squandered his 
own money, sold some of her property, and became unable 
to work. At times he was wild and delirious, and she was 
obUged to attend him, and had been put in much fear, and 
finally compelled to leave the house. It was held that it was 
not necessary that the plaintiff should have been actually 
without support, or at any time have been deprived, in whole 
or in part, of means of support; that means of support relates 
to the future as well as to the present; that it is enough if she 
show that the sources of her future support have been cut off, or 
diminished below what is reasonable and competent for a per- 
son in her station in life, and below what they otherwise would 
have been. It was also held, that it need not appear that the 
injury resulted directly and immediately from the drunken- 
ness, during its continuance, but sufficient if it be shown to 
result from insanity, sickness, or inabihty produced by intoxi- 
cation; that to destroy the health of the husband, and his abil- 
ity to labor, is to destroy her means of support. In Dunlavey 
V. Watson ^' it was held proper for the jury, in awarding dam- 
ages to the wife, to consider the husband's age, condition in 
life, and habits of industry, and ability to support his wife, and, 
in Wightman v. Devere,^" where the plaintiff's husband, while 
intoxicated, had a fall and was injured so that he was unable to 
do his work on the farm, and the plaintiff had to hire another 

Voorheis, 135 Mich. 648, 98 N. W. " Thomas v. Dansby, 74 Mich. 398, 

406. 41 N. W. 1088. 

Nebraska: Gorey e. Kelly, 64 Neb. '^ Illinois: Mayers v. Smith, 121 111. 

605, 90 N. W. 554; Keehng v. Pommer, 442, 13 N. E. 216. 

83 Neb. 510, 120 N. W. 155. Michigan: Manzer v. Phillips, 139 

New Ycrrk: Bemiett v. Levi, 19 N. Y. Mich. 61, 102 N. W. 292. 

Supp. 226. 27 Jackson v. Noble, 54 la. 641, 7 

Ohio: Schneider v. Hosier, 21 Oh. St. N. W. 88. 

98; Mulford v. Clewell, 21 Oh. St. 191. ^ 21 Ohio St. 191. 

So a wife may show that while her "^ 38 la. 398; ace., Buck v. Maddock, 

husband was absent drinking she sup- 167 111. 219, 47 N. E. 208. 

ported herself in part by her own labor, '" 33 Wis. 570, 14 Am. Rep. 775. 
and received aid from the county. Fox 
V. Wunderlich, 64 la. 187, 20 N. W. 7. 



§ 1249 MEAi^s OF stJppCRT 2567 

man to do the work, and had to pay the doctor's bills, it was 
held that the husband's ability to labor was one of the plaintiff's 
means of support, and that an injury to this would entitle her 
to recover; that, also, the physician's bill and the expenses 
of hiring a man to work, were proper items of claim under the 
statute. But in Kellerman v. Arnold," where the plaintiff's 
husband had been an habitual drunkard for years before the 
passage of the act, and when sober could earn $3 to $5 a day, 
but when drunk would spend all his earnings for drink, and had 
pawned several articles to defendant for drink, it was held, 
three judges dissenting, that the plaintiff had shown no injury 
to property, person, or means of support. And in Meidel 
V. Anthis,'^ where the husband supported his family by the 
cultivation of land, and the evidence showed that the plaintiff 
spent her time in nursing' and taking care of her husband, 
but there was no evidence of a diminution of the capacity of the 
husband to labor, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled 
to recover; In Volans v. Owen,*' the defendant sold Uquor to 
the plaintiff's son who became intoxicated, was injm-ed, and was 
confined to his bed for several months. The only evidence of 
the plaintiff's pecuniary condition was that he owned and cul- 
tivated a farm of 100 acres. He was put to medical expense and 
was deprived of the aid his son usually gave him on the farm. 
It was held, that there was no evidence of injury to the plain- 
tiff's means of support. The court said : 

"Where injury to 'means of support' is the gravamen of the, 
action, the plaintiff, in order to maintain the action, must show 
that, by or in consequence of the intoxication or the acts of the 
intoxicated person, his accustomed means of maintenance have 
been cut off or curtailed, or that he has been reduced to a state 
of dependence, by being deprived of the support which he 
had before enjoyed; and, in this case, the plaintiff cannot re- 
cover for loss of service or the expenses of his son's illness, 
under the words 'means of support,' without proof that the 
services were necessary to his support, or that the charge 
brought upon him, by his son's illness, diminished his means, 

" 71 HI. 632. 337. For construction of term "means 

'271 111. 241. of support" in the statute, see, also, 

»» 74 N. Y. 526, 530, 30 Am. Rep. Schneider v. Hosier, 21 Oh. St. 98. 



2568 DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL DAMAGE STATUTES § 1249 

SO as to render them inadequate therefor. The primary pur- 
pose of the legislature, in giving a right of action for an injury of 
this character, was the protection of the dependent and helpless. 
Diminution of income, or loss of property, does not constitute 
an injury to means of support, within the fair intendment of 
the statute, if the plaintiff, notwithstanding, has adequate 
means of maintenance, from accumulated capital or property, 
or his remaining income is sufficient for his support." 

In Weitz v. Ewen '^ it was held that the jury might consider 
what the earnings of the husband would have been if sober. 
In Sharpley v. Brown '^ it was held that the remarriage of the 
plaintiff might be shown as bearing on the means of support. 
Generally speaking, these statutes are for the benefit of mar- 
ried women and children. In Michigan, where a father volun- 
tarily assumed the support of an adult son, as a poor person 
(under a statute), it was held that he might recover imder the 
civil damage act, for his outlay in necessary support, based 
on the probabilities of life of his son and himseff.'® Where the 
gist of the action is injury to the means of support, evidence 
is usually admissible as to the amount necessary for such sup- 
port under ordinary circumstances.'^ In such actions the fact 
that the plaintiff was previously a sober and industrious man, 
and afterwards became idle and neglected his work, is proper 
for the consideration of the jury.'^ Where the action is simply 
for the injury to the wife's means of support, it is error to allow 
evidence as to the number of children.'' 

The probable length of life of the deceased may be shown.'"' 
Generally speaking, in these actions resort may be had to the 
tables in common use, showing the expectation of life.*^ In 
Michigan it has been held that although plaintiff's husband 
had been a dnmkard for ten years and contributed nothing 

" 50 la. 34. »8 Jockers v. Borgman, 29 Kan. 109, 

» 43 Hun, 374. 44 Am. Rep. 625. 

" Clinton v. Laning, 61 Mich. 355, " Larzelere v. Kirchgessner, 73 Mich. 

28 N. W. 125. 276, 41 N. W. 488; Johnson v. Schvdtz, 

" Illinois: McMahon v. Sankey, 133 74 Mich. 75, 41 N. W. 865. 

lU. 636, 24 N. E. 1026. " Betting v. Hobbett, 142 Dl. 72, 

Iowa: Thill v. Pohlman, 76 la. 638, 30 N. E. 1048. 

41 N. W. 385. " Sellars v. Foster, 27 Neb. 118. 

Nebraska: Warrick r'. Rounds, 17 
Xcb. 411. 



§§ 1249a, 1250 other damages 2569 

to her support, still she is entitled at least to the amount of 
his earnings spent in liquor." Plaintiff is however not en- 
titled to all the earnings her husband would have made if the 
defendant had not sold him liquor. She is entitled only to 
what she would have received, so far as was suitable to her 
station and situation in Ufe.*' If by reason of the husband's 
wealth or otherwise his wife is provided with reasonable sup- 
port, she cannot recover for loss of support simply because 
he neglects his business or earns less money and so is not pos- 
sessed of as large means as he otherwise would be.*^ 

§ 1249a. Injury to property. 

Where the compensation is for injury to property, prospec- 
tive damages are allowed, and include expenses of medicines 
and medical attendance, the necessity of doing additional labor, 
and almost every species of pecuniary damage. ^^ 

§ 1260. Other damages. 

The cases in which damages are given for injuries other than 
to means of support consequent upon the intoxication of the 
person doing the injury, illustrate the general rule that the meas- 
ure of damages depends upon the extent of the injury. Thus, 
in Bertholf v. O'Reilly,^* the son of the plaintiff, on a Sunday, 
took the plaintiff's horse, saying that he was going to see 
a friend, but instead went directly to the defendant's place 
and became intoxicated there, and, being in such a state, drove 
the horse so violently that it died. It was held that he could 
recover the value of the horse. In Morenus v. Crawford ^' it was 
held that plaintiff, a married woman, could recover, under the 
civil damage act, for a horse belonging to her, killed by her 
husband while intoxicated. In Aldrick v. Sager,^* where the de- 
fendant sold liquor to the son-in-law of the plaintiff, who be- 

" Rouse V. Melsheimer, 82 Mich. 172. Nebraska: Keeling v. Pommer, 83 

" McNetton v. Herb, 158 Mich. 525, Neb. 610, 120 N. W. 155. 

123 N. W. 17. Wigcmsin: Wightman v. Devere, 33 

" Confrey v. Stark, 73 III. 187. Wis. 570. 

« lUinma: McEvoy v. Humphrey, « 8 Hun, 16; aff'd 74 N. Y. 509, 3 

77 111. 388 (see Coleman v. People, 78 Am. Rep. 323. 

111. App. 210). "51 Hun, 89. 

Michigan: Thomas v. Dansby, 74 " 9 Hun, 537. 
Mich. 398, 41 N. W, 1088. 



2570 iDAilAGES UNDEB CIVIL bAMAGE STATUTES § 1251 

came intoxicated thereby, and in consequence thereof drove a 
team behind which he and the plaintiff's wife were riding, so 
recklessly as to upset the wagon and break the wife's arm, it 
was held that the husband was entitled to recover for the loss 
of her service and the expense of medical attendance. In 
Kilburn v. Coe,^^ where the plaintiff's intestate was an habitual 
drunkard, and the defendant sold him Uquor, it was held that 
an action could be maintained to recover money paid for the 
hquor, as one of the consequences of the sale was to deprive 
the purchaser of the price paid. In Peterson v. Knoble,^" 
where plaintiff's husband became intoxicated from Uquor 
sold by the defendant, and by threatening and frightening 
the plaintiff, compelled her to leave the house and remain 
away until he became sober, it was held that turning the plain- 
tiff out of doors was an injury for which an action could be 
maintained by her. 

The plaintiff may recover compensation for the subsequent 
thriftless career of the victim, and his becoming an habitual 
drunkard, and being unable to obtain employment; " and the 
costs and expenses of actions, both civil and criminal, brought 
against the victim in consequence of his drinking may also be 
recovered.'^ 

§ 1251. Sales by several persons. 

The question of the liability, under the statute, of several 
persons for the result of injuries done by a person intoxicated 
on liquor purchased from them, has also come before the courts, 
and, in Boyd v. Watt,^' where the plaintiff's husband was 
a practicing physician, and became an habitual drunkard, 
and died from the effects: it was held, that the defendant 
was only liable for his own illegal acts, but that this was an 
action for damages on account of habitual intoxication, not 

'^ 48 How. Pr. 144. But see Mc- It has, however, been held that the 

Netton V. Herb, 158 Mich. 525, 123 trouble and discomfort the intoxicated 

N. W. 17. person afterwards found in doing his 

'» 35 Wis. 80. work is not cause for compensation. 

'* Kansas: Jockers v. Borgman, 29 Borgasen v. Eklund, 96 111. App. 443. 

Kan. 109, 44 Am. Rep. 625. " Wesnieski v. Vanek (Neb.), 99 

Nebraska: Stahnka v. Kreitle, 66 N. W. 258. 

Neb. 829, 92 N. W. 1042. '•' 27 Oh. St. 259. 



§ 1261 Sales by several peiis6ns S57l 

for special cases of intoxication. That if defendant's course 
was one which tended to produce this, he was Uable for all 
damages, although others may have contributed. That he was 
one of the joint tort-feasers, and the fact that no conspiracy or 
agreement existed between the tort-feasors did not make any 
difference; each was liable for all damages. In Woolheather 
V. Risley ^* it was held that the fact that defendant was aided 
by others in committing a wrong, and did not do it solely, 
would not relieve him from the consequences of that wrong, 
if he contributed to the intoxication. In Jewett v. Wanshura,^^ 
where several persons had sold intoxicating liquors to the 
husband, a settlement by the wife with one of them, it was held, 
did not operate to discharge the others from Uability; but, in 
Morenus v. Crawford,^* where the plaintiff brought an action 
against the defendants to recover the value of a horse belonging 
to her separate estate, which was killed by her husband while 
intoxicated on Uquors purchased from the defendants, it was 
held that no recovery could be had on evidence of separate 
sales. 

On the other hand, in Iowa, it seems to be now settled that 
where there are a series of sales a joint action will not lie, and 
the defendant is not Uable for damages to which he did not 
contribute. '' In Massachusetts it has been held that, in an 
action for causing intoxication, the defendant is liable for any 
results of intoxication, although the liquor sold by the defend- 
ant contributed only in part to the intoxication; but he is not 
Uable for the formation of habits of intoxication where other 
parties sold Uquor.** The present Nebraska statute makes 
every one who contributes to the intoxication Uable. ^' Under 

" 38 la. 486. la. 486. Where, however, the suit is 

" 43 la. 574. based on a single intoxication, all who 

^ 15 Hun, 45. contributed to it are liable. Faivre v. 

"Huggins V. Kavanagh, 52 la. 368; Manderschied, 117 la. 724, 90 N. W. 

Jackson v. Noble, 54 la. 641; ace, 76. 

Kirchner v. Myera, 35 Oh. St. 85, 35 '» Bryant v. Tidgewell, 133 Mass. 86. 

Am. Rep. 598; Ennis v. Shiley, 47 la. " Kerkow v. Bauer, 15 Neb. 150; 

552; Engleken v. Webber, 47 la. 558; Elshire v. Schuyler, 15 Neb. 561; Jones 

Kearney v. Fitzgerald, 43 la. 580; v. Bates, 26 Neb. 693, 42 N. W. 753. 

Hitchner v. Ehlers, 44 la. 40; La France But the fact that the husband drank to 

V. Krayer, 42 la. 143; Flint v. Gauer, excess in other saloons before defend- 

66 la. 696; Richmond v. Shickler, 57 ant sold him liquor may be shown to 



2572 DAMAGES TTNDER CIVIL DAMAGE STATUTES § 1252 

the Kansas statute each seller is responsible.*" Where a sale 
of liquor throws a man back into habits of intoxication which 
he had abandoned the plaintiff may recover for the consequent 
loss of support." 

§ 1252. Acquiescence a bar. 

Acquiescence by the persons seeking to recover in the obtain- 
ing of Uquor for the person doing the injury, or in uniting with 
him in drinking, or permitting him to drink, when the party 
bringing the action might have interposed and prevented, are 
held sufficient to bar a recovery under the statute.®^ Thus, in 
Engleken v. Hilger *^ it was held that the wife could not recover 
damages from the seller of intoxicating liquors for injuries 
conmiitted by her husband upon herself, while he was intoxi- 
cated, if she has contributed to his intoxication by purchasing 
the liquor, or joining with him in drinking it. In Reget v. 
Bell,** the plaintiff's husband, who was a hard-working man, 
subject to occasional fits of intemperance, but who treated her 
kindly at all times, bought a jug of whiskey and put it by his 
bedside one night, and in the morning it was nearly all gone. 
He died from the effects of the liquor; and it was held that, 
from the testimony, it was plain that the plaintiff could have 
taken the whiskey away from her husband; and, from the 
evidence as to character, it would not do for her to say she was 
afraid, but she must be considered to have been a willing party 
to her husband's conduct, and, therefore, could not recover. 
But where the acquiescence of the wife is attended with cir- 
cumstances which justify the conclusion that she acted under 
the coercion of her husband, her acquiescence in the sale of the 
liquor to him will be no defence. Thus, in Jewett v. Wan- 
shura,®^ where the plaintiff forbade the defendant to sell liquor 
to her husband, but a day or two thereafter the plaintiff and 

affect the amount of recovery. Uld- 58 N. W. 476, evidence that plaintiff 

rich V. Gilmore, 35 Neb. 288, 53 N. W. had herself furnished her husband with 

135. liquor was allowed in mitigation. 

6° Jockers v. Borgman, 29 Kan. 109, " 43 la. 563; ace, McDonald v. 

44 Am. Rep. 625. Casey, 84 Mich. 505, 47 N. W. 1104 

"Selders v. Brothers, 88 Neb. 61, (semble). 

129 N. W. 170. " 77 111. 593. See, also, Kearney t;. 

62 Elliott V. Barry, 34 Hun, 129. In Fitzgerald, 43 la. 580. 

Cramer t. Danielson, 99 Mich. 531, 6* ,43 la. 574. 



§§ 1253, 1254 EXEMPLAEY DAMAGES 2573 

her husband went to the defendant's saloon, and counter- 
manded her previous order, and the plaintiff proved that she 
was compelled to retract her order by the threats of her husband 
that he would abandon her and take her child from her; al- 
though knowledge of these threats was not brought home to 
the defendant, it was held that there was a reasonable inference 
to be drawn from the conduct of the plaintiff, that she acted 
under restraint, and that the defendant was therefore liable. 
The act of a married woman in signing a petition for defend- 
ant's license as a seller does not operate as a bar; it is no ac- 
quiescence in his subsequently injuring her by a violation of 
the act.^^ 

§ 1253. Avoidable consequences. 

As acquiescence is a bar, so no doubt the rule of avoidable 
consequences applies. The remarks of the Supreme Court of 
Nebraska, in Warrick v. Rounds,^^ on this subject only go to 
show that the rule was not applicable under the circumstances 
under consideration. 

§ 1264. Exemplary damages. 

Exemplary damages may be recovered under the statute; '' 
but, as in all cases, they can only be recovered where actual 
damages are sustained.^' And where the defendant's servant, 

«« Jockers v. Borgman, 29 Kan. 109, Ante, § 377a. 

44 Am. Rep. 625. In Nebraska, in accordance with the 

" 17 Neb. 411. doctrine there held, exemplary dam- 

*' Illinois: Lowry v. Coster, 91 111. ages are not allowed without express 

182; Wolfe v. Johnson, 152 111. 280, 38 statutory provision to that effect. 

N. E. 886; Beckerle v. Brandon, 229 Roose v. Perkins, 9 Neb. 304, 2 N. W. 

111. 180, 82 N. E. 283, affirming 133 111. 715, 31 Am. Rep. 409. 

App. 114. In Michigan the term exemplary 

Maine: Campbell v. Harmon, 96 Me. damages means increased damages on 

87, 51 Atl. 801. account of mental suffering. Boydan 

Michigan: Theisen v. Johns, 72 v. Haberstumpf, 129 Mich. 137, 88 N. 

Mich. 285, 40 N. W. 727. W. 386. 

Ohio: Bean v. Green, 33 Oh. St. 444. «' Illinois: Freese v. Tripp, 70 111. 

West Virginia: Mayer v. Frobe, 40 496; McEvoy v. Humphrey, 77 111. 388; 

W. Va. 246, 22 S. E. 58 (overruling McMahon v. Sankey, 133 111. 636, 24 

Pegram v. Stortz, 31 W. Va. 220, 6 S. E. N. E. 1027; Kennedy v. Sullivan, 136 

485); McMaster v. Dyer, 44 W. Va. 111. 94, 26 N. E. 382; Meidel v. Anthis, 

644, 29 S. E. 1016. 71 111. 241; Fentz v. Meadows, 72 111. 



2574 DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL DAMAGE STATUTES § 1254 

in disobedience of his master's order, sold liquor to the plain- 
tiff's husband, who became intoxicated, and thereby the 
plaintiff was injured in her means of support, it was held that 
the court below should have instructed the jiuy that exempkry 
damages could not be awarded, unless the act of giving or 
selling intoxicating liquor to the husband of the plaintiff was 
wilful.'" To the same effect see Ganssly v. Perkins.'^ It is also 
held that the defendant can show, in mitigation of exemplary 
damages, that the liquor was sold by his servant in disobedience 
of his order.'^ 

In New York, where the statute expressly allows exemplary 
damages, the fact that the defendant was selling liquor without 
a license may be considered as a basis for exemplary damages.^' 
The ordinary common-law rules govern the allowance of ex- 
emplary damages, and malice or some bad motive or evil intent 
or gross negligence, must be shown.'* In Secor v. Taylor,'* the 
court says that if half a dozen actions are brought for the single 
act of permitting lessees to sell, the defendant should at least 
be entitled to have any prior judgments for exemplary damages 
brought before the jury, in order that they may know how 
much punishment has already been inflicted. In Ketcham v. 
Fox '8 it was held that a lessor, in the absence of any evidence 
to show that he had knowledge of the circumstances under 

540; Graham w. Fulford, 73 111. 596; Al- "Fentz v. Meadows, 72 111. 540; 

brecht v. Walker, 73 111. 69; Neu v. Mc- Freeze v. Tripp, 70 111. 496. In Ne- 

Kechnie, 95 111. 632. braska it is held that no exemplary 

Iowa: Weitz v. Ewen, 50 la. 34; Fox damages can be given. Roose v. Per- 

V. Wunderlich, 64 la. 187, 20 N. W. 7. kins, 9 Neb. 304, 31 Am. Rep. 409. 

Causing the plaintiff's husband to use " Davis v. Standish, 26 Hun, 608. 

threatening language, etc., is not a '* Illinois: Kellerman v. Arnold, 71 

ground for exemplary damages. Callo- 111. 632; Kadgin v. Miller, 13 LI. App. 

way V. Laydon, 47 la. 456, 29 Am. Rep. 474. 

489. Michigan: Larzelere v. Kirchgessner, 

Maine: Gilmore v. Mathews, 67 Me. 73 Mich. 276, 41 N. W. 488. 

517. New York: Reid v. Terwilliger, 116 

Michigan: Ganssly v. Perkins, 30 N. Y. 530, 22 N. E. 1091; RawUns v. 

Mich. 492; Rouse v. Melsheimer, 82 Vidvard, 34 Hun, 205. 

Mich. 172, 46 N. W. 372; Rosecrants v. Wisconsin: Wightman v. Devere, 

Shoemaker, 60 Mich. 4. 33 Wis. 570. 

New York: Mead v. Stratton, 87 'Ml Hun, 123; c/. Reid ». Terwilliger, 

N. Y. 493, 41 Am. Rep. 386. 42 Hun, 310. 

" Kreiter v. Nichols, 28 Mich. 496. « 52 Hun, 284. 

" 30 Mich. 492. 



§ 1255 CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES 2575 

which the liquor was sold, was not liable in exemplary damages. 
It is held in Iowa that exemplary damages may be recovered 
wherever there has been a wilful violation of the statute." 

Exemplary damages are awarded on account of the mis- 
conduct of the defendant. Hence, where the evidence showed 
that the plaintiff notified defendant not to sell any more liquor 
to her husband, he being an habitual drunkard, and his habits 
being necessarily known to defendant, it was held that the case 
came within the rule.'* On the other hand, it is erroneous to 
require the jury to find exemplary damages if they find actual 
damages. This is for the jury to determine under proper in- 
structions." In Indiana, where the act is punishable crimi- 
nally, exemplary damages are not allowed.'" 

In an action on a liquor-dealer's bond, since the action 
sounds in contract, exemplary damages cannot be recovered.*^ 

§ 1265. Consequential damages. 

The question what damages are remote from the wrongful 
sale of liquor, in an action upon the Civil Damage Act, is a 
question which is not always decided as strictly as at common- 
law. The court often allows recovery for injuries which in 
ordinary cases would be regarded as remote; though of course 
if no connection whatever can be shown between the intoxica- 
tion and the injury a recovery will not be allowed.*^ Thus, in 
a case in Illinois, where an habitual drunkard was killed while 
in a state of intoxication, and his wife brought a joint action 

" Fox V. Wunderlich, 64 la. 187, 20 '» Schafer v. Smith, 63 Ind. 226; 

N. W. 7; Miller t>. Hammers, 93 la. 746, Koerner v. Oberly, 56 Ind. 284, 26 

61 N. W. 1087. Am. Rep. 34. 

So in Ohio: Schneider v. Hosier, 21 " Illinois: Cobb v. People, 84 III. 

Oh. St. 98. 511. 

™ Joekers v. Borgman, 29 Kan. 109, Iowa: Richmond v. Shickler, 57 la. 

44 Am. Rep. 625. In Michigan, it 486, 10 N. W. 882. 

seems, a mere notice not to sell is South Dakota: Garrigan «. Thompson, 

enough. Larzelere v. Kirchgessner, 73 17 S. D. 132, 95 N. W. 294. 

Mich. 276, 41 N. W. 488; Rouse v. Ante, § 683. 

Melsheimer, 82 Mich. 172, 46 N. W. ^^ Illinois: McMahon v. Sankey, 133 

372. 111. 636, 24 N. E. 1027. 

" Illinois: Tetzner v. Naughton, 12 Indiana: Mulcahey v. Givens, 115 

III. App. 148; Schimmelfenig v. DoUr Ind. 286. 

ovan, 13 111. App. 47. Michigan: Steele v. Thompson, 42 

But see Imva: Thill v. Pohlman, 76 Mich. 594. 
la. 638, 41 N. W. 385. 



2576 DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL DAMAGE STATUTES § 1255 

against certain persons who sold him liquor on the day of his 
death, and others who were charged with causing the habit of 
intoxication, it was held that the latter could not be charged, 
the sales on the day of his death being an intervening cause.*' 

Where the intoxication causes illness or insanity, the de- 
fendant is Uable for it;** thus illness caused by exposure to the 
elements as a result of the intoxication is chargeable to the 
defendant.*^ On the other hand, it has been held that where 
money was taken by thieves from the drunkard while he was 
helpless from intoxication it could not be recovered from the 
defendant.*® 

Where the person who has become intoxicated on liquor 
furnished by defendant starts home in a vehicle and because 
of his intoxication he falls out of the wagon *^ or his horse runs 
away,** the defendant is liable for the resulting injury. But 
where the intoxicated person lay down in bottom of his wagon 
going home and a barrel rolled on him and killed him, it was 
held too remote.** So if, while on his way home, the intoxicated 
person is drowned by a freshet *• or run over by a train *^ the 
defendant has been held responsible. Where after being made 
drunk by the defendant, he made an attack upon a neighbor's 
house, and was killed, this result was held too remote for com- 
pensation.*^ When he made an assault, this was held remote; *' 
and a fortiori his imprisonment, as a result of such assault has 
been held remote.** But in a New York case, the plaintiff 
alleged that her husband had been made intoxicated through 

8' Tetzner v. Naughton, 12 ID. App. " Illinois: Schroder ». Crawford, 94 
148; cf. Murphy i;. Curran, 24 111. App. Bl. 357, 34 Am. Rep. 236. 
475. Massachusetts: McNary v. Black- 
s' Mulford V. Qewell, 21 Oh. St. bum, 180 Mass. 141, 61 X. E. 885. 
191. Contra, Indiana: Collier v. Early, 54 

«5 Nelson v. Hunter, 32 Ind. App. 88, Ind. 559. 

69 N. E. 298. « Schmidt v. MitcheU, 84 lU. 195, 

" Gage V. Harvey, 66 Ark. 68, 48 25 Am. Rep. 446. And so where he 

S. W; 898. was injured in an assault upon a third 

s' Mead v. Stratton, 87 N. Y. 493, party. Currier v. McKee, 99 Me. 364, 

41 Am. Rep. 386. 59 Atl. 442. 

Thinlap v. Wagner, 85 Ind. 529, "Swinfin v. Lowiy, 37 Minn. 345, 

44 Am. E«p. 42; Mulcahey v. Givens, 34 N. W. 22; contra, where the assault 

115 Ind. 286, 17 N. E. 598. was on the wife. Minot v. Doherty, 

» Krach v. Heihnan, 53 Ind. 517. 203 Mass. 37, 89 X. E. 188. 

" Hackett v. Smelsley, 77 Rl. 109. " Bradford v. Boley, 167 Pa. 506, 



§ 1255 CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES 2577 

the defendant's selling to him; that while so intoxicated he 
shot and killed one B, and was thereupon tried and convicted, 
and sent to prison for life. Under these circumstances it was 
held that his wife could recover for deprivation of means of 
support.*' 

The deceased, having become intoxicated, got into a quarrel, 
went with his opponent for some distance into a vacant lot and 
there fought him, and while they were fighting, somebody 
shouted "police," whereupon the drunken man ran away into 
another lot and there fell into a hole and was killed. It was 
held that this was not the proximate consequence of the sale of 
liquor. If he had injured himself while going home along the 
highway or had been rxm over by a train on his way home, or 
if he had been injured by a person whom he had assaulted, that 
might be proximate, but this was not.^ 

On the other hand, where as a result of drinking the drinker 
committed suicide, this was held proximate to the sale.*^ And 
in an extreme case where the plaintiff's husband while intoxi- 
cated sold her personal property she was allowed to recover its 
value.* But where plaintiff was following her husband to see 
where he obtained his liquor and as he came out of defendant's 
saloon in order to get out of his sight she hurried and sUpped on 
the sidewalk and was injured, it was held not the proximate 
consequence of her husband's intoxication.'* But where the 
defendant, in violation of a statute, sold hquor to a slave, who 
died of drunkeimess and exposure, the jury held the death to 
be the natural result of the defendant's act, and he was there- 
fore obhged to give compensation for it.^* 

31 Atl. 751. Or where he was im- wife while drunk and committed sui- 

prisoned for burglary committed while dde). 

intoxicated. Dennison v. Van Wonner, South Dakota: Garrigan v. Kennedy, 

107 Mich. 461, 65 X. W. 274. 19 S. Dak. 11, 101 N. W. 1081 (com- 

'* Beere o. Walhizer, 43 Hun, 254; mitted suicide after becoming sober). 
ace., Homire ». Halfman , 156 Ind. 470, * Mulfoid v. aewell, 21 Oh. St. 191. 

60 X. E. 164. So where the intoxication deprived the 

» Boach V. Kelly, 194 Pa. 24, 44 Atl. drunkard's son of school books. Stratt- 

1090, 75 Am. St. Rep. 685. man v. Moore, 134 HI. App. 275. 

" Iowa: BistUne v. Ney, 134 la. 172, " Johnson v. Drummond, 16 111. 

Ill N. W. 422, 13 L. R. A. (X. S.) 1158. App. 641. 

New York: Xeu v. McKechnie, 95 ™ Harrison v. Berkeley, 1 Strohb. 

N. Y. 632, 47 Am. Rep. 89 OdUed his (S. C.) L. 525, 47 Am. Dec. 578. 

162 



2578 DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL DAMAGE STATUTES § 1256 

The attempt has been made in Georgia, which has no civil 
damage statute, to apply the principle of these acts to the 
statute allowing a recovery for death caused by crime, or 
"criminal or other negligence." But the court not being able 
to find the necessary causal connection between the act of 
furnishing to a third person, and the death of the plaintiff, 
refused to hold the defendant liable, i" In New York it seems 
to be settled that when death ensues, the question is not 
whether the death was the natural, reasonable, or probable 
consequence of defendant's act, but it was enough if intoxica- 
tion, caused in whole or in part by liquors sold by the defend- 
ant, was the cause of the death, if by reason thereof plaintiff's 
means of support were injuriously affected. ^"^ 

§ 1256. Mental suffering. 

It is clearly settled that mental suffering is not a ground for. 
the recovery of damages, under the statute, where by its terms 
the recovery is confined to cases of injury to person or prop- 
gj-^yios g^j^ ^Yie statute may be broader than this. Thus, in 
Michigan, it covers any injury, and accordingly in that State 
it has been held that it would be a "mockery of justice" to ex- 
clude evidence of mental anguish, disgrace, and loss of society 
and companionship in the case of a married woman; i"* but 
this is confined to shame, mortification, and grief arising from 
the intoxication itself and not grief from an injury received 
by the intoxicated person.'"^ 

>" Belding v. Johnson, 86 Ga. 177, 12 Iowa: Kearney v. Fitzgerald, 43 la. 

S. E. 304. 580; Calloway v. Laydon, 47 la. 456, 29 

"2 New York: Beers v. Walhizer, 43 Am. Rep. 489; Jackson v. Noble, 54 la. 

Hun, 254; Blatz v. Rohrbach, 42 Hun, 641, 7 N. W. 88. 

402; Volans v. Owen, 74 N. Y. 529, 30 Ohio: Mulford v. Clewell, 21 Oh. St. 

Am. Rep. 337; Mead v. Stratton, 87 191. 

N. Y. 496, 41 Am. Rep. 386; Neu v. i»^ Friend v. Dunks, 37 Mich. 25; 

McKechnie, 95 N. Y. 636; McCarty v. Johnson v. Schultz, 74 Mich. 75, 41 

WeUs, 51 Hun, 172; s. c. 4 N. Y. Supp. N. W. 865; Radley v. Seider, 99 Mich. 

672. 431, 58 N. W. 366; Lucker v. Liske, 111 

'»3 Illinois: Freeze v. Tripp, 70 111. Mich. 683, 70 N. W. 421. See Clmton 

496; Meidel v. Anthis, 71 111. 241; w. Laning, 61 Mich. 355, 28 N. W. 125. 

Brantigan v. While, 73 111. 561. '»5 sissing v. Beach, 99 Mich. 439, 58 

Indiana: Koemer v. Oberly, 56 Ind. N. W. 364. 
284. 



CHAPTER LIV 



DAMAGES IN EQUITY 

§ 1256a. Allowance of damages by a § 1256f. Damages granted for the pro- 
court of equity. tection of the defendant. 

1256b. Power of English court of 1256g. Taking of an account. 

equity to award damages. 1256h. Damages against a trustee for 

1256c. Damages as incidental relief. breach of trust. 

1256d. Damages on failure to obtain 1256i. Time to which damages are 



equitable relief. 

1256e. No damages where plaintiff 1256]. Damages assessed on legal 
should not have sued in principles, 

equity. 1256k. Interest. 

§ 1256a. Allowance of damages by a court of equity. 

A court of equity will not in general grant relief by the allow- 
ance of damages. It is a general principle of the equity juris- 
diction that it will not be afforded when there is an adequate 
remedy at law, and as a court of law is peculiarly competent to 
give a judgment for money damages, it is very seldom the 
case that a court of equity can be called upon to grant pecun- 
iary compensation. The fact that in equity relief is adminis- 
tered without trial by jury, makes it peculiarly important that 
its jurisdiction should not be extended and that wherever a 
court of law has complete power to do justice, the court of 
equity should not by its interference deprive the defendant of 
the benefit of jury trial. ^ Where, as is now often the case, the 
same court administers both legal and equitable relief, this 
argument has become less important, as it is always in the 
power of the court to have the issue tried by jury even though 
it arises in the course of a suit asking for equitable relief.^ 

§ 1256b. Power of English court of equity to award damages. 
While the granting of damages in equity is not commonly 

•Woodman v. Freeman, 25 Me. 531. Co., '56 App. Div. 9, 67 N. Y. Supp. 
2 See McNutty o. Mt. Morris E. L. 395. 

2579 



2580 DAMAGES IN EQUITY § 1256b 

provided, it is nevertheless entirely within the power of the 
court to administer relief in this form. As early as the reign 
of Richard II., the chancellor was given power by statute to 
award damages in his discretion.' Modern legislation in Eng- 
land ^ provides that in all cases in which the Court of Chancery 
has jurisdiction to entertain an application for an injunction 
against a breach of any contract, covenant, or agreement, or 
against the commission or continuance of any wrongful act, 
or for the specific performance of any contract, covenant, or 
agreement, it shall be lawful for the same court, if it think fit, 
to award damages to the party injured, either in addition to 
or substitution for such injunction or specific performance, and 
that such damages may be assessed by a jury,, or before the 
court itself, as it shall think fit.^ But under this act, it was held 
by Wood, V. C, that the court will not award damages in ad- 
dition to a decree for specific performance where it does not 
appear that the plaintiff has sustained any special injury.^ 
Nor, after making a decree for specific performance, can it add 
an order assessing damages for the breach of the covenant.^ 
Nor can it award the damages unless there is an agreement 
capable of being specifically performed.* In cases where, under 
this statute, the court, instead of granting an injunction against 
interference with the complainanf^s right, may give compensa- 
tion, the compensation is given once for all; it cannot be given, 
as in an action at law, toties quoties.^ It is questionable whether, 
even under the codes of practice in the American States, 
comprehensive as they are, such a jurisdiction could be exer- 
cised as that conferred by this English legislation,'" which was 
continued and even increased under the Judicature Act.'' 

3 10 Rich. 2. 9 Stokes v. The City Offices Co., 13 

< 21 and 22 Vict., c. 27 (Sir Hugh L. T. R. 81. 

Cairns' Act). i»See Troy v. Clarke, 30 Cal. 419. 

' See Durell v. Pritchard, L. R. 1 Ch. Where courts of equity exercise juris- 

244. diction to assess damages, as in tlie 

' Chinnock v. Marchioness of Ely, case of a wrongful taking and deten- 

2 H. & M. 220. tion of property, they will give neither 

' Corporation of Hythe v. East, L. R. vindictive nor speculative damages, 

1 Eq. 620. but compensation only. Sanders v. 
' Lewers v. Earl of Shaftesbury, L. R. Anderson, 10 Rich. Eq. 232. 

2 Eq. 270; Ferguson v. Wilson, L. R. " Sayera v. CoUyer, 28 Ch. D. 107. 
2 Ch. 77. 



§§ 1256c, 1256d failure to obtain equitable relief 2581 

§ 1266c. Damages as incidental relief. 

When equity has taken jurisdiction of a bill either for the 
restraiat Of a trespass, nuisance or other tort, or for the specific 
performance of a contract, and has granted the relief sought, it 
wiU commonly go on and do complete justice between the par- 
ties by giving damages for the tort or breach, rather then send 
the plaintiff back to a coiu-t of law, where he must go to the 
trouble and expense of another suit, merely to obtain in the end 
damages which it is entirely within the power of the court of 
equity to grant in the original suit.'^ It may of course happen 
that the injunction or decree for performance will of itself give 
complete relief, without the award of damages.^' 

§ 1266d. Damages on failure to obtain equitable relief. 

Where a bill is filed for equitable reUef and for some reason 
the court is unable or unwilling to grant the relief sought, it 
may nevertheless under some circumstances retain the biU 
for the purpose of granting damages rather than compel the 
plaintiff to bring a second action at law in order to obtain the 
damages which he is entitled to seek. This will always be done 
where the failm-e to obtain equitable reUef is due to the fault of 
the defendant, by putting it out of his own power, after the trial 
begins, to grant the relief sought.^* "It is well settled . . . 
that when a defendant in a biU in equity disenables himself, 
pending the suit, to comply with an order for specific rehef, 
the court will proceed to afford reUef by way of compelling 
compensation to be made, and for this purpose will retain the 
bill and determine the amount of such compensation, although 
its nature and measure are precisely the same as the party would 
otherwise recover as damages in an action at law." ^' So where 
a bill was brought to enjoin town ofl&cers from removing the 
plaintiff's building and obHterating his boundaries and pend- 

" Pomeroy, Eq., § 237. See Atlantic New York: O'Beime v. Bullis, 80 

& C. A. L. Ry. V. Victor Mfg. Co., 79 Hun, 570, 30 X. Y. Supp. 588. 

S. C. 266, 60 S. E. 675. Vermont: Hazen v. Lyndonville Bank, 

" Cochrane v. Justice Min. Co., 4 70 Vt. 543, 41 Atl. 1046, 67 Am. St. 

Colo. App. 234, 35 Pac. 752. Rep. 680. 

" New Hampshire: State v. Sunapee Pomeroy, Eq., § 237, n. 3. 

Dam Co., 72 N. H. 114, 55 Atl. 899. " Milkman v. Oidway, 106 Mass. 

232. 



^582 DAMAGES IN EQUITY § 1256e 

ing the suit the town officers replied that they had ah-eady, since 
the filing of the bill, removed the building and graded down the 
lot, the court refused to dismiss the bill, but retained it for the 
assessment of damages. ^^ 

If the court finds it impossible to grant the equitable reUef 
not because the defendant has disabled himself during the 
progress of the suit, but for some other reason unknown to the 
plaintiff at the time he filed his biU, the court wiU not m general 
punish the plaintiff for his ignorance or lack of foresight by 
compelling him to go to a court of law for reUef , but since he is 
without fault, although it cannot grant the relief sought, it 
will give him damages. Thus, where by reason of defect of 
title, or for any other reason existing before suit brought, but 
unknown to the plaintiff, the court is imable to grant specific 
performance of a contract or injunction against a tort, it wiU 
nevertheless retain the bill and give damages.'^ And so, where, 
by reason of the expiration of the plaintiff's lease pending the 
suit, the court was imable to grant him the relief sought, he was 
allowed relief by way of damages, i* 

§ 1266e. No damages where plaintiff should not have sued 
in equity. 

If the circumstances are such that the plaintiff should not 
have brought his suit in equity, but have gone originally to the 
court of law, equity will not retain the bill to award damages 
even though on the face of the bill a proper case for the exercise 
of equitable jm-isdiction is made out. In an old EngUsh case the 
plaintiff brought a bUl to have an account of satisfaction for 
waste. The bill was brought after the defendant had assigned 
the term. Lord Hardwick said: "The ground of coming into 
this court is to stay the waste and not by way of satisfaction for 
the damages, but by way of prevention of the wrong, which 
coiu-ts of law cannot do in those instances where a prohibition of 
waste will not strictly lie; but in all these cases this court has 
gone further merely upon the maxim of preventing multiplicity 
of suits, which is the reason that determines this court in many 

i« Lewis V. North Kingstown, 16 R. I. 91 N. E. 555; Pomeroy, Eq., § 237, n. 3. 

15, 11 Atl. 173, 27 Am. St. Rep. Ante, § 1021. 

724. 18 Case v. Minot, 158 Mass. 577, 33 

" Stewart v. Joyce, 205 Mass. 371, N. E. 700, 22 L. R. A. 636. 



§ 1256f PROTECTION OF THE DEPENDANT 2583 

cases; . . . but nothing would tend to greater vexation than 
to admit of such bills as of the present after the term is at 
an end." " So where the plaintiff knows before he files his 
bill that the equitable relief which he asks is impossible, or that 
the only relief he can get is damages, the bill will be dismissed 
and no damages will be granted.^ So where equitable relief 
is refused because of the plaintiff's own fault or laches, the court 
will not ordinarily retain the bill in order to grant legal relief 
by way of damages. Thus, where the plaintiff asked for the 
specific performance of a contract to convey land, but the court 
refused to grant specific performance on the ground that the 
consideration was inadequate, it being considerably less than 
half the value of the land, the court not only refused to grant 
the relief sought, but dismissed the bill without giving dam- 
ages. ^^ 

§ 1256f . Damages granted for the protection of the defendant. 
Where the defendant is not really in fault, although it is not 
a case where the plaintiff on his own claims would be entitled 
to rehef by way of damages, the court of equity may grant such 
reUef as part of a general equitable settlement of the contro- 
versy. It is by this method that the New York courts have 
often granted complete compensation in the litigation arising 
out of the running of elevated railroads through the streets. ^^ 
So where a city by the establishment of driven wells and pump- 
ing stations continuously caused injuries to the plaintiff through 
the drying up of a water course, and the absorption of under- 
ground waters, thereby injuring the plaintiff's farm, and it 
appeared that the city was acting in a proper manner authorized 
by law, it was held that the court should not grant a permanent 
injunction, since the controversy ought to be settled by com- 
pelling the defendant to make full compensation in money to 
the plaintiffs; and the court therefore assessed the amount of 

" Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk. " Cummings v. Roeth, 10 Cal. App. 

262. 144, 101 Pac. 434. 

2» New York: Ellis v. Salmon, 57 " Lynch v. Metropolitan E. R. R., 

App. Div. 118, 67 N. Y. Supp. 1025. 129 N. Y. 274, 29 N. E. 315, 15 L. R. A. 

A^ort^ Dafcoto; Knudtson n. Robinson, 287, 26 Am. St. Rep. 523; American 

18 N. D. 12, 118 N. W. 1051. B. N. Co. v. New York E. R. R., 129 

Pomeroy, Eq., § 237, n. 3. N. Y. 252, 29 N. E. 302; ante, § 1196. 



2584 DAMAGES IN EQUITY § 1256g 

compensation and ordered the defendants to pay it and the 
plaintiffs to grant a release, in order that the entire controversy- 
might be closed up in a single suit.^' So where the plaintiff 
sued for an injunction against a dam maintained by the de- 
fendant under the mistaken beHef that he had obtained the 
right to do so by eminent domain proceedings, and it appeared 
that the plaintiff had permitted the dam to be built and main- 
tained for some time, the court refused to abate the damage 
on account of plaintiff's laches, but in order to close up the 
controversy it granted pecuniary damages.^* The real ground 
for these decisions is not any claim of the plaintiff's to have his 
damages assessed in the action. The court is acting out of 
regard for the defendant's rights fully as much as for the 
plaintiff's. In the language of Gray, J., in Westphal v. City of 
New York, 2^ "By coming in and submitting the matters in 
controversy between them and the defendant to a court of 
equity, the plaintiffs consented to the exercise of a jurisdiction 
which is plenary and unfettered in administering that full 
relief which will settle the controversy upon just principles. 
The plaintiffs renounced the right to pursue their remedy at 
law for the injuries suffered, and brought the matter on the 
equity side of the court, whereby it gained jurisdiction generally 
to adjust the disputes of the parties finally." 

§ 1266g. Taking of an account. 

In many branches of equity jurisdiction the court orders 
the taking of an account as a part of the relief administered. 
This, however, is not in any way the administering of damages 
for a wrong, but is merely ascertaining the state of the mutual 
rights of parties. Thus, in actions for the settlement of part- 
nership affairs or in suits for the redemption of mortgages, the 
court will settle the accounts between parties and make a 
decree for the payment of the balance. ^^ So in the case of a 
complicated account the court of equity may grant a decree 
for an accounting against fiduciaries or other accountable 
parties." This, as has been said, is in no sense the allowance 

23 Westphal v. New York, 177 N. Y. =6 177 n. y. 140, 69 N. E. 369. 

140, 69 N. E. 369. " Pomeroy, Eq., §§ 1190, 1421. 

" Miller v. Comwell, 71 Mich. 270, !' Pomeroy, Eq., §§ 1420 et seq. 
38 N. W. 912. 



§§ 1256h, 12561 time to which damages are assessed 2585 

of damage for the wrong and lies outside the scope of this work 
and we shall therefore not discuss the subject at greater length. 

§ 1256h. Damages against a trustee for breach of trust. 
A suit against a trustee is within the exclusive jurisdiction of 
equity and the relief administered is ordinarily a decree for an 
account. Where this is the case, the principles of the law of 
damages have no place. In case, however, of a conveyance by 
the trustee to a purchaser for value without notice, the cestui 
que trust may complain of the conveyance as a wrong to him and 
seek damages for it, or he may seek relief by way of an account- 
ing. In no case is he entitled to damages in a court of law since 
the relation is not there recognized. Even, therefore, if he com- 
plains of the wrong done him and seeks for damages, he must 
do it in the court of equity. If he seeks an accounting merely, 
the trustee will be obliged to account for the amount received 
by him for the trust property. If, however, the plaintiff seeks 
damages for the wrong, he will be entitled to recover from the 
trustee the value of the property disposed of at the time the 
trustee transferred it, without regard to the amount received 
by the trustee upon the sale of it,^^ or, at his option, the amount 
received, with interest.^* 

§ 12561. Time to which damages are assessed. 

Since the purpose of equity in granting damages as partial 
or entire relief is to close up the entire controversy, the damages 

^ New Jersey: General Proprietors v. beneficiary may, if he choose, demand 

Force, 72 N. J. Eq. 56, 68 Atl. 914. the property, or its value at a later 

Rhode Island: Manville Covering time. Bell v. Bell, 20 Ga. 250. As for 

Co. v.Babcock, 28R. 1. 496, 68 Atl. 421. instance at the time suit is brought. 

Texas: Boothe v. Feist, 80 Tex. 141, Mixon v. Miles (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 

15 S. W. 799, 19 S. W. 398; Silliman S. W. 105. 

V. Gano, 90 Tex. 637, 39 S. W. 559, 40 If no damages can be proved, be- 

S. W. 391; see Mixon v. Miles, 92 Tex. cause liens on the property equalled 

318, 47 S. W. 966. its value, nominal damages only can 

Virginia: Norman v. Cunningham, be recovered. Thoman v. Mills, 159 

5 Gratt. 63. Mich. 402, 124 N. W. 33. 

The price at which the trustee sold '^ California: Clapp v. Vatcher, 9 

may be taken as the value, in the ab- Cal. App. 462, 99 Pac. 549. 

sence of other evidence. Cross v. Cross, New Jersey: General Proprietors v. 

4 Gratt. 257. Force, 72 N. J. Eq. 66, 68 Atl. 914. 

Since the trustee is a fiduciary, the 



2586 DAMAGES IN EQUITY § 1256J 

granted by the court in the case of a continuing injury will be 
brought down to the date of the decree, since otherwise the 
court could not by its decree prevent the necessity of a resort 
to an action at law to get a part of the reUef to which the plain- 
tiff is entitled. »» 

§ 1266J. Damages assessed on legal principles. 

In Stewart v. Joyce " a bill was brought to set aside as 
fraudulent a sale and transfer of stock by the plaintiff to the 
defendant. Before the bill was filed the stock had been trans- 
ferred to a purchaser for value, but under the circumstances 
the court retained the bill and gave relief by way of dam- 
ages. The plaintiff claimed that the damages should be assessed 
as of the date of filing or of the final decree. The defendant 
contended that damages should be given as of the time of the 
original transfer; and the court so held. The case, the court 
said, was one for the assessment of damages pm-ely. The 
failure to obtain the relief for which the plaintiff came into 
equity had no effect in enhancing the damages which he would 
otherwise have been entitled to recover, or in other words, 
equity in granting damages measures them by the same rules 
which prevail at law. In equity the plaintiff could have the 
sale set aside and the stock returned to him so far as it was 
within the power of the defendant to return it; but if that is 
not possible, and the court having jurisdiction of the cause 
proceeds to assess the damages instead of compelhng him to 
bring an action at law, the rule of damages is and must be the 
same in one court as in another. The court then considered 
the case of Fowle v. Ward,^^ where one under a contract obliga- 
tion to keep the plaintiff's shares in his hands disposed of them 
wrongfully, and the court allowed as damages the sum which 
would enable the plaintiff to replace the shares the defendant 
had disposed of. The court said, however, that in this case at 
bar the defendant was not bound to have the stock in his 
hands when the bill was brought, or at any other time until the 

™ New York: John D. Park & Sons South Carolina: Southern Ry. v. 
Co. V. Hubbard, 134 App. Div. 468, Gossett, 79 S. C. 372, 60 S. E. 956. 
119 N. Y. Supp. 347. " 205 Mass. 371, 91 N. E. 555. 

'2 113 Mass. 548, 18 Am. Rep. 534. 



§ 1256k INTEREST ^587 

plaintiff elected to avoid the sale, and defendant could right- 
fully sell and dispose of the stock to an innocent purchaser. 
The court also said that the case differed from cases relating 
to specific performance, "even if we assume that in case of a 
partial or total inability to perform the damages would be 
assessed as of the date of the bringing of the bill or of the entry 
of the final decree of which there may be some doubt." 

The court added that if the defendant had disabled himself 
from convejang the stock by a sale after the bill was brought, 
a different rule might be apphed; having evidently in mind the 
fact that in that case it would have become the duty of the 
defendant to retain the stock in his hands for the plaintiff's 
benefit, and in that case the damages, either at law or in 
equity, would be based on the higher value of the stock at the 
time when the defendant should have restored it. 

§ 1266k. Interest. 

The general principles upon which interest is allowed by way 
of damages as a compensation for non-payment of money, 
appear to be the same at equity as in law. So upon a bill for 
an accoimting it was laid down by the Supreme Court of the 
United States '' that if the defendant has in his possession and 
control the means of determining the amount of his indebted- 
ness he should ascertain it, and tender the amount due, even 
though the complainant may have considered himself entitled 
to an account, and to a greater sum as balance due him than 
was actually found to be due; and if the defendant does not 
make such a tender he becomes Uable for interest. This is 
based on the general principle — which the coiirt seems to regard 
as equally apphcable to suits at law or in equity — that one who 
has had the use of money owing to another should pay interest 
on it from the time when the payment should have been made. 

'» Spalding v. Mason, 161 U. S. 375, whole subject of the allowance of in- 

395, 16 Sup. Ct. 592, 40 L. ed. 739; terest see the opinion of Putnam, J., 

Crescent Mfg. Co. v. Wabash Mfg. Co., in Nashua & Lowell R. R. v. Boston & 

151 U. S. 317, 323, 14 Sup. Ct. 348, Lowell R. R., 61 Fed. 237, 21 U. S. 

38 L. ed. 177; Sturm v. Boker, 150 U. S. App. 50, a case in which it was allowed 

312, 342, 14 Sup. Ct. 99, 37 L. ed. from the filing of the bill. 
1093. For an elaborate review of the 



CHAPTER LV 



PLEADING AND PRACTICE 



I. — Damages as Affected by the Plaintiff's Pleadings 



Averment of damage. 
Damages beyond amount 

laid. 
Method of curing the error. 
Averment of damage not 

otherwise material. 
Special damages. 
Prospective damages. 
Exemplary, double and treble 



1257. 
1258. 

1259. 
1260. 

1261. 
1262. 
1263. 



1264. Interest. 



§ 1265. Special damages — ^Actions for 
injury to real estate. 

1266. For breach of contract. 

1267. Against carriers. 

1268. For injury to personal prop- 

erty. 

1269. For loss of business. 

1270. For personal injury. 
1270a. Extent of allegation required. 

1271. For other torts. 
1271a. Answers. 



§ 1272. 

1273. 
1274. 
1275. 
1276. 



1277. 
1278. 
1279. 
1280. 



II. — Practice 

Damages upon demurrer § 1281. 
overruled. 1282. 

Upon plea in abatement. 1283. 

Upon plea to the damage. 

Upon default. 1284. 

Entire or several damages — 1285. 
Joinder of good and bad 
counts. 1286. 

Judgment when arrested. 1286a. 

Count bad in part. 1286b. 

Joint torts. 

Several torts by different de- 
fendants in the same suit. 



Award of arbitrators. 

Costs. • 

Obsolete judgment of "dam- 
age clear." 

Form of verdict. 

Damages as affecting juris- 
diction. 

Right to begin. 

Damages on appeal. 

Damages on dissolution of in- 
junction. 



§ 1257. Averment of damage. 

* The most important remark to be made on this part of our 
subject, is as to the necessity of distinctly averring in the 
declaration the damage of which the plaintiff complains. Great 
nicety was once used in regard to the peculiar mode of allega- 
tion; thus, it has been doubted whether an averment was 
sufl&ciently clear and positive if preceded by the word "where- 
by," or "thereupon," on the ground that the words following 
the "whereby" or "thereupon" could not be considered as 
2588 



§ 1257 AVEEMENT OP DAMAGE 2589 

containing an averment oi matter of fact, but merely matter 
of conclusion or inference drawn from the matters previously 
alleged. But it now seems to be well settled, that where the 
allegation following such a word as "thereupon" or "where- 
by" is clearly intended as an allegation of fact, the matter is to 
be considered averred with sufficient directness; the word 
"thereupon" or "whereby" not being understood as showing 
that the proposition following such word is intended to be 
stated as a consequence deducible from what precedes, but only 
as showing the time at which, or the occasion on which, that 
which follows the word in question is averred to have taken 
place. ^ But if the averment is merely one of a legal hability, 
it is well estabhshed that such an averment, being one of mat- 
ter of law, will not supply the want of those allegations of fact 
from which alone the court could infer the law to be as stated; 
so that such allegation is useless when the declaration is in- 
sufficient, and superfluous when sufficient without it. But 
the allegation of damage is only required to be of the fact as it 
exists in legal contemplation. ^ So an allegation that the 
plaintiff has been put to great expense, will be satisfied by 
proof that he has incurred a liability to pay;' ** though an al- 
legation that the plaintiff has paid money will not be satisfied 
by such proof.* 

The amount of damage is to be stated generally; ° and if 
there is a general statement of damage this will justify re- 
covery though none of the items of special damage are proved.^ 
If, however, the only damage stated is special damage, upon 

' Pryce v. Belcher, 3 C. B. 58; Brown El. Ry. v. Sierra (Tex. Civ. App.), 109 

V. Mallett, 6 C. B. 599. S. W. 986. 

' But this rule of the common-law England: Piitohet v. Boevey, 1 Cr. & 

practice is changed by the new codes M. 775; Jones v. Lewis, 9 Dowl. Pr. 143. 

of procedure, which require the state- But see contra, Standard D. & D. Co. 

ment of the actual facts, and not merely v. Hill, 166 Fed. 99, 92 C. C. A. 83. 

the averment of their legal effect. ' International & G. N. R. R. v. 

Garvey v. Fowler, 4 Sandf. 665. Crusetumer, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 181, 

' Richardson v. Chasen, 10 Q. B. 98 S. W. 423. If the amount is left 

756. blank, nothing can be recovered. Lex- 

* Minnesota: Ward v. Haws, 5 Minn, ington Ry. v. Britton, 130 Ky. 676, 114 

440. S. W. 295. 

Texas: Texas S. L. Ry. v. Patton 'Harrison v. Ai-gyle Co., 128 App. 

(Tex. Civ. App.), 96 S. W. 774; El Paso Div. 81, 112 N. Y. Supp. 477. 



2590 



PLEADING AND PRACTICE 



§1258 



failure to prove any item of special damage, nothing can be re- 
covered on account of general damage.^ In some states it is 
not necessary to allege more than the amount of damages 
claimed,* while in others the items making up the general 
damages must be separately valued.' Such matters of local 
practice cannot be profitably dealt with in a general work. 



§ 1258. Damages beyond amount laid. 

* In regard to the amount of damages to be averred, it is 
only necessary to lay them so high as to cover the injury; for 
no recovery can be had beyond the amount in the declaration.** 
If the jury assess the damages at a sum beyond the amount 
laid in the declaration, and judgment be entered for the whole 
amount of damages found by the jury, it is error. ^" In Vir- 



' Christophulos Cafe Co. v. Phillips, 
4 Ga. App. 819, 62 S. E. 562; see 
Wright V. Smith, 128 Ga. 432, 57 S. E. 
684. 

'Sherlag v. Kelley, 200 Mass. 232, 
86 N. E. 293. 

' Harrington v. Stromberg-MuUins 
Co., 29 Mont. 157, 74 Pac. 413 (value 
of property converted). 

1" Arkansas: White v. Cannada, 25 
Ark. 41; Snow v. Grace, 25 Ark. 570. 

California: Clark v. San Francisco & 
S. J. V. Ry., 142 Cal. 614, 76 Pac. 507. 

Colorado: Wilcox v. Field, 1 Colo. 3. 

Illinois: Walcott v. Holcomb, 24 111. 
331; Pierson v. Finney, 37 111. 29, 87 
Am. Dec. 233; Kelley v. Third Nat. 
Bank, 64 111. 541. 

Indiana: Epperly v. Little, 6 Ind. 
344; Hall v. Hall, 42 Ind. 585. 

Iowa: David v. Conard, 1 Greene, 
336; Cameron v. Boyle, 2 Greene, 154. 

Kentucky: Edwards v. Wiester, 2 
A. K. Marsh. 382; Rowan v. Lee, 3 J. J. 
Marsh. 97; South Covington & C. Ry. 
V. Raymer, 132 Ky. 187, 116 S. W. 281. 

Louisiana: W. W. Carre & Co. v. 
Masse, 113 La. 608, 37 So. 530. 

Maryland: Attrill v. Patterson, 58 
Md. 226. 

New Hampshire: Taylor v. Jones, 42 
N. H. 25. 



New Jersey: Hawk v. Anderson, 9 
N. J. L. 319; Lake v. Merrill, 10 N. J. L. 
288. 

New York: Curtiss v. Lawrence, 17 
Johns. Ill; Dox v. Dey, 3 Wend. 356, 
20 Am. Dec. 702; Fish v. Dodge, 4 
Denio, 311; Cohen v. Wittemann, 100 
App. Div. 338, 91 N. Y. Supp. 493. 

North Carolina: Grist ti. Hodges, 3 
Dev. L. 198, 203. 

Pennsylvania: Lantz v. Frey, 19 Pa. 
366. 

Tennessee: Fowlkes v. Webber, 8 
Humph. 530. 

Texas: Moore v. Republic, 1 Tex. 
563. 

England: Hoblins v. Kimble, 1 Bulst. 
49; Cheveley v. Morris, 2 W. Black. 
1300. 

So, on a counterclaim. Annis v. 
Upton, 66 Barb. 370. 

It has been held in Missouri to be 
error not to instruct the jury that the 
damages are limited to the amount 
claimed. Spohn v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 
116 Mo. 617, 22 S. W. 690. 

But in Calumet I. & S. Co. v. Martin, 
115 111. 358, it was held error to instruct 
the jury that they must not give dam- 
ages above the ad damnum. 

So where a certain amount of exem- 
plary damages is claimed, no more 



§§ 1259, 1260 AVERMENT NOT OTHERWISE MATERIAL 2591 

ginia and West Virginia judgment may exceed the amount 
averred by the amount of interest accrued since the fiUng of the 
declaration." 

In an action of replevin, however, the damages claimed in 
the writ are damages for detention; and the amount awarded 
as the value of the goods, upon the plaintiff's election to take 
such value, is not limited by the ad damnum.^'^ Where double 
damages are claimed, the actual damage is Umited by the ad 
damnum, but the double damages may be given in addition. ^^ 

§ 1259. Method of curing the error. 

If the jury render a verdict in excess of the amount averred 
to be due, the plaintiff may remit the excess before judgment 
without order of court, ^* but after judgment he cannot enter a 
remittitur without permission. ^^ After judgment the court 
may give the plaintiff his election between entering a remittitur 
of the excess and retrying the case.^^ 

§ 1260. Averment of damage not otherwise material. 

* It was anciently held, both in actions of indebitatus as- 
sumpsit and insimul computassent, that the plaintiff could not 
recover any less amount of damages than the precise sum laid 
in the declaration." But it is now well settled otherwise: and 
thus, even in an action on a poUcy of insurance averring a 
total loss, a recovery may be had for a partial loss.^* ** This 

can be recovered. Gregory v. Coleman, New Jersey: Herbert v. Hardenbergh, 

3 Tex. Civ. App. 166, 22 S. W. 181. 10 N. J. L. 222. 

" Virginia: Cahill v. Pintony, 4 New York: Coming v. Coming, 6 

Munf. 371. N. Y. 97; Droege v. Intemrban St. Ry., 

West Virginia: Enoch v. Mining & P. 91 N. Y. Supp. 71. 

Co., 23 W. Va. 314. Canada: Wilde v. Crow, 10 Up. Can. 

12 Anderson v. Carlin, 24 Fla. 199. C. P. 406. 

" Rosevelt v. Hanold, 65 Mich. 414. In Connecticut: it was held that a 

" Maryland: Harris v. Jaffray, 3 H. remittitur could not be entered, but the 

& J. 543. case must go back to trial upon the 

Virginia: Cahill v. Pintony, 4 Munf. question of damages only. Davenport 

371. «. Bradley, 4 Conn. 309. 

1* Davenport v. Bradley, 4 Conn. 309. " Sayer on Damages, oh. x, pp. 43 et 

1" Maryland: Lewis v. Cooke, 1 H. & seq.; Bagnal v. Sacheverel, Cro. EUz. 

McH. 159; Attrill v. Patterson, 58 Md. 292; Ramsden's case, Clayton, 87. 

226, 260. " Chitty on Pleadings, vol. i, p. 371; 

Missouri: Crews v. Lackland, 67 Marshall on Insurance, 629. 
Mo. 619. 



2592 PLEADING AND PRACTICE § 1261 

necessarily follows from the fact that, except as fixing a limit 
beyond which recovery cannot be had, the averment of the 
amount of damages is not a material one. The amount of 
damages alleged is not a traversable averment, and is not ad- 
mitted by a failure to deny it." In some States it is provided 
by statute that in actions of contract no proof of damage shall 
be required upon default; 2" and ia Cahfornia the averment 
of amount of damages appears to be material in every case, 
so that upon failure to deny the amount the plaintiff recovers 
the whole amount claimed in his declaration. ^^ 

§ 1261. Special damages. 

* A question of more frequent occurrence is, as to the ne- 
cessity of averring the particular cause and extent of any special 
damage for which the plaintiff claims redress.** 

"Damages," says Mr. Chitty,^'' "are either general or 
special. General damages are such as the law imphes or pre- 
sumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of. Special 
damages are such as really took place and are not impUed by 
law; and are either superadded to general damages arising 
from an act injurious in itself, as where some particular loss 
arises from the uttering of slanderous words actionable in 
themselves; or are such as arise from an act indifferent and not 
actionable in itself, but injurious only in its consequences, as 
where words become actionable only by reason of special dam- 
age ensuing. ... It does not appear necessary to state the 
formal description of damages in the declaration, because pre- 
suriiptions of law are not in general to be pleaded or averred 
as facts. . . . But when the law does not necessarily imply 
that the plaintiff sustained damage by the act complained of, 

^^ Indiana: McLees v. Felt, 11 Ind. Dimick v. Campbell, 31 CaJ. 238; Hus- 

218. ton V. Twin & C. C. T. R. R., 45 Cal. 

New York: Rajnnond v. Traffarn, 550. 

12 Abb. Pr. 52. 22 Chitty on Pleading, 410, 411, 

Wisconsin: Jenkins v. Steanka, 19 cited in Dumont v. Smith, 4 Denio, 319. 

Wis. 126, 88 Am. Dec. 675. "The damages sustained are matter of 

^ Kansas: Cole v. Hoeburg, 36 Kan. evidence, and need not be alleged, nor 

263, 59 Am. Rep. 546. are they scarcely ever stated but in a 

Oregon: White v. Northwest Stage general manner." Barruso v. Madan, 

Co., 5 Ore. 99. 2 Johns. 149. 

"Patterson v. Ely, 19 Cal. 28; 



§ 1261 SPECIAL DAMAGES 2593 

it is essential to the validity of the declaration that the result- 
ing damage should be shown with particularity. . . . And 
whenever the damages sustained have not necessarily accrued 
from the act complained of, and consequently are not implied 
by law, then, in order to prevent the surprise on the defendant 
which might otherwise ensue on the trial, the plaintiff must in 
general state the particular damage which he has sustained, or 
he will not be permitted to give evidence of it." ^^ 

Mr. Chitty's satisfactory statements of the distinction be- 
tween general and special damages leave httle to be added. 
All legal damages must, whether the action be in contract or in 
tort, naturally result from the act or default complained of; 
and although the law in certain cases permits the recovery 
of such damages as are physically secondary or consequential, 
yet they must in legal contemplation be also its proximate 
result. Where such result is necessary, or is legally imported 
by the facts, the damages are general, and need not be specif- 
ically set forth in the pleading; ^* otherwise they must, whether 
such special damage is or is not essential to the maintenance 
of the action. ^^ In the one case, the statement of the cause 

'' See, also, Chitty on Pleading, 370 v. Overfield, 127 Ky. 548, 106 S. W. 242; 

et seq.; same subject. See, also, De MoDaniel v. Hutcherson, 136 Ky. 412, 

Forest v. Leete, 16 Johns. 122, where 124 S. W. 384. 

it is held that in an action on the cov- Missouri: Van Buskirk v. Quincy, O. 

enant against incumbrances, it was not & K. C. R. R., 131 Mo. App. 357, 111 

enough to aver that the premises were S. W. 832. 

incumbered, but that the declaration New Hampshire: Stevens v. Lyford, 

must set out the extinguishment of the 7 N. H. 360. 

incumbrance. Pennsylvania: Rank v. Rank, 5 Pa. 

See also the following cases: 211; Hart v. Evans, 8 Pa. 13. 

Indiana: Lindley v. Dempsey, 45 Ind. Sovih Dakota: Fritz v. Watertown, 

246. 21 S. D. 280, 111 N. W. 630. 

Louisiana: Arrowsmith v. Gordon, Teaios.' Moore ». Smith, 19 S. W. 781. 

3 La. Ann. 105. Vermont: Hutchinson v. Granger, 13 

Mississippi: Burrage v. Melson, 48 Vt. 386. 

Miss. 237. 25 United States: The Director, 11 

New York: Butler v. Kent, 19 Johns. Sawy. 494; Lanston M. M. Co. v. 

228; Fitch v. Fitch, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. Merganthaler Linotype Co., 154 Fed. 

302. 42, 83 C. C. A. 154. 

South Carolina: Robert R. Sizer & Alabama: Lewis v. Paull, 42 Ala. 136; 

Co. V. Dopson, 72 S. E. 464. Irby v. Wilde, 150 Ala. 402, 43 So. 574. 

'* Iowa: Palmer v. Waterloo, 138 la. ■ California: Numan v. San Francisco, 

296, 115 N. W. 1017. 38 Cal. 689. 

Kentucky: Cumberland T. & T. Co. Colorado: Tucker v. Parks, 7 Colo. 62. 

163 



2594 



PLEADING AND PRACTICE 



§1261 



of action sufficiently apprises the defendant of the extent of the 
claim. In the other, legal justice, in order to enable him to 
prepare his defence, requires the further averment of the in- 
jurious consequences. Special damages must be pleaded in 
equity as in law.^^ * But it is no ground of demurrer to an en- 
tire breach in an action of covenant, that certain consequential 
damages alleged are not recoverable. If the plaintiff is en- 
titled to recover for any damage, it is sufficient to support 
the breach.^' ** 

In alleging special damages, it is not enough, in most juris- 
dictions, merely to enmnerate the heads of special damages for 
which compensation will be asked, but the facts of the damage 
and claim for compensation must be specifically alleged; ^* 
and in Texas the claim must be fully itemized. ^^ 

New York: Reporters' Assoc, v. Sun 
P. & P. Assoc, 186 N. Y. 437, 79 N. E. 
710; Keefe v. Lee, 197 N. Y. 68, 90 
N. E. 344; HaUock v. Belcher, 42 Barb. 
199; Solms v. Lias, 16 Abb. Pr. 311; 
Toplitz V. King Bridge Co., 46 N. Y. 
Supp. 418; Isman v. Loring, 130 App. 
Div. 845, 115 N. Y. Supp. 93. 

Pennsylvania: Agnew v. Johnson, 22 
Pa. 471, 62 Am. Dec. 303. 

Texas: Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Craft 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 102 S. W. 170; 
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Linton (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 109 S. W. 942. 
, Utah: McKinney v. Carson, 35 Utah, 
180, 99 Pac. 660. 

Washington: Fish v. Nethercutt, 14 
Wash. 582, 45 Pac. 44, 53 Am. St. Rep. 
892. 

Wisconsin: Birchard v. Booth, 4 Wis. 
67. 

'^ Hooper v. Armstrong, 69 Ala. 343. 

"Amory v. Brodrick, 5 B. & Aid. 
712. 

^ Kentucky: Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. 
Crank, 128 Ky. 329, 108 S. W. 276. 

Texas: Pipher v. Bissonet (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 36 S. W. 770. 

Washington: Hubenthal v. Spokane 
& I. Ry., 43 Wash. 677, 86 Pac. 955. 

=>» Houston E. & W. T. Ry. v. Adams, 
44 Tex. Civ. App. 288, 98 S. W. 222, 



Connecticut: Bristol Mfg. Co. v. 
Gridley, 28 Conn. 201. 

Florida: Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. 
Batchis, 54 Fla. 192, 44 So. 933. 

Illinois: Olmstead v. Burke, 25 HI. 
86. 

Kentiicky: Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Roney, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 1326, 108 S. W. 
343. 

Louisiana: Roberts v. Hyde, 15 La. 
Ann. 51. 

Maryland: McTavish v. Carroll, 13 
Md. 429. 

Massachusetts: Baldwin v. Western 
R. R., 4 Gray, 333; Warner v. Bacon, 

8 Gray, 397, 69 Am. Dec. 253; Rice v. 
CooUdge, 121 Mass. 393, 23 Am. Rep. 
279. 

Michigan: Shaw v. Hoffman, 21 
Mich. 151. 
Minnesota: Chamberlain v. Porter, 

9 Minn. 260. 

Missouri: Ingles v. Metropohtan St. 
Ry., 145 Mo. App. 241, 129 S. W. 493. 

Nebraska: Rosecrans v. Asay, 49 
Neb. 512, 68 N. W. 627; Armagost v. 
Rising, 54 Neb. 763, 75 N. W. 534. 

New Hampshire: Troy v. Cheshire 
R. R., 23 N. H. 83, 55 Am. Dec. 177; 
Gove V. Watson, 61 N. H. 136. 

New Jersey: Ryerson v. Marseillis, 
16 N, J. L. 450, 



§§ 1262, 1263 EXEMPLARY, DOUBLE, ETC., DAMAGES 2595 



§ 1262. Prospective damages. 

Prospective damages need not in general be specially averred ; '" 
and recovery may be had for a permanent injury without 
an express allegation of permanency." In a few cases, how- 
ever, it is held that, unless the description of the injury itself 
makes future pain probable, no recovery can be had for it with- 
out an allegation.'^ So in an action by a husband for a battery 
on his wife it was held that damages from a permanent loss 
of her services must be specially alleged. '^ And the same was 
held in an action for death of an adult son.^* Where the dec- 
laration alleged the injuries to have been conmiitted between 
a day named and the date of the writ, the plaintiff was not al- 
lowed to recover damages to the date of the service of the writ.'^ 

§ 1263. Exemplary, double and treble damages. 

It is held in some jurisdictions that the claim for exemplary 
damages need not be specially pleaded.'* But in other jm-is- 
dictions it is required that they be specially claimed '' and even 



'" Calif omia: Treadwell v. Whittier, 
80 Cal. 574, 22 Pac. 266, 13 Am. St. 
Rep. 175. 

Maine: Bradbury v. Benton, 69 Me. 
194. 

Missouri: Gerdes v. Christopher & 
S. A. I. & F. Co., 124 Mo. 347, 25 S. W. 
557; Bartley v. Trorhcht, 49 Mo. App. 
214. 

'1 Missouri: Gerdes v. Christopher & 
S. A. I. & F. Co., 124 Mo. 347, 25 S. W. 
557; De Courcy v. Prendergast Const. 
Co., 140 Mo. App. 169, 120 S. W. 632. 

New York: Ljmch v. Third Ave R. R., 
59 N. Y. Super. Ct. 71, 13 N. Y. Supp. 
236; Tyler ». Third Ave. R. R., 41 
N. Y. Supp. 523. 

In Texas, however, it has been held 
that an allegation that a personal in- 
jury is permanent will not justify the 
recovery of damages for future suffering 
where no pecuniary damages are alleged 
from such suffering. Houston & T. C. 
R. R. V. Lindsey, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 67, 
110 S. W. 995. 

'2 Iowa: Palmer v. Waterloo, 138 la. 
296, 115 N. W. 1017. 



Texas: Rapid Transit Ry. v. Allen, 
54 Tex. Civ. App. 245, 117 S. W. 
486. 

" Uertz V. Singer Mfg. Co., 35 Hun, 
116. 

'^ Winnt t). International & G. N. 
R. R., 74 Tex. 32. 

'5 Prouty V. Bell, 44 Vt. 72. 

"* Alabama: Alabama G. S. R. R. v. 
Arnold, 84 Ala. 159, 4 So. 359, 5 Am. St. 
Rep. 354. 

Georgia: Savannah, F. & W. Ry. v. 
HoUand, 82 Ga. 257, 10 S. E. 200, 14 
Am. St. Rep. 158. 

Iowa: Gustafson v. Wind, 62 la. 281. 

Maine: Wilkinson v. Drew, 75 Me. 
360. 

Minnesota: Andrews v. Stone, 10 
Mum. 72. 

Mississippi: Southern Ex. Co. v. 
Brown, 67 Miss. 260, 7 So. 318, 8 So. 
425, 19 Am. St. Rep. 306. 

Oregon: Stark v. E^ler, 117 Pac. 276. 

^Missouri: Anderson v. Shockley 
(Mo. App.), 140 S. W. 755. 

Texas: Galveston, H. & S. A. R. R. 
V. Le Gieise, 51 Tex. 189; Zeliff v. 



2596 PLEADING AND PRACTICE §§ 1264, 1265 

that their amount be stated.'* Where such damages are 
claimed on the ground of maUce, malice must be averred in 
the complaint. ^^ But where statutory double or treble dam- 
ages are claimed, the declaration must allege that the action 
is brought under the statute.^" The plaintiff, however, hav- 
ing claimed such statutory damages, may recover single dam- 
ages if he does not prove himself to be entitled to the benefit 
of the statute." In Osburn v. Lovell *^ it was held, that in an 
action of trespass, to recover treble damages, evidence that the 
trespass was involuntary, and imder a bona fide claim of right, 
might be given under the general issue. Cooley, J., said: 
"It was held, in Delevan v. Bates, *^ that whatever, in an action 
of tort, would go in mitigation of damages might be given 
in evidence under the general issue." 

§ 1264. Interest. 

Interest on a liquidated demand must be specially claimed, 
not on an unliquidated demand.** 

§ 1266. Special damages — ^Actions for injury to real estate. 

* In New York, in an action on the case, in which the plain- 
tiff declared against the defendant for placing a quantity of 
lime, sand, and other building material opposite to his store, 
so that the free passage to it was interrupted, and the dust and 
dirt of the materials blew into his store and damaged his goods, 
it was held, that proof that customers were prevented from 
frequenting the store, and that a tenant who occupied it left it 

Jennings, 61 Tex. 458, 48 Am. Rep. 305; Pennsylvania: Hughes v. Stevens, 36 

International & G. N. Ry. v. Smith, Pa. 320. 

62 Tex. 252; Moore v. Smith, 19 S. W. " Starkweather v. Quigley, 7 Hun, 

781. 26. 

's Krone v. Block, 144 Mo. App. 575, " 35 yi\ch.. 246. 

129 S. W. 43. " 1 Mich. 97; ace, AUis v. Nanson 

«' Johnson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 41 Ind. 154. 

51 la. 25; Jones v. Marshall, 56 la. 739. " Kansas: Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 

There need be no special allegation of 209. 

malice in an action for malicious prose- Texas: Watkins v. Junker, 90 Tex. 

cution, since the allegation of the cause 586, 40 S. W. 11; San Antonio & A. P. 

of action includes malice. Davis v. Ry. v. Timon (Tex. Civ. App.), 110 

Seeley, 91 la. 583, 60 N. W. 183. S. W. 82. See St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. 

*" Kentucky: Bell v. Norris, 79 Ky. Starks (Tex. Civ. App.), 109 S. W. 

48, 42 Am. Rep. 204, 1003. 



§ 1265 SPECIAL DAMAGES — INJURY TO REAL ESTATE 2597 

in consequence of the nuisance, whereby it remained empty, 
was inadmissible, because not alleged in the declaration as 
special damages. "Where the damages," said the Supreme 
Court, "actually sustained do not necessarily arise from the 
act complained of, and consequently are not implied by law, in 
order to prevent surprise to the defendant, the plaintiff must 
state in his declaration the particular damage which he has 
sustained, or he will not be permitted to give evidence of it 
upon the trial. . . . There is no claim for damages in the 
declaration for the loss of customers. . . . The loss of the 
tenant and the consequent loss of the rent of the store, ought 
to have been specially alleged, in order to entitle the plaintiff 
to have proved them as damages." *^ 

So, in a later case in the same State, in an action of trespass 
on the case, the declaration alleged that the defendant, in con- 
sideration of the sale by the plaintiff to him of certain premises 
in the city of New York, covenanted that he would erect on 
them a brick dwelling-house, and would not erect on them any 
building to be occupied in any manner that would be a nuisance 
to the vicinity of the premises. The declaration then pro- 
ceeded to aver that the defendant had not erected a brick 
dwelling-house, but had permitted a bake-house to be erected 
on the premises, and suffered it to be occupied in a manner 
that was a nuisance to the vicinity of the premises. There was 
no allegation of special damage, but the declaration concluded 
generally, to the damage of the plaintiff $6,000. On the trial 
the plaintiff's counsel offered to prove actual damage sustained 
by him in the depreciation of the value of premises owned by 
him, adjacent to the lot in question, occasioned by the erection 
of the bake-house. But the evidence was excluded on the 
ground of the want of any allegation of special damage in the 
declaration; and the judge who tried the cause held that the 
plaintiff could only recover nominal damages. By consent, a 
nonsuit was ordered, and on motion to set this aside the Su- 
preme Court held the decision right. "Suppose," said Cady, J., 
"the bake-house has been so occupied as that it has been a 
nuisance. How has it damnified the plaintiff? The declaration 
does not show that he has been annoyed by the heat and smoke 
« Squier v. Gould, 14 Wend. 159, 160. 



2598 PLEADING AND PEACTICE § 1266 

issuing from the bake-house, or that he has any property which 
has been lessened in value by the bake-house." ^ ** 

In the following cases the damages are special, and must be 
alleged: For loss of rents in actions for injiu-y to real estate.*' 
So, in an action for throwing water back upon the plaintiff's 
mill.*' So, also, in an action for polluting the water of a 
stream; *^ so for profits of a mill lost by the obstruction of a 
water-course,^" and for damage to plaintiff's house from smoke 
and sparks, and damage to plastering and paper, and the dam- 
ages for the additional care required for children, in an action 
for laying a railroad along a street in front of the plaintiff's 
house." For nuisance in maintaining stagnant water no re- 
covery can be had for sickness or death of a child unless specially 
alleged; ^^ and for trespass in throwing down fences no recovery 
is allowed, without special allegation, for loss of crops by the 
entry of cattle.^' On the other hand, no allegation is required, 
in an action of trespass quare clausum, to recover damage to a 
fence, by breaking which the defendant entered the land.^* 
And the damage from the stoppage of the plaintiff's mill is an 
injiu-ious consequence, for which he may recover in an action 
of trespass for the destruction of his milldam, without specially 
averring it in the declaration.^^ So in proceedings to recover 
compensation for land taken by eminent domain, damages to 
the land not taken are not special damages in the sense that 
they must be specially pleaded in order to be proved. ^^ 

§ 1266. For breach of contract. 

No allegation of special damage is necessary for loss of profit 

« Bogert V. Burkhalter, 2 Barb. 525. '» Taylor v. Dustin, 43 N. H. 493; 

"Adams v. Barry, 10 Gray, 361; Crawford «. Parsons, 63 N. H. 438. 

Parker «. Lowell, 11 Gray, 353. "Spencer v. St. Paul & S. C. Ry., 

« Plimpton V. Gardiner, 64 Me. 360. 21 Minn. 362. 

« Potter V. Froment, 47 Cal. 165. In " Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Craft (Tex. 

this case it was also held that the cost Civ. App.), 102 S. W. 170. 

of boiling and skimming the water "Carron v. Clark, 14 Mont. 301, 

must also be specially alleged in order 36 Pac. 178. 

to be proved; but in Jutte v. Hughes, " Clark v. Boardman, 42 Vt. 667, 

67 N.Y. 267, where the plaintiff's prem- 1 Am. Rep. 359. 

ises were injured by the defendant's " Spigelmoyer v. Walter, 3 W. & S. 

failure to keep his privies and drains 540. 

in repair, it was held that loss of rent " Yellowstone Park R. R. v. Bridger 

need not be alleged as special damage. Coal Co., 34 Mont. 545, 87 Pac. 963. 



§ 1266 FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT 2599 

which would have been the direct result of work done at the 
contract price, and which is prevented by the defendant's 
wrongful act.^' So in an action of covenant for breach of con- 
tract in not building a house, in payment of which the plaintiff 
was to have conveyed certain premises, no statement of special 
damages is necessary to entitle the plaintiff to give evidence of 
the difference in value between the house and the premises 
which constitutes the measiu-e of damages.^* In an action for 
breach of contract to give a lease, damages for loss of busi- 
ness ^' and for the expense of removal *" have been held re- 
coverable without special allegation. But in an action for 
breach of contract to furnish doors, the plaintiff, a master 
builder, cannot recover damages on account of the idleness of 
his workmen, caused by not having the doors, without special 
allegation.®' In an action for breach of promise of marriage, 
no allegation of special damage is necessary for loss of time 
and expenses incurred in preparation for marriage,®^ but an 
allegation is necessary for loss of health *^ and for seduc- 
tion.«* 

Where damages beyond legal interest for non-payment of a 
note at matiirity are allowed by law, as a penalty, they cannot 
be recovered unless specially averred.®^ Counsel fees in actions 
on attachment bonds must be claimed as special damages. It 
may be that no counsel were necessary, and none were em- 
ployed.*® So on injunction bonds.®' No allegation is necessary 
to recover special damages for loss of sheep by disease com- 
municated by other sheep warranted by the defendant; the 
plaintiff need not allege that the sheep so warranted were to 
be placed with the others.®* But consequential damages from 
breach of warranty of a chain must, it has been held, be spe- 

" Michigan: Burrell v. New York & " Indiana: Gates v. McKinney, 48 

S. S. S. Co., 14 Mich. 34. Ind. 562, 17 Am. Rep. 768. 

Missouri: Hesse v. Imperial E. L. H. Wisconsin: Leavitt v. Cutler, 37 

& P. Co. (Mo. App.), 140 S. W. 911. Wis. 46. 

M Laraway v. Perkins, 10 N. Y. 371. « Wilson v. Dean, 10 la. 432. 

5» Ward V. Smith, 11 Price, 19. " Dothard v. Sheid, 69 Ala. 135. 

«" Driggs V. Dwight, 17 Wend. 71, 31 •' Washington v. Timberlake, 74 Ala. 

Am. Dec. 283. 259. 

«• Myer v. Davies, 17 III. App. 228. " Packard v. Slack, 32 Vt. 9, 76 Am. 

«2 Smith V. Sherman, 4 Cush. 408. Deo. 148. 

«' BedeU v. Powell, 13 Barb. 183. 



2600 Pleading and pkactice || 1267, 1268 

cially alleged, *' as must consequential damages for failure to 
deliver goods sold.'"' And in general consequential damages 
for breach of a contract must be specially claimed.''^ 

§ 1267. Against carriers. 

In an action for injuries sustained by the plaintiff from the 
neglect of the defendant (a carrier of passengers by steamers) 
to furnish proper accommodations and supplies, it was held 
that, under an allegation of facts whereby the plaintiff was 
"subjected to great inconvenience and injury," proof might 
be introduced tending to prove the plaintiff's illness, and the 
negligence of the defendant causing such illness, this not being 
considered by the court to be special damage.'^ Where a 
carrier lost or damaged part of a suit of clothes, the deprecia- 
tion of value of the remaining parts of the suit is general, not 
special, damage." And where a valuable horse is injured, the 
fact that he was of superior value for breeding purposes need 
not be alleged, since it is general damage,'^ though loss of the 
earnings or use of the horse is special damage and must be 
alleged.^* 

§ 1268. For injury to personal property. 

In the Queen's Bench, in an action on the case for an exces- 
sive distress, it was held, that no mention being made in the 
declaration of the sale, either for damage or by way of substan- 
tive complaint, the plaintiff could only recover damages in 

" Sutherland v. Round, 57 Fed. 467, assessment laid after breach and paid 

6 C. C. A. 428. by plaintiff must be alleged). 

™ Brady v. Cassidy, 9 Misc. 107, 29 Washington: Sudden v. Morse, 48 

N. Y. Supp. 45. Wash. 101, 92 Pac. 901. 

" Kentucky: McDaniel v. Hutcher- '* Roberts v. Graham, 6 Wall. 578, 

son, 136 Ky. 412, 124 S. W. 384 (con- 18 L. ed. 791. 

tract to furnish plaintiff a home during " Cone v. Southern Ry., 85 S. C. 524, 

life; expense of removal must be al- 67 S. E. 779. 
leged). '* Missouri: Van Buskirk v. Quincy, 

Texas: Houston & T. C. R. R. v. O. & K. C. R. R., 131 Mo. App. 357, 

Anderson, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 394, 98 ill S. W. 832. 

S. W, 440 (injury to water tank by Texas: Texas &. P. Ry. v. Newsome, 

causing oil to run into it; consequential 44 Tex. Civ. App. 513, 98 S. W. 646. 
damage to land must be alleged). " Van Buskirk v. Quincy, O. & K. C. 

Vermont: Ellis v. Durkee, 79 Vt. 341, R. R., 131 Mo. App. 357, 111 S. W. 

65 Atl. 94 (contract to pay for stock; 832. 



§ 1268 INJURY TO PERSONAL PROPERTY 2601 

respect to the detention of the property, and not for the sale.''^ 
But where in an action in the nature of a trespass for the wrong- 
ful seizure of goods, which was the gist of the action, although 
the form of the plaintiff's complaint was Umited to certain 
heads of special damage which were not proved; but it ap- 
peared that the taking was wrongful, the plaintiff was held, by 
the judicial committee of the Privy Council, entitled not only 
to nominal damages, but to such substantial damage as the 
jury thought adequate.'^ In an action of trespass de bonis as- 
portatis, a special allegation of damage has been required for 
the expense of recovering the property.'* In actions of trover 
or replevin and of trespass for the destruction of property, all 
damages beyond the value of the property, if recoverable at 
all, must be specially alleged.''^ So for damages beyond the 
intrinsic value of a book destroyed by the defendant, on the 
ground that it contained a subscription list procured at large 
expense.*" So in an action for the loss of an animal through 
neghgence, of damages beyond its value, such as money properly 
expended in efforts to cure it." 

In Indiana, in an action of trespass for kilhng a mare, dam- 
ages for niu-sing and feeding two colts she had been suckling, 
and for care and attention of the mare's wound, not having 
been alleged, were held not recoverable.*^ Where an action is 
brought fol" taking property from the owner's possession, no 
damages can be recovered, without special allegation, for an 
injm-y received by the owner in an attempt to defend his 
possession.*^ It has been held that damages for loss of use of 

™ Thompson v. Wood, 4 Q. B. Pennsylvania: Schofield v. Ferrers, 

493. 46 Pa. 438. 

" Doss V. Doss, 14 L. T. R. (N. S.) Vermont: Park v. McDaniels, 37 Vt. 

646. 594. 

™ Illinois: People v. Crowe, 145 111. Canada: Domville v. Keevan, Stev. 

App. 450. Dig. (N. B.) 434 (semble; contra, Firth 

Minnesota: Gray «. Bullard, 22 Minn. v. Fitzgerald, Stev. Dig. 432). 

278. But see Maine: Bucknam v. Nash, 

" California: Stevenson v. Smith, 28 3 Fairf . 474. 

Cal. 102, 87 Am. Dec. 107. '» Nunan v. San Francisco, 38 Cal. 

Michigan: Brink v. Freoff, 44 Mich. 689. 

69. " Patten v. Libbey, 32 Me. 378. 

Mississippi: Burrage v. Melson, 48 ^''Teagarden u. Hetfield, 11 Ind. 522. 

Miss. 237. '* Plumb v. Ives, 39 Conn. 120. 



2602 PLteAbiNG AND piiACTiCE §§ 1269, 1270 

property detained may be recovered without special allega- 
tion; ^* but the contrary opinion has also been held.** 

§ 1269. For loss of business. 

For loss of business, in the sense of loss of time, no allegation 
is necessary; but for a loss caused to the plaintiff's particular 
business by the defendant's act a special allegation is re- 
quired.*" Upon a general allegation of loss of business the 
plaintiff cannot recover for the loss of a particular business 
venture or engagement.*^ Nor under such an allegation can a 
farmer recover damages for the loss of his hay crop.** So upon 
a general allegation of loss of market, the plaintiff cannot show 
the loss of a particular contract of sale.*' 

§ 1270. For personal injury. 

No allegation is necessary in an action to recover for per- 
sonal injury, of bodily pain,'" nor, in some jurisdictions, of 
mental suffering.'^ In an action for seduction mental suffering 
is a basis for recovery without special allegation.'^ So in an 
action for personal injm-ies, proof of damages from the inter- 
ruption of the plaintiff's occupation, and deprivation of his 
accustomed means of earning support, is inadmissible unless 

" Woodruff V. Cook, 25 Barb. 505. Co., 46 Barb. 222; Klein v. Burleson, 

«5 Illinois: Adams v. Gardner, 78 111. 138 App. Div. 405, 122 N. Y. Supp. 

568. 752. 

Kentucky: Montgomery v. Glasscock, '^ Georgia: Central R. R. & B. Co. v. 

121 S. W. 668. Lanier, 83 Ga. 587, 10 S. E. 279. 

^ Connecticut: Taylor v. Monroe, 43 Indiana: Wright v. Compton, 53 

Conn. 36; Tomlinson v. Derby, 43 Ind. 337. 

Conn. 562. Iowa: Gronan v. Kukkuck, 59 la. 18. 

Illinois: Chicago v. G'Brennan, 65 Missouri: Brown v. Hannibal & S. J. 

111. 160. Ry., 99 Mo. 310. 

" Alabama: Pollock v. Gantt, 69 Nebraska: Fink v. Busch, 83 Neb. 

Ala. 373. 599, 120 N. W. 167. 

Illinois: Chicago W. D. Ry. v. New York: Caldwell v. Central Park, 

Klauber, 9 111. App. 613. N. & E. R. R., 7 Misc. 67, 27 N. Y. 

88 Heiser v. Loomis, 47 Mich. 16. Supp. 397. 

89 Rowe V. Titus, 1 All. (N. B.) 326. Virginia: Norfolk & W. Ry. v. 
» Nebraska: Fink v. Busch, 83 Neb. Spears, 110 Va. 110, 65 S. E. 482. 

599, 120 N. W. 167. Contra, Oregon: Adcock v. Oregon 

New York: Curtis v. Rochester & R. «& N. Co., 45 Ore. 173, 77 Pac. 78. 
S. R. R., 18 N. Y. 534, 75 Am. Dec. "^ phiUips v. Hoyle, 4 Gray, 568, 64 

258; Swarthout v. New Jersey S. B. Am. Dec. 95. 



§ 1270 FOR PERSONAL INJURY 2603 

such damages are specially alleged.'' In Tomlinson v. Derby '* 
the plaintiff was injured through a defect in the highway. 
The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was thereby "pre- 
vented from attending to his ordinary business." It was held, 
that he could not show that he was earning $100 a month in 
carting and sawing timber. Loomis, J., said: 

"Special damage is that which the law does not necessarily 
imply that the plaintiff has sustained from the act complained 
of . . . . It would seem, however, that when the consequences 
of an injury are peculiar to the circumstances and condition 
of the injured party, the law could not imply the damage sim- 
ply from the act causing the injury. If it be true that the 
law implies a loss of time from the act complained of, it does 
not seem quite fair and just, when the sole object of the rule 
that requires special damage to be averred is to advise the 
defendant of the claim, to carry the implication so far as to 
imply also all the special consequences of such loss of time, 
when such consequences must depend on the peculiar cir- 
cumstances of the plaintiff at the time of and previous to the 
injury, as that he was actually engaged in some special business 
which was at the time yielding a pecuniary profit." 

" Alabama: Irby v. Wilde, 150 Ala. meier Lumber Co., 134 Mo. App. 485, 

402, 43 So. 574. 114 S. W. 1023; Hitchings v. Maryville, 

Connecticut: Morris «. Winchester 134 Mo. App. 712, 115 S. W. 473; 

R. A. Co., 73 Conn. 680, 49 Atl. 180; Ingles v. Metropolitan St. Ry. (Mo. 

Farrington v. Cheponis, 82 Conn. 258, App.), 129 S. W. 493; Snickles v. St. 

73 Atl. 139. Joseph, 155 Mo. App. 308, 136 S. W. 

Indiana: Pittsburgh, C, C. & S. L. 752. 

Ry. V. Lynch, 43 Ind. App. 177, 87 New York: Hart v. Metropolitan St. 

N". E. 40. Ry., 121 App. Div. 732, 106 N. Y. 

Kentucky: Louisville & N. R. R. v. Supp. 494. 

Reynolds, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1402, 71 S. Texas: Texas & P. Ry. v. Buckalew 

W. 516; Central Ky. Tract. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 165; Ft. 

Chapman, 130 Ky. 342, 113 S. W. 438; Worth & D. C. Ry. v. Morrison (Tex. 

Lexington Ry. v. Britton, 130 Ky. 676, Civ. App.), 129 S. W. 1157 (but see 

114 S. W. 295; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. El Paso S. W. R. R. v. Barrett, 46 Tex. 

P. Ry. V. Silvers, 126 S. W. 120. Civ. App. 14, 101 S. W. 1025, 121 

Massachusetts: Baldwin v. Western S. W. 570). 

R. R., 4 Gray, 333. Contra, New York: Bloom v. Man- 

Missouri: Keen v. St. Louis, I. M. hattan El. Ry., 17 N. Y. Supp. 812 

& S. R. R., 129 Mo. App. 301, 108 (except in case of married woman). 

S. W. 1125; Fleddermann v. St. Louis i^nfftond; Potter u. Metropolitan Ry., 

Transit Co., 134 Mo. App. 199, 113 28 L. T, Rep. 735. 

S. W. 1143; Moellman v. Gieze-Hensel- '« 43 Conn. 562. 



2604 PLEADING AND PRACTICE § 1270 

In Taylor v. Monroe,^^ under a similar allegation, it was held, 
that the plaintiff could not show that she was employed as a 
button-maker, and what wages she earned. Loomis, J., said: 

"As the business is not stated, nor any earnings or loss of 
earnings mentioned, the allegation referred to can only be con- 
strued as intended to characterize the injiu-y, and indicate its 
extent and permanence in a general way, which amounts sim- 
ply to a claim for general damages, and lays no foxmdation 
at all for proof of special damages. The evidence referred to 
was not intended simply to show the effect and extent of the 
injury, but to enhance the damages, by showing the loss of 
earnings in a special employment, requiring some special skill 
and training. These damages, therefore, were not the nec- 
essary result of the acts set out in the declaration, and could 
not be implied by law; but they were special damages, which, 
in order to prevent a surprise upon the defendant, must be 
particularly specified in the declaration, or the plaintiff will 
not be permitted to give evidence of them at the trial." 

In an action by an unmarried woman against a carrier for 
personal injury from his negMgence, her diminished chances 
of marriage must be specially alleged to entitle her to an en- 
hancement of the damages on that groxmd.'^ In Missouri it 
has been held that no recovery can be had for medical expenses, 
in an action for assault and battery, unless specially alleged,^' 
but on general principles this seems doubtful. In an action 
for false imprisonment, damages from the bad condition of the 
jail are special, and can only be proved when alleged.'^ So 
sickness caused by the imprisonment must be specially al- 
leged.'^ 

96 43 Conn. 36, 46. Texas: Houston & T. C. R. R. v. 

»« Hunter v. Stewart, 47 Me. 419. Rowell, 92 Tex. 147, 46 S. W. 630; 

^Alabama: Irby v. Wilde, 150 Ala. Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. v. Adams, 

402, 43 So. 574. 44 Tex. Civ. App. 288, 98 S. W. 222. 

Indiana: Pittsburgh, C, C. & S. L. <» Johnson v. Von Kettler, 84 111. 

Ry. V. Lynch, 43 Ind. App. 177, 87 315. 

N. E. 40. »' Kansas: Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. 

Kentucky: Lexington Ry. v. Britton> v. Rice, 36 Kan. 593, 14 Pac. 229. 

130Ky. 676, 114S. W. 295. England: Lowden v. Goodrick, 

Missouri: O'Leary v. Rowan, 31 Mo. Peake's Cas. 46; Pettit ». Addington, 

117; Fleddermann v. St. Louis Transit Peake's Cas. 62. 
Co., 134 Mo. App. 199, 113 S. W. 1143. 



§ 1270a EXTENT OF ALLEGATION REQUIKED 2605 

Miscarriage as a result of a physical injury is special damages 
which must be pleaded,^™ and so is the postponement of a wed- 
ding, i"! 

The particularity required in the allegation of such special 
damages varies in different jurisdictions. The Hmit of par- 
ticularity appears to be reached in Texas, where not only is an 
exact description of the injury required,"^ but in the case of 
medical expenses, apparently, the amount and value of each 
physician's services and an itemized account of the medicines 
bought must be given. ^"^ 

§ 1270a. Extent of allegation required. 

Not only must special damages be alleged in order to be 
recovered, but the allegation must describe them with sufficient 
precision to give the defendant notice of the extent of the claim. 
It is impossible to reconcile all the decisions upon this point. 
In New York the following rules seem established: If the 
allegations as to the physical injury are very broad, setting up 
sickness, permanent injiu-y, etc., the plaintiff may under them 
prove any special damage that has occurred, e. g., an injury 
to his spine. If the defendant desires to guard against sur- 
prise, it is his business to move for a bill of particulars. But 
if the allegation point to a definite injury, e. g., an injury to 
the arm, the plaintiff cannot prove some other injury, e. g., 
deafness, merely because there are general allegations of severe 
injury and shock.'"* In accordance with these rules general 

">» Lomsville & N. R. R. v. Roney, So in the following cases it was held 

32 Ky. L. Rep. 1326, 108 S. W. 343. that after a description of specific in- 

•»' Beath v. Rapid Ry., 119 Mich, juries an undescribed injury of the 

512, 78 N. W. 537. sort could not be recovered. Keefe v. 

i»« Suderman v. Woodruff, 47 Tex. Lee, 197 N. Y. 68, 90 N. E. 344 (alle- 

Civ. App. 229, 105 S. W. 217. gation of kick on head, breaking skull 

!«' The Oriental v. Barclay, 16 Tex. and tearing scalp; cannot recover for 

Civ. App. 193, 41 S. W. 117; ace, deafness); Johnson v. Troy, 124 App. 

Louisville & N. R. R. v. Barnwell, 131 Div. 29, 108 N. Y. Supp. 917 (injured 

Ga. 791, 63 S. E. 501. in back, head, and side, causing him 

™ Ehrgott V. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 264; to be made sick, sore and lame; cannot 

Hergert v. Union Ry., 49 N. Y. Supp. recover for supervening appendicitis); 

307, 25 App. Div. 218; Kleiner v. Third Long v. Fulton Contr. Co., 133 App. 

Ave. R. R., 55 N. Y. Supp. 394, 36 Div. 842, 117 N. Y. Supp. 1118 (skull 

App. Div. 191; Bolte v. Third Ave. crushed, necessitating removal of part 

R. R., 56 N. Y. Supp. 1038, 38 App. of skull and brain, and great pain 

Div. 234. suffered; cannot show epilepsy, paraly- 



2606 



PLEADING AND PKACTICE 



§ 1270a 



allegations have been held to cover injuries not specifically 
mentioned. 1"^ On the other hand, where aU the allegations 



sis, and mental impairment); Keenan 
V. Metropoiitan St. Ry., 118 App. Div. 
56, 103 N. Y. Supp. 61 (husband suing 
for loss of wife's services alleged that 
she kept house for him; could not show 
that she assisted him in his duties as 
janitor). 

On the other hand, in Frobisher v. 
Fifth Ave. Transp. Co., 81 Hun, 544, 
30 N. Y. Supp. 1099, an allegation that 
plaintiff had become disabled for life 
so as to interfere with the active prose- 
cution of his business permitted evi- 
dence of loss of business. But in Kin- 
sella V. Eiesenberg, 124 App. Div. 322, 
108 N. Y. Supp. 876, an allegation of 
severe injuries to the back and side 
was held insufficient to allow proof of 
any injury of the sort. 

"5 United States: Denver & R. G. Ry. 
V. Harris, 122 U. S. 597, 7 Sup. Ct. 
1286, 30 L. R. A. 1146 (general allega- 
tion of physical injury, recover for 
impotency); New York Transp. Co. v. 
Garside, 157 Fed. 521, 85 C. C. A. 285 
(plaintiff disabled, crippled and injured 
in her limbs; may show one leg shorter 
than the other, also that she was unable 
to sleep and lost in weight and appe- 
tite). 

Colorado: Denver & R. G. R. R. v. 
Mitchell, 42 Colo. 43, 94 Pac. 289 
(suffered great personal injuries; may 
show injury to lungs). 

Iowa: Fox v. Chicago, S. P. & K. C. 
R. R., 86 la. 368, 53 N. W. 259 (suf- 
fered great expense; may show that a 
mattress, quilt and springs were in- 
jured by appheations of medicine to 
plaintiff's foot). 

Kansas: Cudahy Packing Co. v. 
Broadbent, 70 Kan. 535, 79 Pac. 126 
(leg broken and great pain suffered; 
may show that eight days after the leg 
was set it was necessary to break and 
reset it, causing great pain). 

Kentucky: Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. 



Ry. V. Halcomb, 105 S. W. 968, 32 Ky. 
L. Rep. 381 (long confined to bed and 
unable to teach school; may recover 
for impaired ability to earn money); 
Cumberiand T. & T. Co. v. Overfield, 
127 Ky. 548, 106 S. W. 242 (permanent 
disability; may show permanent reduc- 
tion in power to earn money). , 

Michigan: Beath v. Rapid Ry., 119 
Mich. 512, 78 N. W. 537 (mental suffer- 
ing, may recover for mortification of 
being obliged to use crutch and cane); 
Groat V. United Ry., 153 Mich. 165, 
116 N. W. 1081 (greatly injured and 
bruised internally, and permanently in- 
jured; may show permanent injury to 
uterus). 

Missouri: Van Cleve v. St. Louis, 
M. & S. E. R. R., 124 Mo. App. 224, 
101 S. W. 632 (chest bruised and 
crushed, and permanent injury; may 
show pulmonary tuberculosis); Hitch- 
ings V. Maryville, 134 Mo. App. 712, 115 
S. W. 473 (is and will be incapacitated 
from earning livelihood; recover for 
lost earnings from date of injury). 

Texas: Rea v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 655 (injury 
to lungs; may recover for increased 
susceptibihty to lung disease); San 
Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. Beam (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 50 S. W. 411 (injury in- 
capacitated plaintiff from making a 
living; may recover for diminished 
capacity to labor); San Antonio & 
A. P. Ry. V. Corley (Tex. Civ. App.), 
26 S. W. 903 (mental agony; recover 
for peril and fright); Triolo v. Foster 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 698 (suf- 
fered great pain; recover for mental 
pain); St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. Garber 
(Tex. Civ. App.), Ill S. W. 227 (per- 
manent incapacity; recover for dim- 
inished earning capacity); Ft. Worth & 
D. C. Ry. V. Morrison (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 123 S. W. 621 (internal in- 
juries; may recover for injury to blad- 



§1271 



FOK OTHER TORTS 



2607 



of special damages are of specific injuries, it is usually held 
that there can be no recovery for injuries not described,^"* 
though recovery has been allowed in some cases. ^"^ 

§ 1271. For other torts. 

In Alabama, it has been held, that in an action brought by a 
firm for a malicious prosecution, proof of special damage aris- 
ing from loss of reputation, credit, or business, cannot be given 



der); Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Brown 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 1172 (per- 
manent injury, capacity to earn prob- 
ably destroyed; may recover for loss of 
time). 

Washington: Clukey v. Seattle El. 
Co., 27 Wash. 70, 67 Pac. 379 (hurt 
about the abdomen, and imnatural 
internal bleeding; may recover for mis- 
carriage). 

See, however, several cases cited in 
the following note. 

'"" Kentucky: Louisville Ry. v. Gaugh, 
133 Ky. 467, 118 S. W. 276 (injury to 
head alleged; cannot show resulting 
deafness). 

Michigan: Puller v. Jackson, 92 
Mich. 197, 52 N. W. 1075 (injury to 
spine, and otherwise bruised, wounded, 
and injured; cannot show injury to 
breast); Hall v. Cadillac, 114 Mich. 99, 
72 N. W. 33 (knee wrenched, greatly 
bruised and injured, became sick, sore, 
lame, and disabled, suffered great 
pain and distress; cannot show result- 
ing rheumatism). 

Montana: Gordon v. Northern Pac. 
Ry., 39 Mont. 571, 104 Pac. 679 (right 
eye cut and destroyed, suffered excru- 
ciating pain; cannot show impairment 
of sight of left eye). 

Texas: Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Cook, 8 Tex. Qv. App. 376, 27 S. W. 
769 (wounded, skinned and bruised, 
and greatly shocked and injured in 
head, chest, lungs, back, spine, and 
limbs, and sustained serious external 
and internal injuries; cannot recover 
for impairment of genital and urinary 



organs); Campbell v. Cook, 86 Tex. 632, 
26 S. W. 486, reveraing 24 S. W. 977 
(tearing flesh, bruising, wounding and 
injuring back, bowels, hips, legs and 
other parts and members of body; can- 
not recover for impairment of capacity 
to have sexual intercourse). 

Utah: Pugmire v. Oregon S. L. R. R., 
33 Utah, 27, 92 Pac. 762 (blow on head, 
back sprained, arms bruised and 
sprained, right limb injured, and in- 
ternal injuries; cannot recover for 
injury to eyes). 

Washington: Horton v. Seattle, 53 
Wash. 316, 101 Pac. 1091 (hip disloca- 
ted, leg paralyzed, abdomen bruised, 
shock to nervous system, physical 
health greatly impaired; cannot show 
excessive menstruation). 

"' United States: Katahdin P. & P. 
Co. V. Peltomaa, 156 Fed. 342, 84 C. C. 
A. 238 (injured on head and shoulders, 
left arm broken, injured in arms, legs, 
and sides, suffered great pain in body 
and mind; may recover for resulting 
nervous disturbances and other internal 
injuries). 

Michigan: Montgomery v. Lansing 
C. E. Ry., 103 Mich. 46, 61 N. W. 543 
(plaintiff seriously hurt, wounded and 
crippled, and back and spine seriously 
injured; may show injury to lung and 
resulting consumption). 

Texas: Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Edling, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 171, 45 
S. W. 406 (wound on side, two ribs 
fractured, internal injuries to lungs, 
chest and heart; may show injury to 
kidney). 



2608 PLEADING AND PRACTICE § 1271 

unless it is specially averred in the declaration, i"* And the 
principle has been recognized in South CaroUna ^"^ and Penn- 
sylvania."" For slander of the plaintiff in either a public or 
private official capacity no allegation of special damage is 
necessary; "' but special damage must be alleged for injury 
to an author from the disparagement of a copyrighted work."^ 
In an action for slander for words spoken of the plaintiff in his 
trade or business, with a general allegation of loss of business, 
it is competent for the plaintiff to prove, and the jury to assess, 
damages for a general loss or decrease of trade, although the 
declaration alleges loss of particular customers as special dam- 
age, which is not proved; "' and where language is hbellous 
per se, and is calculated to affect the credit and reputation, 
damages may be recovered for injury to credit and reputation 
without special allegation."^ Only nominal damages can be 
recovered against a sheriff for not executing a deed on a par- 
tition sale, unless special damages are alleged."* An allega- 
tion is necessary for recovery of the expenses occasioned by the 
fraudulent imitation of trade-marks."^ 

In an action for wrongful levy on exempt property, the ex- 
pense of legal proceedings to assert the exemption and of haul- 
ing the goods back to the plaintiff's house canndt be recovered 
without special allegation."' In an action for wrongfully 
allowing defendant's bucks to mingle with plaintiff's ewes, no 
damages can be recovered, without special allegation, for the 
expense of men to care for the ewes and sheds to protect 
them."^ In an action for alienating the affections of a hus- 
band, mental suffering may be recovered without special al- 
legation."' 

™ Donnell v. Jones, 13 Ala. 490, 48 •" Lusk v. Briscoe, 65 Mo. 555. 

Am. Deo. 59. "» Dixon v. Fawcus, 3 L. T. R. (N. 

™ Rowand v. Bellinger, 3 Strobh. S.) 693. 

373. 1" Boggan v. Bennett, 102 Ala. 400, 

"» Stanfield v. Phillips, 78 Pa. 73. 14 So. 742. 

"' Foulger v. Newcomb, L. R. 2 Ex. "» McKinney v. Carson, 35 Utah, 

327. 180, 99 Pac. 660. 

"2 Swan V. Tappan, 5 Cush. 104. "» Kansas: Nevins v. Nevins, 68 

"» Evans v. Harries, 1 H. & N. Kan. 410, 75 Pac. 492. 

251. Kentucky: Klein v. Klein, 101 S. W. 

1" Warner Instrument Co. v. Inger- 382, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 28. 
BoU, 157 Fed. 311. 



§§ 1271a, 1272 demurrer overruled 2609 

§ 1271a. Answers. 

Great variety of practice prevails as to the necessity of 
setting up in a plea or answer matters in mitigation or reduction 
of damages. In the common-law system of pleading no 
matter of mitigation needed pleading, but the damages might 
be decreased by evidence introduced under the general issue, 
and under modern systems of pleading this is still true in gen- 
eral; ^^ for allegations of damage are not issuable, and the plea 
should state only facts which if true would bar recovery. 
But imder modern codes of procediu-e notice of matters of 
mitigation must in some cases be given in the answer, and it is 
sometimes held in jurisdictions having a code of procediwe 
that matters in mitigation generally must be pleaded by the 
defendant. ^^1 

II. — Practice 

§ 1272. Damages upon demurrer overruled. 

When upon a demurrer judgment is given for the plaintiff, 
damages are to be assessed upon testimony; as has been seen, 
the amount of damages claimed is not to be allowed without 
proof. The defendant has a right to be heard on the question 
of damages, ^^^ and may reduce them to a nominal amount. ^^' 

* Where there is a demurrer to evidence and a joinder, 
the court may have the damages assessed by the jmy con- 
ditionally, or they may discharge the jury, leaving the damages 
to be assessed by another jury, should the demurrer be over- 
ruled.^^* ** If a demmrer to a declaration in a suit by drawer 

•™ Georgia: McPhereon v. Chandler, Missouri: State v. Dickmann (Mo. 

72 S. E. 948. App.), 124 S. W. 29 (in defamation). 

Indiana: Blizzard v. Applegate, 61 New York: Bradner i;. Faulkner, 93 

Ind. 368 (except by statute, in def- N. Y. 515. 

amation). See Georgia: Atlantic C. L. R. R. v. 

Michigan: Osbom v. LoveU, 36 Mich. Powell, 127 Ga. 805, 56 S. E. 1006, 

246. 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 769. 

Missouri: Beck v. Dowell, 40 Mo. "z Hanley w. Sutherland, 74 Me. 212. 

App. 71 (except by statute, in defama- "' Crogan v. Schiele, 53 Conn. 186, 

tion). 55 Am. Rep. 88. 

Vermont: Collins v. Perkins, 31 Vt. ^'* Ftorida: Hanover F. I. Co. v. 

624. Lewis, 23 Fla. 193. , 

^'^ Kentucky: Cincinnati, N. O. & Indiana: Andrews v. Hammond, 8 

T. P. Ry. V. Crabtree, 100 S. W. 318, Blackf. 540. 

30 Ky. L. Rep. 1000. See Bull. N. P. 314, 2 Tidd's Pr. 786. 

164 



2610 PLEADING AND PRACTICE §§ 1273, 1274 

against acceptor be overruled, the court may, in Indiana, assess 
the damages so far as the amount due on the bill is concerned; 
but as to the costs of the protest, if chargeable at all, there 
must be a jury.^^'' So upon any undisputed document the 
court may assess damages without a jury; ^^^ but where a 
doubtful question of fact is involved, like interest on a foreign 
judgment, a jury must be called in.^^' On a venire tarn quam, 
to try an issue as to one count, and assess contingent damages 
on demurrer to others, if the plaintiff be nonsuited as to the 
issue, he cannot proceed to assess contingent damages on the 
counts demurred to.'^* When a declaration in assumpsit 
contains a common count, after judgment for the plaintiff 
on demurrer, a writ of inquiry should be awarded to ascertain 
the damages. ^^' In Connecticut, however, it is said that "an 
inquest is merely to inform the conscience of the court," and 
may therefore be dispensed with; and the practice in that 
State, when a demurrer by the defendant is overruled, is for 
the court to assess damages in all cases. ^^'' In Maine the 
plaintiff has the option of demanding a jury.'" In Illinois 
the court may assess damages without a jury."^ 

§ 1273. Upon plea in abatement. 

Where issue on a plea in abatement is found for the plaintiff, 
the judgment against the defendant is final, and the same jury 
should assess the damages. If they fail, however, to do so, 
under the practice in Kentucky, a jury to inquire of damages 
may be called, instead of ordering a venire de novo.^^^ 

§ 1274. Upon plea to the damage. 

* There has been much discussion how far a plea can be put 
in to the damage only; and the reasonable rule appears to be 

12S Phipps V. Addison, 7 Blackf. 375. '^r Evans v. Irvin, 1 Port. 390. 

In the same State, in debt t)n a sheriff's '^ Packard v. Hill, 7 Cow. 434. 

bond upon the execution of a writ of i^' Stanton v. Henderson, 1 Ind. 69. 
inquiry, after a demurrer to the repli- "" Havens v. Hartford & N. H. R. R. 

cation, assigning breaches has been 28 Conn. 69, 91. 

overruled, the quantum of the relator's "i Hanley v. Sutherland 74 Me. 

damages is the only subject of inquiry. 212. 
Clark V. The State, 7 Blackf. 570. "2 Hopkins v. Ladd, 36 III. 178. 

"8 Harrington v. Witherow, 2 Blackf. "' Weathers v. Mudd, 12 B Mon 

37. 112. 



§ 1275 UPON DEFAULT 2611 

that such a plea is bad, unless the damage is so essentially 
the cause of action that without it the suit could not be main- 
tained.^**** So where the defendant rightfully entered the 
plaintiff's close, but did unnecessary damage in carrying away 
goods, damage being the cause of action, it was held that a 
plea denying unnecessary damage was an issuable allegation.'*^ 
But where a complaint alleged the monthly rental value of 
premises to be $125, and the answer denied that the value was 
more than $75, it was held that no judgment could issue with- 
out a finding of the value.'*® 

§ 1275. Upon default. 

A judgment by default is an admission of the plaintiff's 
right to recover damages, but not as to the amount of damages; 
and upon a writ of inquiry, the defendant has a right to cross- 
examine the plaintiff's witnesses,'" and the plaintiff has the 
right to open and close.'** The plaintiff, on default, must 
prove his damages, or he can recover nominal damages only.'*^ 
So where, in an action for trespass, the plaintiff took judgment 
by default, but gave no evidence of circumstances of aggi'ava- 
tion, it was held that although these were alleged in the plead- 
ings, they were not admitted by the default, and exemplary 
damages could not be given.'*" So in an action for injury to 
property through negUgence, it was held that, upon an assess- 
ment of damages after default, the defendant could reduce the 
amount to nominal damages by showing that there was no 

i'« New Jersey: Hopple v. Higbee, 23 Illinois: Chicago & R. I. R. R. v. 

N. J. L. 342. Ward, 16 lU. 522. 

New York: Saltus v. Kip, 2 Abb. Pr. "* Wausau Boom Co. v. Dunbar, 75 

382. Wis. 133, 43 N. W. 739. 

England: Robinson v. Marchant, 7 ^'•^ Kentucky: Daniel v. Judy, 14 B. 

Q. B. 918; Wilby v. Elston, 8 C. B. 142; Mon. 393. 

Reindel u. Schell, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 310, New Hampshire: Willson v. Willson, 

27 L. J. (C. P.) 146. 25 N. H. 229, 57 Am. Dec. 320. 

"5 Carpenter v. Barber, 44 Vt. 441. New York: Connoss v. Meir, 2 E. D. 
"6 Chuck V. Quan Wo Chong (Cal.), Smith, 314; Hackett v. Richards, 3 

28 Pac. 45. E. D. Smith, 13. 

'" Arkansas: Thompson v. Haislip, North Carolina: McLeod v. Nimocks, 

14 Ark. 220; Mizell v. McDonald, 25 122 N. C. 437, 29 S. E. 577. 

Ark. 38. "» Chicago & I. R. R. v. Baker, 73 

Florida: Russ v. Gilbert, 19 Fla. 54, 111. 316. 
45 Am. Rep. 1. 



2612 PLEADING AND PRACTICE § 1276 

negligence on his part."^ But the jury cannot, after a de- 
fault, find for the defendant; "^ they must find at least one 
mill as damages."' The court may, as in case of demurrer 
overruled, assess damages where the amount is certain; but 
the value of foreign money must be found by a jury,"^ and so 
in any case where questions of fact are involved."^ 

§ 1276. Entire or several damages— Joinder of good and bad 
counts. 

* We have already said, that an important question may arise 
as to the assessment of entire or several damages. The jury 
may assess entire or distinct damages on each of the counts, 
when separate injuries have been proved. If distinct damages 
be assessed, judgment may be given on either of the counts; 
but if the jury find entire damages on all the counts, the judg- 
ment must be entire; and in this case, if one of the counts be 
insufficient, judgment will be arrested, or a writ of error be 
sustainable."^ This may be where a good count is joined 
to a bad count; or where a bad assignment of breaches is joined 
with good; or where counts, though good in themselves, are 
improperly joined; or where a single count contains good and 
bad causes of action; and in those cases, if general damages 
be assessed, the practice has been different. If the verdict 
can be amended or applied to the good counts, this in some 

"' Batchelder v. Bartholomew, 44 that it did not apply to criminal prose- 
Conn. 494. cutions. But in O'Connell v. 



1" Ellis V. State, 2 Ind. 262. nam, 9 Jurist, 25, the same principle 
1" Frazier v. Lomax, 1 D. C. (1 Cr. was applied to an indictment for con- 
C. C.) 328. In Lower Canada it seems spiracy. See, also, Cheetham v. Til- 
that the court always assesses dam- lotson, 5 Johns. 430. The rule in civil 
ages upon default. Vadebonoocur v. actions has been affirmed in England. 
Mason, 5 Rev. Leg. 238. Eliot v. Allen, 1 C. B. 18. Where a 
1" Maunsell v. Massareene, 5 T. R. breach gives no data to regulate the 
87. assessment of damages, though it neg- 
>" Maund v. Loeb, 87 Ala. 374. ative the words of the condition of the 
i« Chitty on Pleading, vol. i, p. 447; bond, it is not well assigned. People 
Hambleton v. Veere, 2 Saunders, 169; v. Russell, 4 Wend. 570. But if so as- 
Eddowes v. Hopkins, 1 Doug. 376; signed that the plaintiff would be en- 
Grant V. Astle, 2 Doug. 722. In this titled to nominal damages only, it is 
case Lord Mansfield, while he main- not enough. Albany Dutch Church 
tained the doctrine, declared the rule v. Vedder, 14 Wend. 165; Backus v. 
"inconvenient, ill-founded, and ab- Richardson, 5 Johns. 476. 
surd," and called attention to the fact, 



§ 1277 JUDGMENT WHEN AREESTED 2613 

cases will be done.^^^ And it has been said, in England, to be a 
settled rule that, "if the same count contains two demands or 
complaints, for one of which the action Ues, and not for the 
other, all the damages shall be referred to the good cause of 
action, although it would be otherwise if they were in separate 
counts." 1^8 

§ 1277. Judgment when arrested. 

But if the verdict cannot be awarded or apphed to the good 
counts, th^n the question is, whether the cause should be tried 
again, or the judgment entirely arrested. In some cases the 
judgment has been arrested; "' and this stUl seems the practice 
in England, where counts, good in themselves, were improperly 
joined, which is in truth a misjoinder of causes of action; "" 
but where good counts are joined with bad, the rule now seems 
to be that a new trial will be awarded. ^^^ Such seems the well- 
settled system in England; but in some parts of our Union, a 
more rational rule has been adopted. In Connecticut, the Su- 
preme Court has said, that "if there be good and bad counts, 
or good and bad matter in the same count, the presumption, 
in our courts, is, that damages are given on the good parts." ^^^ 
So, in Ohio, if the declaration contains a good count among 
defective counts, the court on error will intend that the verdict 
was well taken on the good count, unless the record shows that 
it was rendered upon those that were defective."^ Mr. Ser- 
geant Williams, in his valuable notes to Saimders' Reports, ^^* 
after collecting a great number of cases on this subject, observes 
that the result of them all appears to be, that where it is ex- 

'" Chitty on Pleadings, 448. verse the judgment. Gordon v. Ken- 

i« Doe d. Lawrie v. Dyeball, 8 B. & nedy, 2 Binn. 287; Lewis v. Witham, 

C. 70; Kitchenman v. Skeel, 3 Ex. 49. 2 Strange, 1185. 

"' Com. Dig. Damages, E. 5; Comer "" Johnson v. Mullin, 12 Ohio, 10; 

V. Shew, 4 M. & W. 163. Where the Chisom v. School District, 19 Ohio, 289. 

plaintiff declares upon a contract con- "' Kitchenman v. Skeel, 3 Ex. 49. 

sisting of several parts, and assigns, "^ Graves u. Waller, 19 Conn. 90; 

among other breaches, one which from ace, Leach v. Thomas, 2 M. & W. 427; 

his own showing, could not have taken Emblin v. Dartnell, 12 M. & W. 830. 

place before the action was brought, "' Hopkins v. Beedle, 1 Caines, 347; 

the court cannot intend that the dam- Lyle v. Clason, 1 Caines, 581. 

ages, if assessed generally, were given '" Note to Hambleton v. Veere, 2 

only for that matter in the count which Saund. 169, 171. 

was actionable, and therefore will re- 



2614 Pleading and practice § 1278 

pressly and positively averred in the declaration that the 
plaintiff has sustained damages for a cause arising subsequent 
to the commencement of his suit, or previous to his having any 
right of action, and the jury gives entire damages, the judg- 
ment will be arrested. But when the cause of action is properly 
laid, and the other matter comes in either under a scilicet, or is 
void, insensible, or impossible, and it therefore caimot be in- 
tended that the jury ever had it under their consideration, the 
plaintiff will be entitled to judgment."^ The better mode, of 
com-se, where any difficulty of this kind is apprehended, is to 
assess the damages severally on each count. In such case the 
judgment wiU be arrested only on the count that is bad.^^' 

§ 1278. Cotint bad in part. 

So, part of a coimt may be bad; and in such a case,"^ in an 
action of covenant for quiet enjoyment, the plaintiff had 
averred by way of special damages, after setting out an evic- 
tion, that he had lost divers large sums of money expended on 
and about improving the premises ; it was insisted that, as part 
of the special damage did not fall within the covenant, and the 
jmy had assessed general damages, the whole was erroneous. 
But Abbott, C. J., intimated that, the whole declaration con- 
sisting of one count, after verdict it was to be presumed that 
the judge, at the trial, directed the jury to confine their atten- 
tion to that part of the special damage only which was relevant 
to the covenant broken. So, in New York, it has been held 
that where a coimt contains two separate and distinct allega- 
tions of damages, one actionable and the other not, no motion 
in arrest of judgment wiU be sustained; for the coiui; wiU intend, 
after verdict, that the damages were only given for the action- 
able part of the declaration.^** ** So, in slander, if the words 

1" Steele v. Western Inland L. N. i" Campbell v. LevfTS, 3 B. & Aid. 

Co., 2 Johns. 286. 392. 

i» Hayter v. Moat, 2 M. & W. 56. i» Steele v. Western I. L. N. Co., 2 

In the case of Gregory v. The Duke of Johns. 286; Osbom's Case, 10 Coke, 

Brunswick, 7 Scott's N. R. 972, the 130; Lloyd v. Morris, Willes R. 443; 

jury having found a general verdict for 5 Bac. Abr. 249. This rule was also 

the defendants, the court refused to followed by the New York Supreme 

award a venire de novo on the groimd Court. Edwards v. Reynolds, Hill & 

that they had not assessed damages on D. Supp. 53. But in the New York 

the issue at law. ' Superior Court it has been held, that 



§ 1279 JOINT TORTS 2615 

are all spoken at one time and aU embraced in one coimt, and 
among them are any that will maintain the action, a verdict 
for the plaintiff will be good, since it will be intended that the 
damages are for the actionable words only, and that the others 
were alleged for aggravation. But if the action be for different 
words spoken at different times, and will lie for the one, but 
not for the other, a general verdict for entire damages will not 
be good.^^' 

§ 1279. Joint torts. 

*In regard to the verdict, the question of severance is im- 
portant in another point of view. Where several persons are 
jointly charged in an action of tort, as of assault, battery, and 
false imprisonment, and they either plead jointly, or sever in 
their pleas, or one suffers judgment to go by defaidt, if the jury 
assesses several damages, the verdict is wrong, and the judg- 
ment will be erroneous, ^^ for the trespass being jointly charged, 
and the jury finding them jointly guilty, the damages cannot 
be separated, and consequently the verdict should be for the 
amount which the most culpable ought to pay.** In many 
cases of joint trespass and several damages given, the plaintiff 
is permitted to enter one joint judgment against all, assuming 
the largest sum assessed against any one as the damages 
against all, de rmlioribus damnis.^^^ So where a joint tort had 
been committed, and the referee found that the plaintiffs had 

where damages have been assessed by New York: Bohim v. Taylor, 6 Cow. 

the jury in one sum upon two items of 313; Beal v. Finch, 11 N. Y. 128. 

claim, on one of which plaintiff was Pennsylvania: Wakely v. Hart, 6 

entitled to recover, while on the other Binn. 316, 319. 

he was not, and they cannot be severed Virginia: Crawford v. Morris, 5 

and apportioned by the appellate court, Gratt. 90. 

there must be a new trial, unless the England: Salmon v. Smith, 1 Saun- 

plaintiff will remit the damages en- ders, 207, note 2; Hill v. Goodchild, 5 

tirely. Sherry v. Frecking, 4 Duer, Burr. 2790; Mitchell ». Milbank, 6 T. K. 

452. 199; Brown v. Allen, 4 Esp. 158. 

"'Empson f. GriflBn, 11 A. & E. 186. In Tennessee it was held that the 

™ Connecticut: Bostwick v. Lewis, plaintiff could have several judgments 

1 Day, 33. against joint trespassers, but only one 

Illinois: Yeazel v. Alexander, 58 111. satisfaction. Brison v. Dougherty, 3 

254. Baxter, 93. 

Massachusetts: Kennebeck Purchase ^' Halsey v. Woodruff, 9 Pick. 555; 

V. Boulton, 4 Mass. 419; Halsey v. Fuller v. Chamberlain, 11 Met. 503. 
Woodruff, 9 Pick. 555. 



2616 PLEAIUNG AND PEACTICE §§ 1280, 1281 

been damaged by one of the defendants to the amount of $600, 
and by the other to the amount of $150, it was held by the 
Superior Court of New York that the judgment was rightly 
entered against both in the larger amount. "^ Or the error may 
be cured by entering a nolle prosequi against one, and taking 
judgment against the other. ^'^ 

§ 1280. Several torts by different defendants in the same suit. 

* But, on the other hand, if the charge is several, the rule is 
the reverse. So, in an action against divers persons found 
guilty of several takings or offences, damages ought to be as- 
sessed against them severally; as in trespass for battery and 
goods, if oiie be found guilty for the battery, and the other for 
the goods taken. 

So, if against three defendants, one demurs, another makes 
default, and a third joins issue; on the trial several damages 
shall be assessed against those who demur and naake de- 
fault, i^* ** 

§ 1281. Award of arbitrators. 

* It has been held in England, that where a verdict is taken 
at Nisi Prius, subject to the award of an arbitrator, to whom 
all matters in difference are referred, he cannot award a greater 
sum than that for which the verdict was taken. But this does 
not apply to the action of debt.^*^ ** 

^^^ Alabama: Hair v. Little, 28 Ala. Mississippi: Hardy v. Thomas, 23 

236. Miss. 544, 57 Am. Dec. 152. 

4-rkansas: Clark v. Bales, 15 Ark. New York: Holley v. Mix, 3 Wend. 

452. 350, 20 Am. Dec. 702. 

Mississippi: Bell v. Morrison, 27 Canada: Clissold v. Machell, 26 Up. 

Miss. 68. Can. Q. B. 422. 

New York: O'Shea v. Kirker, 4 Bogw. ^' Com. Dig. Damages, E. 5; Chap- 

120. man v. House, 2 Str. 1140. In New 

But in Clissold v. Machell, 26 Up. York, in an action against several, if 

Can. Q. B. 422, it was held that if judg- one pleads to issue and another suffers 

ment were entered against two defend- judgment by default, damages must be 

ants upon a verdict of this nature, it assessed against both at the same time, 

must be for the smaller amount. by the jury who try the issue. Van 

183 District of Columbia: Conner v. Schaick v. Trotter, 6 Cow. 599. 

Cockerill, 4 D. C. (4 Cr. C. C.) 3. i«= Bonner v. Charlton, 5 East, 139; 

Minnesota: Warren v. Westrup, 44 Annan v. Job, 10 Jurist, 1083. 
Minn. 237, 20 Am. St. Rep. 578, 46 
N. W. 347. 



§§ 1282-1284 FORM OF verdict 2617 

§ 1282. Costs. 

Costs are an incident to the judgment, and cannot be al- 
lowed by the jury as damages. ^'^ And although if a jiu-y ask 
what amount of damages will carry costs, there is no reason 
why the judge should not tell them, as it is a part of the law,^*'' 
yet their having given a verdict in ignorance that it will not 
carry costs, is no reason why it should be disturbed after it is 
recorded. ^^* And it is said that a verdict, the amount of which 
is adjusted by a jury for the purpose of giving or withholding 
costs, cannot be sustained.'^' So where, in an action of tres- 
pass, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for 
costs, it was held that such a verdict and the judgment thereon 
were nullities; that in legal effect this was a finding in favor of 
the defendant, and the law carried the costs in his favor against 
the plaintiff. 1™ 

§ 1283. Obsolete judgment of " damage clear." 

* There was formerly, in England, a charge on the plaintiff's 
judgment called damage clear, which was a payment required 
to be made of twelve pence in the pound; but it seems to have 
been long since aboUshed; for, in an early case, it appears that 
the court thought it "hard that the plaintiffe should be estopt 
of his judgement till he had paid his damages cleere," and they 
resolved to amend it."^ ** 

§ 1284. Form of verdict. 

In an action to recover money, the jiu-y should find for the 
plaintiff the amount of his debt as proved, and the damages 
separately; and the judgment should follow the verdict. Yet 
where the verdict and judgment give, in an aggregate sum as 
damages, the amount of the debt and legal interest thereon 
from the time when due until the time of the verdict, if the 
total amount found by the verdict for damages does not ex- 
ceed the principal and interest due or the sum laid as damages 
in the declaration, such verdict will not be held invalid, but 

i" Shay V. Tuolumne Water Co., 6 ^'^ Russell v. Weneweser, 2 Ir. R. C. 

Cal. 286. L. 427, 431. 

1" Steketee v. Kimm, 48 Mich. 322. "» Mangham v. Reed, 11 Ga. 137. 

158 Kilmore v. Abdoolah, 27 L. J. Ex. "' Thorp's Case, March, 75. 
307. 



2618 PLEADING AND PRACTICE § 1285 

will authorize and support a judgment for the sum in damages 
so found. 1" In South Carolina, where in debt on a bond, the 
jury, in finding for the plaintiff on the general issue, assess the 
damages (as, under the practice there, is proper), and allow 
the plaintiff only the principal sum due, but not the interest, 
to which he is entitled, his only remedy is by appeal. Judg- 
ment for the interest, non obstante veredicto, will not be allowed, 
nor can he collect it by marking it for collection on the^. fa."^ 

§ 1286. Damages as affecting jurisdiction. 

* An important question as to damages with reference to 
pleading is presented in the United States, in regard to the 
jurisdiction of those courts which are prohibited from taking 
cognizance of any cases, unless a certain pecuniary amount is 
in controversy; as in regard to the Circuit Courts, which do not 
usually exercise their jurisdiction over cases involving less than 
five hundred dollars; and the Supreme Court of the United 
States, the appellate jurisdiction of which, in like manner, 
commences at the sum of five (formerly two) thousand dollars. 
And it has been frequently decided "that the damages claimed 
in the writ and declaration are the sum in controversy." Even 
if the plaintiff recover less than five hundred dollars, it cannot 
affect the jurisdiction of the court if a greater sum be claimed 
in his writ."* But on application to remove a suit from the 
State court, it has been intimated that the amount in the dec- 
laration is not conclusive, and that the plaintiff's affidavit may 
be received to controvert it."^ 

On a writ of error, though the verdict in the Circuit Court 
was for less than two thousand dollars, but more than that 
sum was claimed in the declaration, if the plaintiff brought 
error, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction (before the limit was 
changed) ; for the judgment might be reversed, and the whole 
amount claimed recovered."" But this is not so if the writ of 
error is brought by the defendant."' In such case the amount 
in controversy is to be decided by the sum in controversy at 

"2 Young V. Chandler, 13 B. Mon. "« People v. Judges of N. Y. C. P., 2 

252. Denio, 197. 

"3 Gourdin v. Read, 10 Rich. L. 217. ™ Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33, 7 

"* Gordon v. Longest, 16 Pet. 97, L. ed, 

104, 10 L. ed. 900. "' Smith v. Honey, 3 Pet. 469, 7 L. 



§ 1286 HiGitT TO fiEom 2619 

the time of the judgment, and not by any subsequent additions 
thereto, such as interest. The court cannot look beyond the 
time of the judgment, in order to ascertain whether a writ of 
error lies or not."* 

And where the demand is not for money, and the nature of 
the action does not require the value of the thing demanded 
to be stated in the declaration, the recognized practice of the 
courts of the United States has been to allow the value to be 
given in evidence."' ** 

In the State courts, in actions of tort, the damages claimed 
usually determine the jurisdiction as to amount.^*" But under 
the Indiana Code, the damages laid in the conclusion of the 
complaint do not enlarge the claim of the plaintiff so as to de- 
feat the jurisdiction of a court limited in jurisdiction to a 
specified amount, if it appear by the statement of the plain- 
tiff's cause of action that he cannot be entitled to recover as 
much as the limit within which the jurisdiction is confined. ^^^ 
In an action of contract it was held in Maryland that the 
amount recovered, not that laid in the declaration, determines 
the jurisdiction, and if in a court which has no jurisdiction of 
claims under a certain amount a verdict is returned for less 
than that amount, the court has no jurisdiction to proceed 
further with the case.^^^ 

§ 1286. Right to begin. 

* If the rules of pleading are correctly followed, the only re- 
maining questions in regard to damages are those which come 
properly under the head of practice. The most important of 
these is that which presents itself at the trial of the cause in 
regard to the right to begin, as it is called; or, in other words, 

ed. 744. See, also, Wilson v. Daniel, 3 "« Enapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73, 11 

Dall. 401; United States v. M'Dowell, 4 L. ed. 184. See, also, Wilson v. Sand- 

Cranch, 316; Course v. Stead, 4 Dall. ford, 10 How. 99, 13 L. ed. 344. 

22; Brown D. Barry, 3 Dall. 365; United ™ Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634, 

States V. The Union, 4 Cranch, 216, 2 8 L. ed. 810; United States v. The 

L. ed. 600; Peyton v. Robertson, 9 Union, 4 Cranch, 216, 2 L. ed. 600; 

Wheat. 527, 6 L. ed. 151; Ritchie v. Course f. Stead, 4 Dall. 22. 

Mauro, 2 Pet. 243, 7 L. ed. 411; Scott i™ Aulick v. Adams, 12 B. Mon. 104. 

V. Lunt, 6 Pet. 349, 8 L. ed. 423; '" Collins v. Shaw, 8 Ind. 516. 

United States v. Macdaniel, 7 ,Pet. 1, i'" Rohr v. Anderson, 51 Md. 205, 

8 L. ed. 587. 218. 



2620 PLEADING AND PRACTICE § 1286 

in what cases does the necessity of proving damages give the 
plaintiff a right to open and close the cause, where the affirma- 
tive of the issue is with the defendant. The importance of this 
subject has been clearly stated by a judge of great experience: 
"It unhappily still remains of great importance to the admin- 
istration of justice by a jury, that the right to begin should be 
correctly adjudicated on; for all who are conversant with those 
trials at Nisi Prius, in which the address of counsel may materi- 
ally affect the result, well know that the issue often ultimately 
depends on the decision of the question, which party has a 
right to begin." ^*' 

In England, it has at length been settled by a rule of all the 
judges, that the plaintiff shall begin in all actions for personal 
injuries, Ubel, and slander though the general issue may not be 
pleaded, and the affirmative be on the defendant in actions of 
contract; ^** however, the subject is stiU involved in uncer- 
tainty. An effort has been made to make the right depend on 
whether the plaintiff goes for substantial rehef or for nominal 
damages; but the point does not appear to have been yet au- 
thoritatively settled. ^^^ 

"In this country," says Mr. Greenleaf, in his very valuable 
work on Evidence, "it is generally deemed a matter of discre- 
tion, to be ordered by the judge at the trial, as he may think 
most conducive to the administration of justice; but the weight 
of authority, as well as the analogies of the law, seem to be in 
favor of giving the opening and closing of the cause to the plain- 
tiff, wherever the damages are in dispute, unliquidated, and to 
be settled by the jury upon such evidence as may be adduced, 
and not by computation alone." ^*^ This language seems to 
ascribe a greater discretion to the judge trsdng the cause, and 
to open the door to greater laxity than is in fact allowed. In 

■" Pollock, C. B., in Ashby v. Bates, >85 Chapman v. Rawson, 8 Q. B. 673; 

15 M. & W. 589, 594, where a new trial Cannam v. Farmer, 2 Car. & Kir. 747. 

was ordered because of an erroneous In the Exchequer, the crown has the 

ruling at Nisi Prius as to the right to right to a general reply in all cases 

begin. See, also, Booth v. Millns, 15 where the crown has an interest. Mar- 

M. & W. 669. quis of Chandos v. Commrs. of Inland 

'" Greenleaf on Evidence, § 76, 3d Revenue, 20 L. J. Exch. 269. 
ed. 149; Mercer v. Whall, 9 Jur. 576, ^^ 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, 14th ed., 

5 Q, B. 447. § 76, p. 107, where cases will be found. 



§ 1286a DAMAGES ON APPEAL 2621 

Massachusetts, it has been said, citing with approbation the 
language of Lord Denman, in Mercer v. Whall: '" "Wherever, 
from the state of the record at Nisi Prius, there is anything to 
be proved by the plaintiff, whether as to the facts necessary for 
his obtaining a verdict, or as to the amount of damages, the 
plaintiff is entitled to begin. But where the onus probandi lies 
in the first instance on the defendant, he is entitled to begin." ^^^ 
So, in the same State, when in trespass the defendant pleads 
soil and freehold in himself, without any other plea, and issue 
is joined thereon, the right of opening and closing the argument 
before the jury belongs to the defendant. ^'^ So, in the same 
State, on the hearing before a jury to reassess damages for 
taking land for a railroad, the party claiming damages has the 
right to open and close, and a contrary ruUng at the trial was 
held erroneous."" ** 

§ 1286a. Damages on appeal. 

In case of a frivolous or unnecessary appeal, damages are 
often allowed by statute or local practice. Thus it is a common 
practice for the Appellate Court to increase the judgment by 
6% or 10% for a frivolous appeal, taken obviously for delay 
merely."^ 

'" 5 Q. B. 447. Missouri: Tobin v. Missouri Pac. 

188 Conn. River R. R. v. Clapp, 1 R. R., 18 S. W. 996 (no damages where 

Cush. 559, 563. the appeal was in good faith). 

180 Davis V. Mason, 4 Pick. 156. New York: Jackson v. Rochester, 124 

1" Conn. River R. R. v. Clapp, 1 N. Y. 624, 26 N. E. 326. 

Cush. 559. Pennsylvania: O'Donnell v. Broad, 

^^'^ United States (by rule of court): 149 Pa. 24, 27 Atl. 305; Martin v. 

Barrow v. Hill, 13 How. 54, 14 L. ed. 48; Rider, 181 Pa. 265, 37 Atl. 403. 

Kilboume v. State Inst., 22 How. 503, Texas: Montgomery v. Buckskin 

16 L. ed. 370; Prentice v. Pickersgill, 6 Breeches Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 116 

Wall. 511, 18 L. ed. 790; Amory v. S. W. 139. 

Amory, 91 U. S. 356, 23 L. ed. 436. No Wisconsin: Ramsay v. Davis, 20 

damages will be allowed unless the Wis. 31; Ossouski ;;. Wiesner, 101 Wis. 

appeal was for delay. Cotton v. Wal- 238, 77 N. W. 184. No damages will 

lace, 3 Dall. 302. The allowance is be allowed unless the appeal was clearly 

entirely in the discretion of the court, frivolous and in bad faith. Morse v. 

Boyce v. Grundy, 9 Pet. 275, 9 L. ed. Buffalo Ins. Co., 30 Wis. 534, 11 Am. 

127. Rep. 587; Northwestern L. I. Co. v. 

California: Bell v. Camm, 10 Cal. Irish, 38 Wis. 361. 

App. 388, 102 Pac. 225. In Washington the cause for award 

Illinois: Minnesota M. L. I. Co. v. of damages must be apparent on the 

Link, 230 111. 273, 82 N. E. 637. record. Seattle & M. R. R. u. Joergen- 



2622 



PLEADING AND PRACTICE 



§ 1:286b 



§ 1286b. Damages on dissolution of injunction. 

It has already been seen "^ that an injunction bond is usually 
required before an interlocutory injunction will be granted. 
Where a bond has not been required, damages may be assessed 
on the dissolution of a temporary injunction; these will be 
assessed on the same principles that regulate the damages on 
an injunction bond."' 



son, 3 Wash. 622, 29 Pac. 88; Walter v. 
Maresch, 3 Wash. 624, 29 Pao. 205; 
Wheeler v. Commercial Investment 
Co., 22 Wash. 546, 61 Pac. 715; HalUdie 
Mach. Co. V. Hayden-Coeur d'Alene 
Irr. Co., 56 Wash. 11, 105 Pac. 140. 

In Kentucky damages are allowed 
only in the case of money judgments 
which may be enforced by execution 
or similar process. Worsham v. Lan- 
caster, 104 Ky. 813, 48 S. W. 410; 
Hatfield v. HoUoway, 106 S. W. 1192. 

192 Ante, §§ 685 et seq. 

"' Illinois: Dempster v. Lansingh, 
234 111. 381, 84 N. E. 1032 (aUowance 
of counsel fees) ; Howard v. Burke, 248 
111. 224, 93 N. E. 775 (counsel fees). 

Mississippi: Curphy v. Terrell, 89 
Miss. 624, 42 So. 235 (counsel fees). 



Tennessee: Collins v. Crownover, 57 
S. W. 357. 

Texas: Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Ware, 74 Tex. 47, 11 S. W. 918 (ex- 
penses of dissolution); Galveston C. 
R. R. V. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 
S. W. 1132 (loss of time and profits); 
Hermann v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.), 
118 S. W. 794 (delay in removal of 
building). 

England: Mansell v. British L. C. 
Bank, [1892] 3 Ch. 159 (diminution in 
value of shares). 

In Louisiana, by statute, damages 
cannot exceed 20%, which includes 
attorney's fees. Schwann v. Sanders, 
121 La. 461, 46 So. 573; Rivet v. George 
M. Murrell P. & M. Co., 121 La. 201, 
46 So. 210. 



CHAPTER LVI 





EVIDENCE 




1287. 


Mode of proof. 


§ 1298. 


Evidence of sales. 


1288. 


Exceptions to common-law 


1299. 


Offers — Price-lists — Quota- 




rule excluding testimony of 




tions — Appraisals. 




party. 


1300. 


Presumption against defend- 


1289. 


Abrogation of common-law 




ant. 




rule. 


1301. 


Estoppel. 


1290. 


Witness to testify to facts, not 


1302. 


Value of construction. 




opinions. 


1303. 


Of services. 


1291. 


Experts. 


1304. 


Other value. 


1292. 


Confined to matters of art and 


1305. 


Evidence of malice or inten- 




skill. 




tion — Appraisals . 


1293. 


Opinions as to quantum of 


1306. 


Of the duration of life. 




damages. 


1307. 


Of pain. 


1294. 


Value — Opinions of value. 


1308. 


Of a former verdict. 


1295. 


Value of lands and leases. 


1309. 


Physical examination. 


1296. 


Of chattels — Opinions of 


1310. 


Approximate evidence. 




value. 


1310a, 


, Damage imported from the 


1297. 


Market value. 




circumstances. 



§ 1287. Mode of proof. 

* We have now to consider the mode of proof by which 
claims to damage are substantiated. The rules which govern 
evidence as applied to fix the measure of relief, are neither 
numerous nor complex, but they deserve careful attention. 

We have seen that in the early stages of the civil law, the 
plaintiff was allowed to fix the amount of the compensation to 
which he conceived himself entitled, subject only to the re- 
straining hand of the judex. In the common law, independ- 
ently of statutory innovation, the rule was carried to the other 
extreme; for, as a general principle, neither party to the record 
was allowed to give testimony in any branch of the case. But 
to this rule certain exceptions were introduced. 



§ 1288. Exceptions to common-law rule excluding testimony 
of party. 

The oath of the party was admitted by the common law, in 
respect of a lost deed or other paper, preparatory'to the intro- 

2623 



2624 EVIDENCE § 1288 

duction of secondary evidence to prove its contents. So, too, 
in complaints under bastardy acts, the oath of the female was 
admitted to charge the defendant with the paternity of the 
offspring. So, again, the rule was relaxed in order to prove the 
amount of compensation to which a party was entitled; thus, 
the oath of the plaintiff was admitted in many States of the 
Union to prove the truth of entries in his books of goods de- 
livered in small amounts or of daily labor performed, when the 
party, from his situation, has no evidence but the accounts 
kept by himself, and where, as a general thing, from the nature 
of the trafl&c or service, he could not have. So, too, where 
robberies or larcenies had been committed, and no evidence 
existed but that of the party robbed or plundered, he has been 
admitted as a witness to prove his loss; for it was said that in 
these cases the party injured should have an extraordinary- 
remedy in odium spoliatoris. On this ground, in an action 
against the hundred under the English statute of Winton, the 
person robbed was admitted as a witness to prove his loss and 
the amount of it.^ So, in Pennsylvania, in an action against 
the county for the destruction of property by a mob, the plain- 
tiff was allowed to prove ownership and the value of wearing 
apparel destroyed,^ but not the destruction of household furni- 
ture, because there the argmnent ex necessitate did not apply.' 
So, also, in equity, where a man ran away with a casket of 
jewels, the party injured was admitted as a witness.* So, too, 
when the defendant, a shipmaster, broke open and plundered 
the plaintiff's trunk, the latter was allowed to testify to the 
contents of the trunk. ^ 

An effort was made in Pennsylvania to extend the principle 
of these exceptions to all cases of passengers by public con- 
veyances, where there was no criminal nor even tortious act 
committed by the defendant beyond mere negUgence; and it 
was said that in such cases the plaintiff might testify from 
necessity.^ But in Massachusetts this was denied; the old 

1 Bui. N. P. 187; Porter v. Hundred M'Gill v. Rowand, 3 Pa. 451, 45 Am. 
of Regland, Peake's Add. Cases, 203; Dec. 654. 

Snow V. Eastern R. R., 12 Met. 44. ' Ibid. 

2 County !). Leidy, 10 Pa. 45. See, 'East India Co. K.Evans, 1 Vera. 305. 
also, Clark v. Spense, 10 Watts, 335; ^Herman v. Drinkwater, 1 Me. 27. 

« Whitesell v. Crane, 8 W. & S. 369. 



§ 1289 ABROGATION OF COMMON-LAW RULE 2625 

principle was adhered to, and in a case of mere negligence it 
was decided that the plaintiff was not competent, even though 
he had no other testimony as to the amount of his loss.' 

In New York, the admission of the plaintiff as a witness in 
these cases was sanctioned by statute;^ the general railroad act 
of that State providing where baggage was properly checked, 
that if not dehvered on the production of the check, "the plain- 
tiff may himself be a witness, in any suit brought by him, to 
prove the contents and value of said baggage." ' ** 

§ 1289. Abrogation of common-law rule. 

Before the abrogation of the common-law rule, the plaintiff 
himself, in actions against a common carrier or innkeeper, to 
recover for a trunk, etc., lost, was frequently allowed, as we 
have seen, to prove its contents.^" But in Garvey v. Camden 
& Amboy Railroad " it was held that the rule of evidence which 
allowed the plaintiff, in an action against a common carrier, to 
recover for a lost trunk, etc., to prove the value of the contents 
by his own oath, was confined to cases in which fraud or wrong 
is proved upon the defendant, and had no application to cases 
of loss through negligence merely. And the jury were not 
bound by the evidence of one of the parties to the suit in es- 
timating the damages, though there was no other evidence 
before them to fix the amount. ^^ It is one of the natural con- 
comitants of illness and of physical injuries for the sick or in- 
jured persons to complain of pain and distress. And evidence 
of such complaints, in connection with other proofs of injury 
received, was held admissible from the necessity of the case, in 
an action for the injury sustained, to show its extent, etc. Such 
evidence did not fall within the rule which excluded declara- 
tions of a party in his own favor. ^^ 

' Snow V. Eastern R. R., 12 Met. 44. Ohio: Mad River & Lake Erie Rail- 

» Laws of 1850, c. 140, § 37. road v. Fulton, 20 Ohio, 318. 

' As to how far this provision was ap- " 4 Abb. Pr. 171. 

plicable to all the railroads existing in >^ Bee Printing Co. v. Hichbom, 4 

the State, see Marsh v. New York & All. 63. 

Erie R. R., 14 Barb. 364; Milliman v. " Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 N. Y. 416; 

Oswego & Syracuse R. R., 10 Barb. 87. and see s. c. below, 1 Duer, 233; see 

'" Indiana: Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242. to same effect Massachusetts: Bacon v. 

New York: Taylor v. Monnot, 1 Abb. Charlton, 7 Cush. 581. 

Pr. 325; s. c, 4 Duer, 116. Wisconsin: McKeigue v. Janesville, 

165 



2626 EVIDENCE § 1290 

The original rule of the common law has been now, however, 
so far changed, both in England and in this country, by statute, 
that the decisions cited in the preceding paragraphs have little 
importance. In England, New York, Connecticut, and prob- 
ably all other States of the Union, the rule of the common law 
has been abrogated, and, with more or fewer exceptions, parties 
are permitted to testify in chief and to all facts pertinent to 
the case. 

§ 1290. Witness to testify to facts, not opinions. 

* Another general rule, which pervades all our law, is that the 
witness is to testify only to facts. He is to speak as to the 
facts which he has heard or seen. His opinion is not to be 
given; ^* for it is the opinion of the jury on the testimony 
which forms the verdict and decides the case. But to this rule, 
again, there are many important exceptions. So, pedigree is 
often proved by the hearsay of the family. So, handwriting is 
proved by the opinions of those famiUar with the signature of 
the party. So, too, the witness has been allowed to state his 
opinion in cases of criminal conversation, to show the state of 
the affections of the parties. ^^ And, on similar grounds, in 
cases of breach of promise of marriage. In an action of the 
latter description, the Supreme Court of New York said: "We 
do not see how the various facts upon which an opinion of the 
plaintiff's attachment must be grounded, are capable of speci- 
fication, so as to leave it, like ordinary facts, as a matter of in- 
ference, to the jury. It is true, as a general rule, that witnesses 
are not allowed to give their opinions to a jury; but there are 
exceptions, and we think this one of them. There are a thou- 
sand nameless things, indicating the existence and degree of the 
tender passion, which language cannot specify. The opinions 
of witnesses on this subject must be derived from a series of 
instances, passing under their observation, which yet they 
never could detail to a jury." i« So, too, evidence of this kind 
has been admitted in cases of insanity; but it has been pro- 

68 Wis. 60; King v. Oshkosh, 76 Wis. Wisconsin: Blair v. Milwaukee & P 
617, 44 N. W. 746. du C. R. R., 20 Wis. 262. 

^* Colorado: Montelius v. Atherton, "Trelawney v. Colman, 2 Starkie 
6 Colo. 225. 191. 

" M'Kee V. Nelson, 4 Cow. 355. 



§ 1291 EXPERTS 2627 

nounced by a very able judge, "the most unsatisfactory, and 
the least to be depended on." " ** So it has been held proper 
to ask a contractor what the amount of his loss is and what the 
profit on the work would have been.^^ 

§ 1291. Experts. 

* To the general rule that the witness' opinion cannot be 
received as to the amoimt or character of injury sustained, 
there are, however, some considerable exceptions. Of these, 
perhaps the most comprehensive and important is that which 
admits persons of science, or experts in any profession, to 
testify as to their opinion on a given state of facts relating to 
matters in regard to which their education gives them peculiar 
capacity for forming a correct judgment.^' 

So, in Massachusetts, on the trial of an action to recover 
damages for injury done to the plaintiff's garden and nursery 
by smoke, heat, and gas proceeding from the defendant's brick 
kiln , two gardeners who had much experience in raising and 
cultivating fruit trees, shrubs, and plants, and who had testi- 
fied to the particulars of the plaintiff's injury, were allowed to 
give their opinion as to the amount of damage. And the court 
say: "It seems to us that it would be impracticable to dispense 
with this species of testimony, in many actions of trover for 
personal property, where no detail of facts could adequately 
inform the jury of the value of the articles. The opinion of a 
witness, as to the value of a horse, is much more satisfactory 
evidence than a detailed statement of his size, color, age, etc., 
to give the jury the requisite information, to enable them to 
assess damages for the conversion of such a horse." ^ So, in 
an action on a building contract, a mason may be asked how 
long, in his opinion, it would take to dry the walls of a house so 

" Clark V. Plsher, 1 Paige, 171. Wisconsin: Milwaukee & Mississippi 

i^Elizabethtown & P. R. R. v. Pot- R. R. v. Eble, 4 Chand. 72. 

tinger, 10 Bush, 185. But in Dunlap v. Snyder, 17 Barb. 

" Folkes V. Chadd, 3 Doug. 157. 561, it was held that in an action for 

" Massackusetts: Vandine v. Burpee, damages for IdUing a dog, the opinions 

13 Met. 288. of witnesses as to the value of the 

New York: Nickley v. Thomas, 22 animal were not admissible. See, as 

Barb. 652; Smith v. Hill, 22 Barb, to proper evidence of the value of a 

656. horse, Carr v. Moore, 41 N. H. 131. 



2628 EVIDENCE § 1292 

as to render it fit and safe for human habitation.^^ ** A 
physician may testify as to the probable effect of an injury on 
the future health of the injured party." 

But the testimony of experts must not be given at random 
or on insufficient or inexact data. So, in an action against the 
defendants as carriers, for non-performance of a contract to 
carry five stock from several different places to Detroit, where 
the circuit judge had allowed a witness to be asked the general 
question, what, in his opinion, was the extra shrinkage in con- 
sequence of the delay at the several places where the cattle 
were loaded, and at Detroit, above what it would have been if 
they had gone on in the regular train, and had been unloaded 
on arrival, it was held, by the Supreme Court of Michigan, 
that, as the different portions of the stock had been on the cars 
without food or water for various lengths of time, they must 
have been quite differently affected by shrinkage, and the in- 
quiry should have been as to each separately. The admission 
of the general question was erroneous.^' 

§ 1292. Confined to matters of art and skill. 

* But this exception is generally strictly limited to the case 
of experts in matters of art and skill, and is not enlarged so as 
to admit opinion in ordinary cases, where the jury may be 
supposed competent to form their judgment from the state- 
ment of the facts. Nor where the opinion necessarily degener- 
ates into mere conjecture. So, in an action for negligently 
injuring and sinking a canal-boat, a boatman who knew the 
boat in question previous to her being injured, and swore that 
he had raised sunken boats and repaired them, cannot testify 
as to his opinion of what the damages would be from the de- 
scription of the situation of the boat by the witnesses.^* 

In an action on the case against a railroad company for in- 
jury to the person of a passenger through the negligence of the 
company, evidence of loss sustained by the plaintiff in his 
business in consequence of the injury received, is proper to aid 

" Smith V. Gugerty, 4 Barb. 614. Donougb, 21 Mich. 165, 4 Am. Rep. 

" Jones V. Utica & B. R. R. R., 40 466. 

Hvm, 349. " Paige v. Hazard, S Hill, 603. 
2' Michigan So. & N. I. R. R. v. Mc- 



§ 1293 OPINIONS AS TO QUANTUM OF DAMAGES 2629 

the jury in estimating the plaintiff's damages; and for that 
purpose the nature of the plaintiff's business, its extent, and 
the importance of his personal oversight and superintendence 
in conducting it, may be shown; but the opinions of witnesses 
as to the amount of loss are inadmissible.^* A party in the city 
of New York, whose property is destroyed by the order of the 
city officers to stop the spread of a conflagration, is entitled to 
an allowance to the full value of the property destroyed, with- 
out any deduction for the amount insured, and interest on it; 
but the opinions of bystanders, that the buildings destroyed 
would have been consumed by the fire if they had not been 
blown up, are inadmissible. It was, however, suggested that 
perhaps the opinion of firemen and others, having particular 
knowledge and experience with reference to fires, might be 
received.^* ** Where, by the defendant's tort, the plaintiff's 
horse was caused to run away, it was held not to be proper to 
show by opinions of witnesses the depreciation in value of the 
horse caused by his running away.^' 

§ 1293. Opinions as to quantum of damages. 

* The general rule which requires a witness to speak to facts 
within his knowledge, is applied to the subject of compensa- 
tion; the damage must be proved like any other fact in the 
cause, and no testimony amounting to mere opinion is com- 
petent.^ ** So, in Louisiana, in a suit on a sequestration 

^^ Lincoln i/. Saratoga & S. R. R., lovxi: WMtmore v. Bowman, 4 
23 Wend. 425. Greene, 148; Harriman v. New Nott- 
s' Mayor, etc., of N. Y. v. Pentz, 24 pareU Co., 132 la. 616, 110 N. W. 33. 
Wend. 668, 35 Am. Dec. 641. Kansas: Sharon Town Co. v. Morris, 

» Van Wagoner «. New York Cement 39 Kan. 377; Ottawa, O. C. & C. G. 

Co., 36 Hun, 552. R. R. v. Adolph, 41 Kan. 600. 

"^Alabama: Montgomery & W. P. Louisiana: Wilcox v. Leake, 11 La. 

R. R. V. Vamer, 19 Ala. 185; Chandler Ann. 178. 

V. Bush, 84 Ala. 102. Michigan: Howell v. Medler, 41 

Arkansas: St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Mich. 641. 

V. Freeman, 36 Ark. 41; Little Rock, Nebraska: Fremont, E. & M. V. 

M. R. & T. Ry. V. Haynes, 47 Ark. 497. R. R. v. Marley, 25 Neb. 138, 40 N. 

Georgia: Gilbert v. Cherry, 57 Ga. W. 948, 13 Am. St. Rep. 482; Omaha 

128; Central R. R. v. Senn, 73 Ga. 705. v. Kramer, 25 Neb. 489, 41 N. W. 295, 

Indiana: Ohio & M. R. R. v. Nick- 13 Am. St. Rep. 504; Jameson v. Kent, 

less, 71 Ind. 271; Pittsburgh, C. & St. 42 Neb. 412, 60 N. W. 879. 

L. Ry. V. Hjxon, 79 Lid. Ill; Hagaman New York: Morehouse v. Mathews, 

V. Moore, 84 Ind. 496. 2 N. Y. 514, 51 Am. Dec. 319; Green 



2630 EVIDENCE § 1293 

bond, the opinion of witnesses cannot form the basis of a ver- 
dict. They should testify to facts, and from those facts the 
jury should find the actual damages sustained.^' * So, in 
New York, a witness cannot be allowed to give his opinion 
as to the amount of damages sustained by a party in conse- 
quence of a mill lying still.'" So, the opinions of witnesses as 
to the amoimt of damages caused by the deprivation or with- 
drawal of water from a tavern, are inadmissible." So, too, 
on ascertaining the injury caused by an alleged nuisance, a 
witness cannot give his opinion as to the amount of damages.'^ 
So, in an action for the breach of a covenant contained in a 
lease, that the defendant would not let any other mill site on 
the same stream, it was held not proper to admit witnesses to 
testify to their opinion as to the amount of damage which the 
plaintiffs had sustained by the erection of the rival site, and a 
new trial was ordered.^' 

The objection usually taken is that it usurps the province 
of the jury. It is for the jury to determine how much the 
property is damaged under the instructions of the court; and 
witnesses should always testify to facts. To answer the 
question how much a piece of property is "damaged" by a 
given injury, is a question which requires for an intelhgent 
answer a knowledge of the rule of damages apphcable in the 
particular case. For example, in eminent domain cases it 
cannot be answered without taking into consideration the 
question of benefits. The same property will be damaged 
in one amount if benefits are excluded, in another if included. 
Hence expert testimony as to "damage," if not absolutely 
excluded, should be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. 

This criticism would not apply, however, where the measure 
of damages is the mere depreciation in value of property. In 

V. Plank, 48 N. Y. 669; Cook v. Brock- Contra, California: Razzo v. Vami, 

way, 21 Barb. 331. 81 Cal. 289. 

Ohio: Cleveland & P. R. R. v. Ball, =" Bonner v. Copley, 15 La. Ann. 504. 

5 Oh. St. 568, 67 Am. Dec. 312. ™ Doolittle v. Eddy, 7 Barb. 75. 

Oregon: Montgomeiy v. Somers, 50 " Harger v. Edmonds, 4 Barb. 256; 

Ore. 259, 90 Pac. 674. Giles v. O'Toole, 4 Barb. 261. 

Washington: Ferguson v. Tobey, 1 '* Fish v. Dodge, 4 Denio, 311. 

Wash. 275. ^^ Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend. 137, 

161; Fish v. Dodge, 4 Denio, 311, 318. 



§ 1293 OPINIONS AS TO QUANTTtfM OF DAMAGES 2631 

that case a witness has without doubt the right to state the 
value before and after the injury; and as the depreciation is 
a mere matter of the subtraction of one of these values from the 
other, it involves no question of law. It is therefore held that 
where the amount of damages is merely the depreciation in 
value of property, a witness is not prevented from giving his 
opinion of the depreciation merely because the quantum of 
damages happens to coincide with it.'^ As a general rule, the 
opinion of a witness as to the amount of damages which a 
landholder will sustain by reason of the construction and use 
of a railroad, is not evidence.'^ Nor, in an action in the nature 
of waste, can he be asked what amount of permanent injury 
the premises have sustained by neglect.'^ 

* It has been decided in Ohio, that a person who is present 
during the trial of a cause, and has heard witnesses describe 
the manner in which a ford is injured by the erection of a dam 
across a stream of water below it, is not competent to give his 
opinion of the damages sustained by the party injured." 
So, intelligent merchants, well acquainted with the plaintiff and 
his business, were held not competent to give an opinion as to 
the damage of the plaintiff in being deprived of the advantage 
of his own care and oversight.'^ ** 

If an opinion as to the amount of pecuniary damage is in- 
admissible, a fortiori the opinion of a plaintiff as to the amount 
of exemplary damages to which he thought himself entitled 
cannot be shown. ^^ 

'* Arkansas: Fayetteville & L. Ry. v. ness cannot state the difference in 

Combs, 51 Ark. 324, 11 S. W. 418. values as an estimate of the damage. 

Kansas: Topeka v. Martineau, 42 Kansas: Clark v. Ellithorpe, 7 Kan. 

Kan. 387. App. 337, 51 Pac. 940. 

Kentucky: Elizabethtown & P. R. R. Texas: International & G. N. R. R. v. 

V. Pottinger, 10 Bush, 185. Fickey (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S.W. 327. 

Nebraska: Fremont, E. & M. V. R. '^ Atlantic & G. W. R. R. v. Camp- 

R. V. Marley, 25 Neb. 138, 40 N. W. bell, 4 Oh. St. 683. 

948, 13 Am. St. Rep. 482. » Robinson v. Kinne, 1 T. & C. 60. 

New Hampshire: Carter v. Thurston, " Shepherd v. Willis, 19 Oh. 142. 

58 N. H. 104, 42 Am. Rep. 584. » Lincoln v. Saratoga & S. R. R., 23 

West Virginia: Hargreaves v. Kim- Wend. 431; Norman w. Wells, 17 Wend, 

berly, 26 W. Va. 787, 53 Am. Rep. 121. 161; Mayor, etc., of N. Y. v. Pentz, 24 

Wisconsin: Neilson v. Chicago, M. Wend. 668, 35 Am. Dec. 641. 

& N. W. Ry., 58 Wis. 516. '' Chandler v. Bush, 84 Ala. 102, 4 

But it is usually held that the wit- So. 207. 



2632 EVIDENCE § 1294 

§ 1294. Opinions of value. 

Value must necessarily be proved by the opinions of wit- 
nesses. To be qualified to give an opinion of the value of 
property, one need not necessarily be an expert in the purchase 
and sale of such property; it is enough if he have a general 
knowledge of the value of such property.^" In Whitney v. 
Thacher/i Wells, J., said: "It is not necessary, in order to 
quahfy one to give an opinion as to values, that his information 
should be of such a direct character as would make it competent 
in itself as primary evidence. It is the experience which he 
acquires in the ordinary conduct of affairs, and from means 
of information such as are usually rehed on by men engaged 
in business, for the conduct of that business, that qualifies 
him to testify." But the opinion must be founded on reason- 
able grounds; where no data exist, no opinion can be given. 
So an opinion as to the value of a contemplated business which 
was never actually entered upon will not be received.*^ 

What the owner would take for land cannot be shown in 
order to prove its value; nor should the jury be allowed to 
take as the value of land the amount they would sell it for if 
owners.*^ 

In connection with value, an expert may state the amount 
of hay a meadow would probably yield,** and the amount of 
wood which has been cut off certain land.*^ An expert may 
give his reason for his opinion.*^ The opinion of an expert 
need not be accepted, even if there is no opposing evi- 
dence.*^ 

*» Minnesota: Burger v. Northern P. *' Wakeman v. Wheeler & W. M. 

R. R:, 22 Minn. 343. Co., 101 N. Y. 205, 4 N. E. 264, 54 Am. 

Missouri: Springfield & S. Ry. e. Rep. 676; Reed v. McConnell, 101 N. 

Calkins, 90 Mo. 538, 3 S. W. 82. Y. 270, 4 N. E. 718. 

New York: Joy v. Hopkins, 5 Den. *' Kieman v. Chicago, S. F. & C. Ry., 

84. 123 III. 188, 14 N. E. 18. 

In Idaho Western Ry. v. Columbia ** Myers v. Charlotte, 146 N. C. 246, 

Conference (Ida.), 119 Pac. 60, it was 59 S. E. 674. 

held that a witness need not be qual- ** Perry v. Jeffries, 61 S. C. 292, 39 

ified to state the value of land taken; S. E. 515. 

his opportunity to acquire knowledge « Morrell v. Prieskel (N. J. L.), 74 

of values c§in be tested on cross- Atl. 994. 

examination. "In re Manhattan Terminal, 120 

" 117 Mass. 523. N. Y. Supp. 465. 



§1295 



VALUE OF LANDS AND LEASES 



2633 



§ 1295. Value of lands and leases. 

One familiar with a parcel of land may give his opinion of its 
value.** In a proceeding to take lands under the right of 
eminent domain, when opinion as to damages is held competent, 
the opinion of the owner *' or of one acquainted with the value '" 
may be given both as to the damages sustained and as to the 
value of the land left. So, in an action for a nuisance, an archi- 
tect, acquainted with the locality, may be asked if the nuisance 
depreciated the value of the houses in the neighborhood.*^ 
So witnesses may give their opinions as to the value of property 
with and without public improvements.*^ In Brown v. Prov- 
idence & S. Railway,*' however, it was held improper to allow 
a farmer to testify as to the value of land for any but farming 
purposes; he could not, though acquainted with the land, 
testify to its value as a summer resort. 

The value of land may be proved also by evidence showing 
the value of neighboring land.** In some jurisdictions evi- 



*' f/jiiied /States: Montana Ry.t). War- 
ren, 137 U. S. 348, 34 L. ed. 681, 11 
Sup. Ct. 96. 

California: San Diego L. & T. Co. v. 
Neale, 78 Cal. 63. 

Illinois: White v. Hermann, 51 HI. 
243, 99 Am. Dec. 543. 

Indiana: Lafayette v. Nagle, 113 
Ind. 425. 

Iowa: Ball v. Keokuk & N. W. Ry., 
74 la. 132. 

Massachusetts: Whitman v. Boston 
& M. R. R., 7 AIL 313; Swan v. Middle- 
sex Co., 101 Mass. 173. 

Minnesota: Derby v. Gallup, 5 Minn. 
119. 

New York: Clark v. Baird, 9 N. Y. 
183; Robertson v. Knapp, 35 N. Y. 91. 

Ohio: Cleveland & P. R. R. v. Ball, 
5 Oh. St. 568. 

Pennsylvania: Kellogg v. Krauser, 
14 S. & R. 137; Pennsylvania & N. Y. 
R. R. & C. Co. V. Bunnell, 81 Pa. 414. 

«Snow V. Boston & M. R. R., 65 
Me. 230. 

™ Indiana: Frankfort & K. R. R. v. 
Windsor, 51 Ind. 238. 



Missouri: Springfield & S. Ry. v. 
Calkins, 90 Mo. 538. 

New York: Argotsinger v. Vines, 82 
N. Y. 308. 

Pennsylvania: Leiby v. Clear S. W. 
Co., 205 Pa. 634, 55 Atl. 782; Hughes 
V. Stevens, 36 Pa. 320. 

"Gauntlett v. Whitworth, 2 C. & 
K. 720. 

'^ Georgia: Americus v. Tower, 3 Ga. 
App. 159, 59 S. E. 434. 

Indiana: Yost v. Conroy, 92 Ind. 
464, 47 Am. Rep. 156. 

So as to the value of land if a con- 
tract had been completely performed. 
Ironton Land Co. v. Butchart, 73 
Minn. 39, 75 N. W. 749. See Avery 
v. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 121 N. 
Y. 649, 24 N. E. 20. 

" 12 R. I. 238, 34 Am. Rep. 631. 

^* Illinois: White v. Hermann, 51 
111. 243. 

Montana: Sweeney v. Montana Cent. 
Ry., 25 Mont. 643, 65 Pac. 912. 

See chapter on Eminent Domain in 
New York. 



2634 3EVI13ENCE 1 1295 

dence of sales of neighboring land may be given; ^' but the 
contrary has been held in other jurisdictions.^* In Pittsburgh 
& W. Railroad v. Patterson," Clark, J., said: 

"The selling price of lands in the neighborhood at the time, 
is undoubtedly a test of value, but it is the general selling price, 
not the price paid for particular property. The location of the 
land, its uses and products, and the general selUng price in the 
vicinity are the data from which a jiu"y may determine the mar- 
ket value. The price which, upon a consideration of the mat- 
ters stated, the. judgment of well-informed and reasonable 
men will approve is the market value. A particular sale may 
be a sacrifice compelled by necessity, or it may be the result 
of mere caprice or folly; if it be given in evidence it raises an 
issue collateral to the subject of inquiry, and these collateral 
issues are as numerous as the sales." 

In estimating the value of land at a given time, evidence of 
its value six or seven months later is not inadmissible. The 
law has no presumptions on the subject of changeable values 
of real estate, and such proof, though liable to be overcome by 
evidence of a previous change in the interval is not too remote.** 
In Brown v. Calumet River Railway,'' the price paid for a per- 
cel of land several years before was held admissible, as throw- 
ing some Hght on its present value. A resale of the land is 
evidence of its value.^" In Winnisimmet Co. v. Grueby *^ it 
was held that in assessing damages for land taken, evidence 

" Alabama: Massey v. Fain, 55 So. 110 App. Div. 241, 97 N. Y. Supp. 66; 

936. Bradshaw v. Rome, W. & O. R. R., 1 

Illinois: Albertson Co. v. Chicago, N. Y. Supp. 691, 49 Hun, 605. 

Ill III. 651; but evidence cannot be " io7 Pa. 461, 464. 

admitted of what a company taking ^Abell v. Munson, 18 Mich. 306, 

land by eminent domain has paid for 100 Am. Dec. 165. But evidence may 

other takings. Chicago & A. R. R. v. not be introduced to show an offer for 

Scott, 225 111. 352, 80 N. E. 404. a part of the land which was with- 

Imea: Cummins v. Des Moines & drawn after the trespass complained of. 

S. L. Ry., 63 la. 397. Western U. T. Co. v. Ring, 102 Md. 

Massachusetts: Paine u. Boston, 4 677, 62 Atl. 801. 

All. 168; Benham v. Dunbar, 103 Mass. s' 125 111. 600. 

365; Gardner v. Brookline, 127 Mass. ^'' Massachiisetts: Brigham v. Evans, 

358; Roberts v. Boston, 149 Mass. 346, 113 Mass. 538. 

21 N. E. 668. England: Engell v. Fitch, L. R. 4 Q. 

» See Bunke v. New York T. Co., B. 659. 

188 N. Y. 600, 81 N. E. 1161, affirming " 111 Mass. 543. 



§ 1295 VALUE OiP LANDS AND LEASES 2685 

could not be introduced of the amount for which an owner of 
neighboring land offered to sell his land, as evidence of the value 
of defendant's land."^ And where the amount for which 
neighboring land had been sold was shown, evidence that the 
purchaser had at once been offered an advance was held in- 
admissible.*' But in Dalrymple v. Hannum ** the plaintiff 
was allowed to introduce evidence of an unaccepted offer made 
by him to the defendant, which the defendant refused to ac- 
cept, to show of how little value the land was. 

In proving the value of a lease, evidence of the amount of 
rent in preceding years is admissible.^^ And in an action of 
ejectment the net receipts of the defendant under a lease of the 
premises is evidence on the question of the value of the use and 
occupation.^' In the latter case the court said : 

"As an item of evidence on the question of the value of the 
use and occupation of the farm, it was competent to prove 
what sum was actually received from it as rent. This, of 
course, was not conclusive evidence of the value of the use of 
the farm, but it was competent evidence on the subject. The 
agreed rent would be strong evidence of the real value of the 
use and occupation." It is from prices offered, agreed upon 
and paid, that the value of property or of its use is to be de- 
termined, and such prices may be given in evidence to test 
the correctness and fairness of opinions. Indeed, opinions are 
made up either from public or private sales and contracts, as 
regards the value of property. Thus it is, that both public 
and private sales of property are admissible in evidence to 
determine its true value." '* 

Circumstances may be shown for their effect on the value.'' 
Where crops, fixtiires or improvements are destroyed or re- 
moved, evidence of their value in place may be received.™ 

^^ Ace, Montclair Ry. v. Benson, 36 " Citing Gary v. Gruman, 4 Hill, 625, 

N. J. L. 557. 40 Am. Dec. 299. 

8' Roberts v. Boston, 149 Mass. 349, =« More v. Deyoe, 22 Hun, 208, 222. 

21 N. E. 668. " Kansas: Omaha H. & G. Ry. v. 

8< 54 N. Y. 654. Doney, 3 Kan. App. 515, 43 Pac. 831 

65 Fogg j,_ Hiu^ 21 Me. 529. See (inconvenience of approach). 

Bunke v. New York Telephone Co., Minnesota: Hueston v. Mississippi 

110 App. Div. 241, 97 N. Y. Supp. & R. R. B. Co., 76 Minn. 251, 79 N. W. 

66. 92 (nature and amount of items). 

" More V. Deyoe, 22 Hun, 208. " California: Greenbaum v. Taylor, 



2636 EVIDENCE § 1296 

The valuation placed on land by assessors for the purpose 
of the tax levy cannot be shown.'^^ 

§ 1296. Of chattels— Opinions of value. 

When the value of a chattel is to be proved, one familiar 
with that kind of property may state his opinion as to its value.'^ 
So, one familiar with the value of horses may state the difference 
in value of a horse as it was represented to be and as it was,'' 
or before and after the injury complained of.'* Where a pearl 
had been lost, one witness was allowed to describe it, and an- 
other, who was acquainted with gems, was allowed to state 
his opinion of its value.'* To ascertain the value of certain 
tobacco, a witness was allowed to testify as to the general 
market value of tobacco produced that year, although he ad- 
mitted that he could not tell the value of the particular to- 
bacco without seeing it.'^ On the other hand, in an action 
on an undertaking given on procuring an attachment, it was 
held that the evidence of witnesses who did not know the 
goods attached was not admissible where they merely testified 
as to what woiJd be the value of similar goods when returned 
after five days' detention, if when taken they were worth 

102 Cal. 624, 36 Pac. 957 (saloon fix- Michigan: Browne v. Moore, 32 

tures). Mich. 254. 

Indiana: Huber v. Beck, 6 Ind. App. Mississippi: Whitfield v. Whitfield, 

484, 33 N. E. 985. 40 Miss. 352. 

Kansas: Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. Nebraska: Hespen v. Union Pac. 

Mosher, 76 Kan. 599, 92 Pac. 554 R. R., 82 Neb. 495, 118 N. W. 98. 

(growing trees and hedges). New York: Rogers v. Ackerman, 22 

Texas: Smith v. Frio County (Tex. Barb. 134; McDonald v. Christie, 42 

Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 711 (house and Barb. 36. 

fence). Texas: Texarkana & F. S. Ry. v. 

'1 Illinois: Lewis v. Englewood El. Bell (Tex. Civ. App.), 101 S. W. 1167. 

R. R., 223 ni. 223, 79 N. E. 44. Wisconsin: Erd v. Chicago & N. W. 

Massachusetts: Anthony u. New Ry., 41 Wis. 65; St. Paul Boom Co. v. 

York P. & B. R. R., 162 Mass. 544, 37 Kemp, 125 Wis. 138, 103 N. W. 259. 

N. E. 780. " Haskell v. Mitchell, 53 Me. 468, 

" Alabama: Western Ry. v. Lazarus, 89 Am. Dec. 711. 

88 Ala. 453, 6 So. 877. » Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. v. Peck, 

Illinois: Ohio & M. R. R. v. Taylor, 99 Ind. 68. 

27 HI. 207. " Berney v. Dinsmore, 141 Mass. 42, 

Iowa: Anson v. Dwight, 18 la. 5 N. E. 273, 55 Aip. Rep. 445; ace., 

241. Davenport v. Abbott (Tex. Civ. App.), 

Massachusetts: Patton v. Bell, 141 28 S. W. 218. 

Mass. 197, 5 N. E. 300. ™ Draper v. Saxton, 118 Mass. 427. 



§ 1297 MARKET VALUE 2637 

$6,000." A witness may testify to the relative value of two 
articles, although not able to testify to the actual value of 
either.'^ In Blanchard v. New Jersey Steam Boat Co." the 
value of other vessels with which the plaintiff's vessel could be 
compared, was held not to be evidence of the value of the 
plaintiff's vessel. The cost of personal property may be proved 
as an element of its value; *" but only if accompanied by evi- 
dence of other circumstances.*^ In the case of animals, 
evidence of pedigree may be produced as bearing on their 
value.*^ Evidence of value, not on the actual date, but within 
a reasonable time before and after the date may be received, 
the distance from the date going only to the weight of the 
testimony.*^ Where the value of use of property is an ele- 
ment of recovery, one who has the necessary knowledge may 
give his opinion of the value.** 

Where the value of a large number of similar articles is in 
question, the average value may be shown.** 

§ 1297. Market value. 

It is proper to ask the value of articles, although the question 
does not require the market value to be stated.*^ If there is 
no market for an article at the place where its value is to be 

" Alexander v. Jacoby, 23 Oh. St. Texas: Pacific Exp. Co. v. Lothrop, 

358. 20 Tex. Civ. App. 339, 49 S. W. 898 

™ Kronschnable v. Knoblauch, 21 (hog). 

Minn. 56. Vermont: Winchell v. National Exp. 

" 59 N. Y. 292. Co., 64 Vt. 15, 23 Atl. 728 (dog). 

, «" California: AngeU v. Hopkins, 79 " Michigan: Connor v. Levinson, 15 

Cal. 181. Mich. 297, 73 N. W. 232 (one day). 

Pennsylvania: Arnold v. Blabon, 147 Oregon: Singer v. Pearson-Page Co., 

Pa. 372, 23 Atl. 575. 115 Pac. 158. 

" Kentucky: Gray v. Heniy County, Vermont: Griffin v. Martel, 77 Vt. 

19 Ky. 885, 42 S. W. 333. 19, 58 At). 788 (16 months); McKenzie 

New York: Brooke v. Cunard S. S. v. Boutwell, 79 Vt. 383, 65 Atl. 99 (one 

Co., 93 N. Y. Supp. 369. year). 

'^Michigan: Parker v. Lake Shore '* Kansas: Kennett v. Fickel, 41 

& M. S. Ry., 93 Mich. 607, 53 N. W. Kan. 211. 

834 (colt). New York: McSorley v. Faulkner, 18 

Mississippi: Richmond & D. R. R. N. Y. Supp. 460. 

V. Chandler, 13 So. 267 (bull). «= lUingworth v. Greenleaf, 11 Minn. 

Tennessee: Citizens' R. T. Co. v. 235. 

Dew, 100 Tenn. 317, 45 S. W. 790 «« Parks v. Morris A. & T. Co., 54 

(dog). N. Y. 586. 



2638 EVIDENCE § 1298 

determined, the general rule is to ascertain its value at the 
nearest place affording a market.*' So where the value of 
lumber at Detroit was the measure of damages, and the wit- 
ness a dealer in lumber at Wayne, a place eighteen miles from 
Detroit, knew the market value of such lumber at Wayne, 
but not at Detroit, but knew the value at Detroit was higher 
than at Wayne, his evidence of the value at Wayne was held 
proper.** So evidence of the cost of the goods in the market 
where they were purchased, adding the expenses of transporta- 
tion, the duties, and a fair allowance for profits, and also evi- 
dence of the sales of like articles for several months before and 
after the sale in question, and of the repurchase of some of the 
goods for cash by the plaintiff at advanced rates within two 
months afterwards, was held admissible.*' So if the market 
price at the time of loss cannot be proved, the market price 
a few days before or after that time may be shown.'" A wit- 
ness who has inquired as to the value in the market has been 
allowed to state the value.'^ Evidence of sales of an article 
like the one to be delivered is admissible to show that there is a 
market.'^ 

§ 1298. Evidence of sales. 

If sales of property are adduced as evidence of value, they 
should be sales in the regular course of business.'^ But a sale 
of the very article the value of which is in question may be 

*' Alabama: South & N. A. R. R. «. New York: Dana v. Fiedler, 12 N. Y. 

Wood, 72 Ala. 451. 40, 62 Am. Dec. 130. 

Kansas: Hanson v. Lawson, 19 Kan. West Virginia: Boyd v. Gunnison, 

201. 14 W. Va. 1. 

Maine: Washington Ice Co. v. Evidence of market value nine 

Webster, 68 Me. 449. months previous is incompetent. Gal- 

Nebraska: Keith v. Tilford, 12 Neb. veston H. & S. A. Ry. v. WilUams (Tex. 

271, 11 N. W. 315. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 1019. 

Virginia: McCormick v. Hamilton, «i Colorado: Thatcher v. Kaucher, 2 

23 Gratt. 561. Colo. 698. 

Evidence of cost and transportation Texas: Gulf, C. & S. P. Ry. v. Patter- 
charges cannot be received to prove son, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 523, 24 S. W. 
market value. Gensburg v. Field, 104 349. 
la. 599, 74 N. W. 3. n DeWolf v. McGinnis, 106 111. 553. 

«« Savercool v. Farwell, 17 Mich. 308. »' Kansas: Meixell v. Kirkpatrick, 33 

«9 Eaton V. Melius, 7 Gray, 566. Kan. 282. 

^ Ma£sax:husetts: Eaton v. Melius, 7 New Hampshire: White v. Concord 

Gray, 566. R. R., 30 N. H. 188. 



§1298 



EVIDENCE OF SALES 



2639 



shown in evidence of its value,'* though the sale were a sheriff's 
sale; '^ and therefore evidence of the cost of the goods is ad- 
missible, in connection with other circumstances.'^ So where 
goods were damaged at sea, evidence of the price brought by 
the damaged goods at auction upon their arrival was held as- 
missible." So, in Tompkins v. Kanawha Board,'* it was held 
that where goods were to have been sold at an agreed price 
at the place where their value is to be taken, such agreed price 
is evidence of their value. In Luse v. Jones," in trespass for 
removing the plaintiff's furniture and iuterfering with her 
business as a boarding-house keeper, it was held that, although 
the furniture was not new, evidence of the price at which a 
regular dealer sold such articles was admissible as an item in 
estimating the value. In Jones v. Morgan,^"" in estimating 
the value of household fumitiu'e, works of art, and ornaments, 
the plaintiff was allowed to state the price paid for the articles. 
The court said: 



Prices realized at forced sales cannot 
be shown. Lincoln v. Packard (Tex. 
Civ.App.),60S.W.682. 

'< United States: Clews v. Jamieson, 
182 U. S. 461, 21 Sup. Ct. 845, 45 L. 
ed. 1183 (auction). 

Connecticut: Lyon d. Katten, 80 
Conn. 718, 69 Atl. 534 (sales a few 
months later). 

Maine: Norton v. Willis, 73 Me. 580. 

Massachusetts: Baker v. Seavey, 163 
Mass. 522, 40 N. E. 863, 47 Am. St. 
Rep. 475 (auction). 

Michigan: Gates v. Comstock, 113 
Mich. 127, 71 N. W. 515 (price plaintiff 
paid for the land). 

Nebraska: Lnhoff v. Richards, 48 
Neb. 590, 595, 67 N. W. 483 (auction). 

New York: Parmenter v. Pitzpatrick, 
135 N. Y. 190, 31 N.E. 1032 (private 
sales of stock of stable; value a year 
later). 

But in Rector-Wilhelmy Co. v. 
Nissen, 35 Neb. 716, 53 N. W. 670, 
the amount brought by goods at a 
forced mortgagee's sale was not al- 
lowed to be considered. 

^^New York: Mcllhargy v. Cham- 



bers, 117 N. Y. 532, 23 N. E. 561; 
Montignani v. E. V. CrandaU Co., 34 
App. Div. 228, 54 N. Y. Supp. 517; 
Industrial & General Trust v. Tod, 52 
App. Div. 195, 64 N. Y. Supp. 1093. 

Utah: White v. Pease, 15 Utah, 170, 
49 Pac. 416. 

Vermont: Hildreth v. Fitts, 53 Vt. 
684. 

Contra, Pennsylvania: Sweigert v. 
Finley, 144 Pa. 266, 22 Atl. 702. 

^ United States: The Lucille, 169 
Fed. 719. 

New York: Behm v. Damm, 91 N. Y. 
Supp. 735. 

Vermont: Griffin v. Martel, 77 Vt. 
19, 58 Atl. 788. 

But the price paid two years before 
for a machine which had since that 
time been used and injured was held 
not admissible in Hensley v. Orendorff, 
152 Ala. 599, 44 So. 869. 

" Guiterman v. Liverpool, N. Y. & 
P. S. S. Co., 83 N. Y. 358. 

98 21 W. Va. 225. 

» 39 N. J. L. 707. 

™ 24 Hun, 372, 



2640 EVIDENCE § 1299 

"If the plaintiff had been restricted to direct proof of the 
value of the property at or near that time, it is evident that no 
redress could possibly be afforded for the injury and loss which 
she had sustained. For that reason it was a matter of strict 
necessity that evidence of a different character should be pro- 
duced and reUed upon, not as controlling in the case, but as a 
basis from which, in view of succeeding circumstances, a fan- 
valuation of the property might be ascertained What 

is required is that reliable and satisfactory evidence shall be 
produced from which the value of the property in controversy 
may be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty." 

§ 1299. Offers — Price-lists — Quotations— Appraisals. 

A mere offer to sell or buy at a certain price, unaccepted, 
cannot be shown as evidence of value. ^"^ But offers made in 
open market are evidence of value, ^"^ such as statements of 
dealers in answer to inquiries as to price, ^"^ or price-lists of 
manufacturers or dealers. ^"^ So the official quotations of the 
exchanges are admissible. Thus, in Whitney v. Thacher^"^ 
brokers in Boston, members of a firm doing business and hav- 
ing houses established in Boston and New York, who were 
familiar with the market value of such goods in New York, 
and whose information was derived from the daily price current 
lists and from the return of sales daily furnished them in Boston 
from New York, were allowed to testify as to the value in New 
York. Wells, J., said: "An unaccepted offer, as an isolated 
transaction, is not competent evidence upon the question of 
value. But in a market regularly attended by buyers and 
sellers, an offer as well as a sale of an article of recognized uni- 

"' Maine: Norton v. Willis, 73 Me. "» Norton v. Willis, 73 Me. 580 

580 (semble). (semble). 

Michigan: Thompson v. Moiles, 46 "" Harrison v. Glover, 72 N. Y. 451 

Mich. 42. (semble). 

Nebraska: Winside State Bank v. "< United States: Cliquot's Cham- 

Lound, 52 Neb. 469, 72 N. W. 486. pagne, 3 Wall. 114, 18 L. ed. 116. 

New Jersey: Hartman v. Dobar, 80 New York: Harrison v. Glover, 72 

N. J. L. 250, 76 Atl. 347. N. Y. 451. But contra, Cook County 

Texas: Texas & P. Ry. v. Randle, 18 v. Harms, 10 111. App. 24. 

Tex. Civ. App. 348, 44 S. W. 603. "' 117 Mass. 523. 

Wisconsin: Castenholz v. Heller, 82 
Wis. 30, 51 N. W. 432. 



§ 1300 PKESUMPTION AGAINST DEFENDANT 2641 

form character, constantly bought and sold in that market, so 
as to have a place upon the daily price current lists, may serve 
to show that the market value of that article did not then ex- 
ceed the price at which it was offered. It is admissible because 
of its pubhcity, and the presumption of the presence of dealers 
ready to purchase, and who would have done so if the offer had 
been below the market value. That dealers are themselves 
guided iiji their transactions by such indications of the state of 
the market, makes the fact one that may properly be con- 
sidered in evidence." In New York it has been held that the 
"Shipping and Commercial Lists Prices Ciurent" are not ad- 
missible to show value uiiless supported by testimony as to 
when and how the Ust was made up; "* and this requirement 
would seem to be sound and reasonable. In Michigan, how- 
ever, the market quotations of a Toledo newspaper were ad-, 
mitted to prove the value of shingles at that place on the day 
of publication; while the defendant was not allowed to prove 
the price at which he sold other shingles there on that day.^"^ 
The inventory and appraisal of certain goods made by a 
constable and his appraisers may be shown as evidence of 
value. ^"^ 

§ 1300. Presumption against defendant. 

* In one of the earliest cases on the subject of damages in 
trover, 1°' where the action was brought for a jewel, several of 
the trade being examined to prove what a jewel of the first 
water, of the size in question, would be worth, the chief-justice 
of the Queen's Bench directed the jury that, imless the defend- 
ant produced the jewel, and showed it not to be of the first 
water, "they should presume the strongest against him, and 
make the value of the best jewels the measure of their dam- 
ages"; which they did.** Where there was no evidence of the 
quality of cotton converted, it was held that the jury were 
entitled to assume it to have been of the best quaUty."" But 

™Whelan v. Lynch, 60 N. Y. "'Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 

469. 505. 

1" Peter v. Thickstun, 51 Mich. "» Curry v. Wilson, 48 Ala. 638. So 

580. . in an action against a carrier for non- 

"» Green v. McCracken, 64 Kan. 330, delivery. Bailey v. Shaw, 24 N. H. 

67 Pac. 857. 297, 55 Am. Dec. 241. 

166 



2642 EVIDENCE §§ 1301, 1302 

in other forms of action, as assumpsit for goods sold, or debt 
for money lent, where there is no fraud in the defendant, this 
rule is reversed, and the jury will be instructed to presume 
against the plaintiff's demand. Thus, in assumpsit, in the 
absence of evidence as to the quality of liquor in bottles sold 
by the plaintiff, they were told, by Lord EUenborough, to 
presume that the bottles were filled with the cheapest liquor in 
which the plaintiff dealt. "^ And, in debt, where the proof was 
simply that the plaintiff handed the defendant a bank note in 
reply to a request for money, the English Court of Exchequer 
held that the jury were rightly instructed to presume it to 
have been of the lowest denomination."^ 

§ 1301. Estoppel. 

* Again, the acts of the parties themselves may determine 
the value of the thing in controversy, and operate like an ab- 
solute liquidation of damages. So, in an action on an agree- 
ment in which the defendant acknowledged that he had re- 
ceived of the plaintiff certain enumerated goods, attached by 
the plaintiff as a deputy sheriff, estimated at fifteen hundred 
dollars, and which the defendant promised to keep safely and 
dehver to the plaintiff on demand; it was held that the defend- 
ant could not give evidence that the goods were of less value 
than the specified sum, but that the valuation in the receipt 
was conclusive."' ** Evidence of an offer by plaintiff to sell 
the property is admissible as against him, to show that it is 
worth no more than the amount he offered to take for it; '" 
and an agreement by defendant to pay a certain amount for 
the use of land for a term preceding his trespass upon it is ad- 
missible against him as evidence of the value of the use."^ 

§ 1302. Value of construction. 

In order to prove the value or expense of repairs on a build- 
ing, evidence may be received of the value of the materials and 
labor required. "« So, in arriving at the value of a sleigh, the 

"' Clunnes v. Pezzey, 1 Camp. 8. i" Hersey v. Ins. Co., 27 N. H. 149. 

"2 Lawton v. Sweeney, 8 Jur. 964. "« Weaver v. Mississippi & R. R. B. 

See Jones's Appeal, 62 Pa. 324. Co., 28 Minn. 534, 11 N. W. 114. 

"' Jones V. fcichardson, 10 Met. 481. "« Hough v. Cook, 69 111. 581. 



§1303 



OF SERVICES 



2643 



value of its component parts may be shown.'" Upon the 
question of the value of a house or other building, one who is 
qualified to do so may give an estimate of the expense of build- 
ing it."^ 

§ 1303. Of services. 

The value of services may be proved by the opinion on one 
familiar with such value."' So the value of an attorney's 
services may be proved by an attorney who knows what the 
services were/^** or upon a proper hypothetical statement.'^' 
But the value of skilled services is to be estimated not by in- 
quiring what A. or B. would charge for such services, but what 
the services are fairly worth by the common usage or custom 
of compensation; and it is error to receive the testimony of 
witnesses as to what they would charge. '^^ But evidence is 
proper of the price usually charged and received for similar 
services by others at the same place, '^' and of the past earnings 
of the person whose services are in question. '^^ The circum- 



1" Hildreth v. Fitts, 53 Vt. 684. 

^^ Maine: Tebbetts v. Haskins, 16 
Me. 283. 

Massachusetts: Hills v. Home Ins. 
Co., 129 Mass. 345. 

Tennessee: Southern Oil Works v. 
Bickford, 14 Lea, 651. 

1" Alabama: Parker's Heirs v. Park- 
er's Admr., 33 Ala. 459. 

Kansas: Atchison v. Rose, 43 Kan. 
605, 23 Pac. 661. 

Michigan: Raynowski v. Detroit B. 
C. & A. R. R., 74 Mich. 15, 41 N. W. 
847. 

New York: Brill v. Flagler, 23 Wend. 
354, 35 Am. Dec. 572; Lewis v. Trickey, 
20 Barb. 387. 

"» Covey V. Campbell, 52 Ind. 157. 

"1 Williams v. Brown, 28 Oh. St. 547. 

>22 Pfeil V. Kemper, 3 Wis. 315. 

"' United States: Stanton v. Em- 
brey, 93 U. S. 548, 23 L. ed. 983. 

North Carolina: Jeffries v. Seaboard 
A. L. R. R., 129 N. C. 236, 39 S. E. 836. 

Pennsylvania: McKenna v. Citizens' 
N. G. Co., 201 Pa. 146, 50 Atl. 922. 



Texas: Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Lasater, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 51, 115 
S. W. 103. 

Vermont: Vilas v. Downer, 21 Vt. 
419. 

^^* California: Bonneau v. North 
Shore R. R., 152 Cal. 406, 93 Pac. 106. 

Ioum: Lund v. Tyler, 115 la. 236, 88 
N. W. 333. 

Kansas: Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. 
Posten, 59 Kan. 449, 53 Pac. 465. 

New York: Beisiegel v. New York 
C. R. R., 40 N. y. 9; Palmer v. Conant, 
11 N. Y. Supp. 917, 58 Hun, 333; 
Symons v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 27 
Misc. 502, 58 N. Y. Supp. 327. 

For the distinction between personal 
earnings and the profits of a business, 
not due to personal exertions, which 
therefore cannot be shown, see John- 
son V. Manhattan Ry., 52 Hun, 111, 
4 N. Y. Supp. 848; Thomas v. Union 
Ry., 18 App. Div. 185, 45 N. Y. Supp. 
920. 

Ante, § 482a. 



2644 EVIDENCE §§ 1304, 1305 

stances and quality of the services may be shown, as bearing 
on the value. ^" 

§ 1304. Other value. 

One who knows the sort of board and care furnished to an 
insane person may testify as to its value. ^^^ In New Hampshire 
it was held that as evidence of the value of board the price of 
similar board at a hotel ten miles distant might be shown. ^^^ 

The value of a business may be shown by evidence of the 
extent of the business and the amount of profits."* 

§ 1305. Evidence of malice or intention. 

All facts directly bearing on the question of malice can be 
given in evidence. In Voltz v. Blackmar "' it was said that 
"where exemplary or punitive damages are claimed, all the 
circumstances immediately connected with the transaction, 
tending to exhibit or explain the motive of the defendant, are 
admissible in evidence." The action was for false imprison- 
ment, and it was held that the facts which induced the defend- 
ant to make the arrest should have been considered by the jury 

125 Alabama: Louisville & N. R. R. '» Cross v. Wilkins, 43 N. H. 332. 

V. Handley, 56 So. 539. '™ California: Hawthorne v. Siegel, 

Illinois: Graham v. Mattoon City 88 Cal. 159, 25 Pac. 1114, 22 Ani. St. 

Ry., 234 111. 483, 84 N. E. 1070 (educa^ Rep. 291. 

tion). Georgia: Juohter v. Boehm, 67 Ga. 

Iowa: Patton v. Sanborn, 133 la. 534. 

650, 110 N. W. 1032 (amount of labor Illinois: Illinois & S. L. R. & C. Co. 

performed as housewife). v. Decker, 3 III. App. 135. 

Kentucky: Buffalo C. C. M. Co. v. Michigan: Keables v. Christie, 47 

Hodges, 98 S. W. 274, 30 Ky. L. Rep. Mich. 594, 11 N. W. 400. 

346 (habits of industry and sobriety). New York: Marquart v. LaFarge, 5 

Michigan: Kingston v. Fort Wayne, Duer, 565. 

etc., Ry., 112 Mich. 40, 45, 40 L. R. A. Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh Gauge Co. 

131, 70 N. W. 315, 74 N. W. 230 (dis- v. Ashton Valve Co., 184 Pa. 36, 39 

solute habits and failure to secure em- Atl. 223. 

ployment); Herrick v. Wixom, 121 See New Jersey: Lonon v. Public 

Mich. 384, 80 N. W. 117, 81 L. R. A. Service Co., 80 N. J. L. 252, 76 Atl. 321. 

333 (habits of intoxication). im64 N. Y. 440, 21 Am. Rep. 629. 

Missouri: Latimer v. Metropolitan But the evidence of course must be 

St. Ry., 126 Mo. App. 70, 103 S. W. relevant. In libel, evidence of con- 

1102 (health). temporaneous publication by others 

Pennsylvania: McKenna v. Citizens' is not admissible if defendant was ig- 

N. G. Co., 201 Pa. 146, 60 Atl. 922 norant of it at the time. Witcher v. 

(amount of business attended to). Jones, 17 N. Y. Supp. 491. 



'^ Kendall v. May, 10 All. 59. 



§ 1306 OF THE DURATION OP LIFE 2645 

as bearing on the question of malice. In an action of trespass 
q. c. /., where the defendant's maUce might be a ground of ex- 
emplary damages, it has been held, in New Hampshire, that 
the plaintiff, being a competent witness, might testify what his 
motive and purpose were in doing the acts complained of.''" 
In Hanrion v. Harmon ^'^ it was said that acts against which 
the statute of limitations had run, might be given in evidence 
on the question of malice. In Cxirrier v. Swan,''^ in an action 
for trespass quare clausum fregit, it was held that the defendant 
could show that he and the plaintiff had had a quarrel in the 
afternoon, but could not show its details. The court said: 
"Otherwise there would have been nothing to indicate to the 
jury but that the house was entered for the purpose of robbery 
and plunder, or something of the kind. The fact of a previous 
affray might have some weight upon the question of the amount 
of damages recoverable, and might legitimately be regarded as 
a part of the transaction to be investigated in this suit." 

§ 1306. Of the dixration of life. 

Where the amount of damages depends on the length of a 
life in being, as in the case of a lease for life or a dower right, 
the courts, if not by the assent of parties, usually by the rules 
of their practice, resort to the standard mortality or annuity 
tables, as the Northampton, Wigglesworth, Carlisle or Ameri- 
can Tables. ^'^ The value of the Ufe for a year being ascertained 

130 Norris v. Morrill, 40 N. H. 395. lovm: Chase v. Burlington, C. R. & 

"' 61 Me. 233. N. Ry., 76 la. 675, 39 N. W. 196; 

"2 63 Me. 323. Scagel v. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 83 

"' United States: Colusa Parrot Min- la. 380, 49 N. W. 990. 

ing & Smelting Co. v. Monahan, 162 Kentucky: Greer v. Louisville & N. 

Fed. 276, 89 C. C. A. 256. R. R., 94 Ky. 169, 21 S. W. 649; Louis- 

Aldbama: Southern Ry. v. Cunning- ville & N. R. R. v. Campbell, 122 S. W. 

ham, 152 Ala. 147, 44 So. 658. 848. 

Delaware: McMahon n. Bangs, 5 Massachusetts: Banks v. Braman, 195 

Pennew. 178, 62 Atl. 1098. Mass. 97, 80 N. E. 799. 

Georgia: Collins Park & B. R. R. v. Michigan: Howell v. Lansing E. Ry., 

Ware, 112 Ga. 663, 37 S. E. 975. 136 Mich. 432, 99 N. W. 406; Haney 

Indiana: Pittsburgh, C, C. & S. L. v. Pinckney, 155 Mich. 656, 119 N. W. 

Ry. V. Lightheiser, 168 Ind. 438, 78 1099. 

N. E. 1033; Pittsburgh, C, C. & S. L. Nebraska: Lincoln v. Smith, 28 

Ry. V. Sudhoff, 173 Ind. 314, 90 N. E. Neb. 762, 45 N. W. 41; Swift *;. Hol- 

467. oubek, 55 Neb. 228, 75 N. W. 584. 



2646 



EVIDENCE 



§1306 



by the jury, the expectation of the Hfe becomes a matter of cal- 
culation from the tables. ^^^ So in the statutory action for 
causing death, "^ or in an action for permanent personal in- 
jiu-y."^ But in Shippen & Robbins's Appeal, ^^^ in estimating 
the value of an estate by the curtesy, the court held that the 
Carlisle Tables were not authoritative, but that the probable 
expectation of life must be estimated from the particular cir- 
cumstances. The tables must be proved to be standard tables, 
and will not otherwise be admitted; "* but it has been held that 
the court will take judicial notice that certain tables are stan- 
dard tables."' The tables are not conclusive on the jury,"" but 
must be considered in the light of other evidence, such as the 
health and strength of the person in question."^ Life tables 
need not be introduced at all. The jury may find the probable 



New York: Hall v. Germain, 59 Hun, 
626, 14 N. Y. Supp. 5. 

Oklahoma: Shawnee v. Slankard, 116 
Pac. 803. 

Pennsylvania: Campbell v. York, 172 
Pa. 205, 33 Atl. 879; Kerrigan v. Penn- 
sylvania R. R., 194 Pa. 98, 44 Atl. 1069. 

Texas: Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Leonard (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 
955; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Johnson, 
10 Tex. Civ. App. 254, 31 S. W. 255; 
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. McGlamory 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 359; Gulf, 
C. & S. F. Ry. V. Mangham, 95 Tex. 
413, 67 S. W. 765; San Antonio & A. P. 
Ry. V. Moore, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 371, 
72 S. W. 226. 

Washington: Hodd v. Tacoma, 45 
Wash. 436, 88 Pac. 842; Suell v. Jones, 
49 Wash. 582, 96 Pac. 4. 

Wisconsin: Waterman v. Chicago & 
A. R. R., 82 Wis. 613, 52 N. W. 247; 
Hackett v. Wisconsin Cent. Ry., 141 
Wis. 464, 124 N. W. 1018. 

"* How V. How, 48 Me. 428. 

"5 Georgia: Georgia R. R. & B. Co. 
V. Oaks, 52 Ga. 410; Central R. R. v. 
Crosby, 74 Ga. 737, 58 Am. Rep. 463. 

Wisconsin: McKeigue v. Janesville, 
68Wis. 50,.31N. W. 298. 

"= Georgia: Atlanta & W. P. R. R. 



V. Johnson, 66 Ga, 259; Northeastern 
R. R. V. Chandler, 84 Ga. 37, 10 S. E. 
586. 

Iowa: Coates v. Burhngton, C. R. & 
N. Ry., 62 la. 487, 17 N. W. 760. 

Nebraska: Lincoln v. Smith, 28 Neb. 
762, 45 N. W. 41. 

Texas: Texas M. Ry. v. Douglass, 
69 Tex. 694. 

"' 80 Pa. 391. 

"s Banks v. Braman, 195 Mass. 97, 
80 N. E. 799. 

"' Pittsburg, C, C. & S. L. Ry. v. 
Sudhoff, 173 Ind. 314, 90 N. E. 467. 

"" United States: Kountz v. Toledo, 
S. L. & W. R. R., 189 Fed. 494. 

Montana: Robinson v. Helena L. & 
Ry., 38 Mont. 222, 99 Pac. 837. 

Pennsylvania: Kerrigan v. Pennsyl- 
vania R. R., 194 Pa. 98, 44 Atl. 1069; 
Pauza V. Lehigh V. C. Co., 231 Pa. 577, 
80 Atl. 1126. 

See ante, § 485a. 

^*'^ Iowa: Peterson v. Brackey, 143 
la. 71, 119 N. W. 967 (habits of in- 
toxication). 

Michigan: Denman v. Johnston, 85 
Mich. 387, 48 N. W. 565. 

Rhode Island: Colbert v. Rhode Is- 
land Co., 67 Atl. 446. 



§§ 1307, 1308 OP A FORMER VERDICT 2647 

duration of life entirely from other evidence,"^ such as the age 
reached by the person's ancestors."' 

§ 1307. Of pain. 

The fact of death by drowning is enough of itself to prove 
both physical and mental pain."^ When physical or mental 
pain is to be proved affirmatively, evidence of the acts and 
exclamations of the sufferer are competent evidence."^ Thus, 
in an action for breach of promise of marriage, the plaintiff's 
father was allowed to testify that after the defendant left her, 
she became more melancholy, possessed less life and animation, 
and was found weeping."^ Extraneous occurrences have been 
held inadmissible to prove special susceptibility to mental 
suffering; "' but on the other hand it has been held proper to 
show that plaintiff is a Christian Scientist, as tending to show 
insensibility, if he chooses, to physical and mental pain.^** 

Evidence that the injury can be cured by a slight operation 
is admissible."' 

§ 1308. Of a former verdict. 

The jury should not be told the amount of a former verdict 

"2 Minnesota: Deisen v. Chicago, S. New York: Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 

P., M. & M. Ry., 43 Minn. 454, 45 N. N. Y. 416. 

W. 864. North Carolina: Bowen v. Seaboard 

Pennsylvania: Benson v. Altoona & A. L. Ry., 60 S. E. 898. 

L. V. E. Ry., 228 Pa. 290, 77 Atl. Texas: Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 

492. Zweiner (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 375; 

Texas: Missouri V. B. & I. Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Linton (Tex. 

Ballard, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 110, 116 Civ. App.), 141 S. W. 129. 

S. W. 93. Wisconsin: McKeigue v. Janesville, 

i« Haynes v. Waterville & O. St. Ry., 68 Wis. 50, 31 N. W. 298; King v. Osh- 

101 Me. 335, 64 Atl. 614. kosh, 75 Wis. 517, 44 N. W. 745; KeUer 

1" Clark V. Manchester, 64 N. H. v. Gilman, 93 Wis. 9, 66 N. W. 800. 

471. And where physical pain is '* Tobin v. Shaw, 45 Me. 331, 71 

proved mental suffering need not be Am. Dec. 547. 

shown by independent evidence. In- Ace, in a case of personal injury: 

ternational & G. N. R. R. v. Mitchell, Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Moore, 28 Tex. 

(Tex. Civ. App.), 60 S. W. 996. Civ. App. 603, 68 S. W. 559. 

i« Iowa: Patton v. Sanborn, 133 la. "' Tingley v. Times Mirror Co., 151 

650, 110 N. W. 1032. Cal. 1, 89 Pac. 1097. 

Massachusetts: Bacon v. Charlton, 7 "» Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. v. Travis, 

Cush. 581. 45 Tex. Civ. App. 117, 99 S. W. 1141. 

Michigan: Jones v. Portland, 88 '^^ Leitzell v. Delaware, L. & W. R. 

Mich. 598, 50 N. W. 731. R. (Pa.), 81 Atl. 542. 



2648 EVIDENCE § 1309 

in the case, and if told they should be cautioned to disregard 
it.^^" Nor can they be informed of the amount of the verdict 
in another similar case."^ 

§ 1309. Physical examination. 

The court has discretion to order a witness to so some physi- 
cal act before the jury, such as walking across the room.^^'' 
An injured party may exhibit his wounds to the jury,^^* and 
such is probably the actual practice everywhere, at least in 
the case of ordinary injuries. The case commonly cited in 
support of the proposition does not go so far.^^^ In that case 
the injured party was allowed to exhibit his wounds to a surgeon 
who was testifying, though the defendant objected that the 
jury might see them, and be influenced thereby. But a case 
in the Superior Court of New York decides that the injury 
may be exhibited to the jury.^^* 

An interesting question has recently arisen as to the right 
of the court to compel the injured party to submit to an ex- 
amination by physicians. The right was contested on the 
ground that it was an indignity to the injured party, but the 
doctrine seems now to be well settled in several jurisdictions 
that the court may in its discretion compel him to submit to 
a reasonable and proper examination by disinterested phy- 
sicians.'^* In other jurisdictions, however, the court has no 

"» Ball V. Keokuk & N. W. Ry., 74 Ry. v. Kendall, 167 Fed. 62, 93 C. C. A. 

la. 132, 37 N. W. 110. 422. 

"' Baldwin's Appeal, 44 Conn. 37. California: Johnston v. Southern 

"' Hatfield v. St. Paul & D. R. R., Pac. Co., 150 Cal. 535, 89 Pac. 348. 

33 Minn. 130, 22 N. W. 176. , Iowa: Schroeder v. Chicago, R. I. & 

'" Iowa: Schroeder v. Chicago, R. I. P. Ry., 47 la. 375. 

& P. Ry., 47 la. 375; Faivre v. Mander- Kansas: Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. 

schied, 117 la. 724, 90 N. W. 76. v. Thul, 29 Kan. 466, 44 Am. Rep. 659; 

Michigan: French v. Wilkinson, 93 Ottawa v. Gilliland, 63 Kan. 165, 65 

Mich. 322, 53 N. W. 530 (cannot show Pac. 252; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. 

several years after the accident with- Palmore, 68 Kan. 545, 75 Pac. 509. 

out evidence to show how far changed). Kentucky: Keller v. Berry, 121 S. W. 

Texos.-. Jackson tj. Wells, 13 Tex. Civ. 1009 (must be by impartial physician). 

App. 275, 35 S. W. 628. Maryland: United R. & E. Co. v. 

1" Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. R., Cloman, 107 Md. 681, 69 Atl. 379. 

30 N. Y. 370. Michigan: Fillingham v. Michigan 

'" Jordan v. Bowen, 46 N. Y. Super. United Rys., 154 Mich. 233, 117 N. W. 

Ct. 355. 635 (must be by impartial physician). 

i» United States: Chicago & N. W. 



§1310 



APPROXIMATE EVIDENCE 



2649 



power to order such an examination without the plaintiff's 
consent."' In no jurisdiction will an examination be ordered 
if it would produce serious discomfort or injurious conse- 
quences."* 

§ 1310. Approximate evidence. 

* The application of the rules which we have thus examined, 
in regard to the proof necessary to establish a claim for damages, 
often renders it difficult, if not impossible, to arrive with pre- 
cise accuracy at the object of the inquiry. But justice is after 
all but an approximate science, and its ends are not to be de- 
feated by a failure of strict and mathematical proof. The fol- 
lowing language of Mr. Justice Story is full of good sense, and 
susceptible of frequent and wide application: 

"It is said that it is difficult and indeed impracticable, to as- 
certain its true and exact value, when thrown overboard. 
There may be difficulty, and perhaps an impossibility, to ascer- 
tain its exact and minute value, for we have no means of weigh- 



Missouri: Shamp v. Lambert, 142 
Mo. App. 567, 121 S. W. 770. 

Wisconsin: White v. Milwaukee C. 
Ry., 61 Wis. 536, 21 N. W. 524, 50 
Am. Rep. 154. 

1" Delaware: Mills v. Wilmington 
City Ry., 1 Marvel, 269, 40 Atl. 1114. 

lUinms: Chicago v. McNally, 227 
111. 14, 81 N. E. 23, affirming 117 111. 
App. 434, 128 111. App. 375; Pronske- 
vitch V. Chicago & A. Ry., 232 111. 136, 
83 N. E. 545 (but if plaintiff submits 
his body to the jury for examination, 
an examination by physicians may be 
ordered); Kellyville Coal Co. v. More- 
land, 121 111. App. 410. 

New York: At common law; Mc- 
Swyny v. Broadway & S. A. R. R., 54 
Hun, 637, 7 N. Y. Supp. 456 (but see 
Walsh V. Sayre, 52 How. Pr. 334); Cole 
V. Fall Brook Coal Co., 87 Hun, 584, 
34 N. Y. Supp. 572. 

But by Laws of 1893, chap. 721, the 
court may grant the order for an ex- 
amination as a matter of discovery. 
Lyon V. Manhattan Ry., 7 Misc. 401, 



27 N. Y. Supp. 966; Wunsch v. Weber, 
29 N. Y. Supp. 1100; Green v. Middle- 
sex R. R., 10 Misc. 473, 32 N. Y. Supp. 
177; Smith v. New Jersey & H. R. R. & 
F. Co., 123 App. Div. 493, 108 N. Y. 
Supp. 415. The examination will not 
be ordered where the object of the 
examination was not to obtain proper 
discovery as to the nature of the in- 
jury. Smyth V. Lichtenstein, 137 App. 
Div. 335, 122 N. Y. Supp. 74. 

Oklahoma: Kingfisher v. Altizer, 13 
Okla. 121, 74 Pac. 107. 

Texas: St. Louis & S. W. Ry. v. 
Lindsey (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 87; 
International & G. N. R. R. v. Butcher 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 819; San 
Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. Spencer (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 119 S. W. 716. The exami- 
nation must be by an unprejudiced 
physician. Houston & T. C. R. R. v. 
Berling, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 544, 37 S. W. 
1083. 

>58 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. Pal- 
more, 68 Kan. 545, 75 Pac. 509. 



2650 EVIDENCE § 1310a 

ing it in scales, or fixing its positive price. But the same diffi- 
culty occurs in many other cases of insurance; as in cases of 
injuries to sails, or rigging, or spars, by tempest, or by cutting 
them away in cases of jettison; and yet no one doubts that 
they must be contributed for according to their value, ascer- 
tained by a jury, in the exercise of a sound discretion, upon 
proper evidence. Suppose that fruit is insured, and the vessel 
has a long passage, in which, by ordinary waste and decay, it 
must suffer some deterioration, and then a storm occurs, in 
which it suffers other positive damage and injury, or there is a 
jettison thereof; how are we to ascertain what diminution is to 
be attributed to natural waste and decay, and what to the perils 
of the seas? or what was its true value at the time of the jetti- 
son? There can be no positive and absolute certainty. The 
most that can be done, is to ascertain, by the exercise of a sound 
judgment, what, under all the circumstances, may reasonably 
be attributed to one cause, and what to the other. Absolute 
certainty in cases of this sort is unattainable. All that we can 
arrive at is by an approximation thereto ; and yet no man ever 
doubted that such a loss must be paid for if it is covered by the 
pohcy." 1^' ** 

§ 1310a. Damage imported from the circumstances. 

In some cases the circumstances themselves import dam- 
age, and no independent evidence of damage need be offered. 

So in actions against banks for dishonoring checks, sub- 
stantial damages are recoverable without any proof of dam- 
ages if the case is such that imports damages. In the earlier 
cases it was held that while for a refusal to pay money, as in 
case of a note, only the money due could be recovered, still if 
the declaration showed plaintiff to be a trader and the cause of 
action was dishonoring his check or draft, he could recover 
damages without proving special damage, because the fact 
that he was a trader imported such damage. Now, it seems 
to be the doctrine of the American cases that the act in itself 
imports injury and that special damages need not be alleged 
or proved in any case.^^° Another class of cases is nuisances; 

"' Rogers v. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 1 i» Georgia: Atlanta Nat. Bank v. 

Story, 603, 609. Davis, 96 Ga. 334, 23 S. E. 190. 



§ 1310a DAMAGE IMPORTED FROM CIRCUMSTANCES 2651 

in many cases of nuisances damages are given which are inca- 
pable of any estimation by evidence. ^^^ 

lUinois: Schaffner v. Ehrman, 139 England: Prehn v. Royal Bank, L. R. 

lU. 109, 28 N. E. 917, 15 L. R. A. 135. 5 Ex. 92. 

Pennsylvania: Patterson v. Marine Ante, § 171a. 

Nat. Bank, 130 Pa. 419, 18 Atl. 632. >" Van Fossen v. Clark, 113 la. 86, 

Tennessee: J. M. James Co. v. Con- 84 N. W. 989; Wood, Nuisances, 

tinental Nat. Bank, 105 Tenn. 1, 58 §866. 
S. W. 261, 51 L. R. A. 255. 



CHAPTER LVII 



COXJET AND JURY 



1311. 


Relative power of judge and 


§ 1318. 


Exemplary damages — Aggra- 




jury. 




vation and mitigation. 


1312. 


Analogies of Roman juris- 


1318a. 


Double and treble damages. 




prudence. 


1319. 


Modifications — Setting aside 


1313. 


Formulae. 




verdict. 


1314. 


Changes wrought by the Em- 


1320. 


Instructions on questions of 




pire. 




damages. 


1315. 


Origin and development of 


1321. 


Effect of erroneous instruc- 




the Anglo-Saxon judicial 




tions. 




procedure. 


1322. 


Power of jury to act without 


1316. 


Former indefinite separation 




evidence of damages. 




between province of court 


1323. 


Wrong measure of damages 




and of jury. 




adopted by jury. 


1317. 


Present separation of func- 


1324. 


Modes of computing damages 




tions. 




allowed the jury. 



§ 1311. Relative power of judge and jury. 

* As the final decision of every case involving an issue of 
fact is pronounced by the jury in giving their verdict, and as 
that verdict also expresses the amount of compensation which 
the party in fault is to make, it is plain that, unless the court 
retain to itself some control over the action of the jury, their 
power over the subject of remuneration would be practically 
unlimited. We have, then, yet to see what remedy is provided 
if the jury disregard the rules laid down for their government; 
and this necessarily brings us to a consideration of_the relative 
powers of the judge and the jury. 



§ 1312. Analogies of Roman jurisprudence. 

One of the most marked pecuHarities of the Anglo-American 
system of jurisprudence, perhaps its most striking feature, 
is that division of power by which the decision of questions 
of law is given to the court, and that of questions of fact to 
the jury. It is an error to suppose that this division is alto- 
gether peculiar to our system, or that it is exclusively of EngUsh 
2652 



§ 1312 ANALOGIES OF ROMAN JURISPRUDENCE 2653 

origin. The recent labors of the German scholars, assisted 
by the discovery of Gains, in 1816, have disclosed the true nature 
of the procedure by the formula in the republican period of the 
Roman jurisprudence; and the analogies that it furnishes on 
the present branch of our subject are too striking to be over- 
looked. 

The despotism of Augustus and his successors introduced 
changes into the administration of justice analogous to those 
which it wrought in the general framework of the imperial 
government. Its peculiar characteristics were centralization 
and despotism; it estabUshed in all branches of the system a 
gradation of ranks, deriving their existence from and dependent 
upon the will of the emperor alone, and it destroyed every 
vestige of popular action. The first and most important of 
these changes in the machinery of the law was by abolishing 
the judices or jurors, to make the judges absolute masters 
of the whole cause, subject only to the right of appeal; which, 
in probably all cases, might carry the suitor before the Csesar 
himself; and this led directly to the adoption of written and 
secret instead of oral and pubUc discussion. Thus was pro- 
duced the system which, in its general outhne, ruled continen- 
tal Europe almost exclusively till the adoption of the Code 
Napoleon. 

But the plan on which justice was administered at Rome in 
the time of Cicero, perhaps the most truly great period of its 
development, was very different. The Romans during their 
republican epoch were too jealous of power to give to the 
judiciary an uncontrolled authority over questions both of law 
and fact. The judicial functions were divided, as with us, 
by an analogous and in some cases by an identical line. The 
suit was instituted before a magistrate, usually the praetor; 
and the proceedings bef o*re him were termed in jure. Here the 
cause of action was stated, the defence set up, and the issue 
whether of law or of fact formed. In other words, the plead- 
ings were put in. To this issue was then joined the instructions 
proper for its trial, and the issue and instructions together were 
termed the formula. A judex or referee was then appointed. 
This was called^datio judicis. The cause was then turned over 
to him; and he decided the question submitted to him, accord- 



2654 COURT AND JURY § 1313 

ing to the instructions contained in the formula. The proceed- 
ings before him were termed in judicio. 

§ 1313. Formulae. 

The formula succeeded the old hgis actiones, which, by their 
technical severity, had become odious. These forms were 
abolished, and the formula introduced, by the Lex Abulia, the 
precise date of which is uncertain, but the better opinion would 
seem to be that it was passed early in the seventh century of 
the city, or not long before the period of Cicero.^ 

The formulae were of two kinds, according as they turned on 
questions of law or questions of fact, formulae in jus conceptoe 
and formulae in factum conceptce. A single instance of the 
latter kind will sufficiently exhibit their character: Judex esto; 
si paret A. Agerium apud N^ Negidium mensam argenteam 
deposuisse eamque dolo malo N. Negidii A. Agerio redditam 
non esse, quanti ea res erit tantam pecuniam judex N. Negidium 
A. Agerio condemnato; si non paret, absolve. Which may be 

rendered thus: Let this cause be referred to . If it shall 

appear that A. Agerius deposited a silver table with N. Negid- 
ius, and that through the fraud of the latter it has not been 
returned to the owner, let the judge condemn N. Negidius 
to pay to A. Agerius its value. If it shall not so appear, let 
him decide for the defendant. This is precisely such a charge 
as might be given to a jury any day in an English or American 
court. 

There is a passage in Cicero, where, while denoimcing the 
perversion of the administration of justice under Verres in 
Sicily, he gives a very striking picture of the uses and abuses 
of this division of the judicial functions.^ "No one," he ex- 
claims, "can hold or recover his house, his estate, his paternal 
property, if, when they are sued for, a dishonest praetor, from 
whom there is no appeal, appoints any one whom he pleases 
judge; or if a profligate and worthless judge decides what the 
praetor orders; or if, again, the praetor so frame the order 
(formula) that not even the wisest and best judge can decide 
otherwise. If, for instance, he appoints L. Octavius (an un- 
exceptionable man) judex with the formula, if it shall appear 

1 Gaius by Heff, cap. vii, p. 23. « In Verr. II, 1. 2, § 12. 



§§ 1314, 1315 ANGLO-SAXON PEOCEDURE 2655 

that the property in controversy belongs to P. Servilius, order him 
to deliver it to Catulus, is not Octavius forced to compel Servilius 
to deliver the property to Catulus, although it do not belong 
to him?" This is precisely what might occur under our pro- 
cedure, if the judge were corrupt; and without any corruption, 
it is precisely the error which the system of exceptions to the 
charge is intended to correct. 

The formula thus took the place of our charge to the jury. 
As that charge does, it stated hypothetically the verdict or 
judgment to be rendered, and gave the instructions according 
to which the issue should be decided. The only material 
difference is, that it was in some cases given before the witnesses 
were heard. The state of facts was therefore assumed to 
appear correctly in the allegations of the parties; and the in- 
structions of law arising on these facts were given before the 
testimony was taken. This may now appear awkward and 
inconvenient, but does not in principle differ from our own 
mode. 

§ 1314. Changes wrought by the empire. 

This system was, as has been already said, effaced by the 
despotism of the empire. The independence of such a judiciary 
was, of course, hostile to that centraUzation which was the 
essence of the imperial organization; the judices were aboUshed, 
and the decision of the entire cause given to the court alone. 
This resulted in the aboUtion of all oral discussion; and such 
was the system in force at the time when the Institutes of 
Justinian condensed and embodied the Roman law. Such, 
too, was the system which was adopted when civilization re- 
sumed its progress in continental Europe, and so it remained 
till the French reforms introduced the jury in certain cases. 

§ 1315. Origin and development of the Anglo-Saxon judicial 
procedure. 

In the meantime, however, in the island inhabited by that 
great people from whom we derive our origin, a system anal- 
ogous to the Roman system in its best days had grown up; 
a system of unknown origin, whether a relic of Roman, or a 
child of German liberty, it is perhaps impossible now to say 



2656 COURT AND JURY § 1316 

but marked by very peculiar and distinct features, and claim- 
ing as its chief merits two great principles, oral and public 
discussion, and a division of the judicial functions between 
the court and the jvu-y.' ** 

§ 1316. Former indefinite separation between province of 
court and of jury. 
* It is very plain, from the early records of our jurisprudence, 
imperfect as they are, that the relative powers of the court and 
the jury were at first very loosely defined, and that many im- 
portant changes and modifications have been from time to 
time introduced. So, originally, the jxu-ors were the witnesses 
themselves, and found their verdict on their own knowledge of 
the facts. And in a very large class of cases, not falling within 
those in which exemplary damages may be claimed the jury 
exercised an almost unlimited control over the subject of re- 
muneration. On the other hand, the com-t, in many cases of 
default and demurrer, took the disposition of the facts of the 
case to themselves, and pronounced the judgment. Thus, it 
was at one time held that the court could dispose of the case if 
the plea were sent to be tried in a foreign county, for the jury 
there had not full knowledge of the fact.* And so, where the 
court could increase- damages, it was held they could mitigate 
them.* So, also, in an early author, it is said, that "though the 
justices use to award inquest of damages when they give judg- 
ment by default, yet they themselves may tax the damages if 
they will." ^ So, too, from another early case, where judgment 
was given by default, it seems clear that the judges originally 

' Nor is the division of power be- ensemble dans une longite alternative de 

tween the magistrate and the judex, the lutte et de rapprochement, jusque ce que 

only important analogy between the le temps ait ameni leur fiisimi plus ou 

Roman and the English systems of ju- mains complete. ... Sa formule la 

risprudence. Two different and dis- plus large et la plv^ haute c'est le jus 

tinct bodies of law, as distinct and dif- civile et I'aequitas, sans cesse opposes I'un 

ferent as common law and equity with d I'autre, comme deux principes disUncts 

us, existed in the early days of the Ro- et inegaux. De- I'Influence du Chris- 

man system. La civilization Romaine, tianisme sur le Droit Civil des Romains 

says Troplong, s'est developpee sous I'in- par M. Troplong, oh. iii. 
fl/uence de deux elemens, qu'on pour- * 1 Rol. 572, 1. 50. 
rait en quelgue sorte appeler de premi&re ' 1 Rol. 572, 1. 25-8; 573, 1. 7. 
et de seconde formation, et qui ont vecu ' Viner Abr. Dam. 1, 3. 



§ 1316 PROVINCE OF COURT AND JURY 2657 

might award damages without the intervention of a writ of 
inquiry.^ So, too, on demurrer, and in actions of debt, the sum 
being certain, this power seems to have been exercised at a 
much later day.* 

The following case shows the unsettled condition of the law 
in the respect we are now considering. A motion being made 
to increase damages, because the jury had only given twelve 
pence, whereas the plaintiff's arm was broken; RoUe, C. J., 
refused, because it did not appear by the declaration what 
manner of maiming it was that he received.' It was early 
decided, however, that the justices of Nisi Prius could not in- 
crease the damages,^" nor the court on the certificate of the 
justices of Nisi Prius."** The court, at a comparatively 
early day, refused to increase the damages on an affidavit of all 
the jurors, that they had thought the effect of their verdict 
would be to give the plaintiff more than it did, when the ap- 
plication was made "at a distance of time after trial." ^^ 

In certain cases, however, the power of the court over the 
verdict was allowed. So, in some instances, on bills of exchange, 
the coiu't assessed the damages without the intervention of a 
jury.i' So, in case of mayhem, the courts exercised the power 
of altering, and even increasing the verdict. Thus, where a 
verdict had been found for the plaintiff of £150, and it was 
moved to increase the damages, Lee, C. J., said: "There is no 
doubt but the coiu-t can increase the damages in this case, even 
upon view of the party maimed." But they held the £150 
sufficient, and discharged the rule.^* By the practice which 

' So says Brooke, Dam., pi. 55. Le " Robinson v. Reynolds, 2 Q. B. 

(fe/. fist defaut el le pV recouer' dams a 196; Clement v. Lewis, 3 Br. & B. 

iv, li. taxe p. I'court et non dam. come il 297. So in New York the damage 

count, quod nota q. le court mesm,e taxa could be assessed by the clerk, on prom- 

les Damages. issory notes, bills, etc., but not on the 

' Bro., Dam., pi. 56: Sur demur, in common counts nor unliquidated de- 

Uy, le court poet agard damag sauns in- manda; and in regard to this, several 

quire de ceo per curiam qd. nota. Vide, cases have been decided. Burr v. 

also pJ. 59, 68, 194. See Sayer on Dam- Waterman, 2 Cow. 36, n.; Golden v. 

ages, ch. xx, 105; Holdipp v. Otway, 2 Knickerbacker, 2 Cow. 31; Rogers v. 

Sand. 102; 21 Car. 2, Sayer, 107. Coleman, 3 Cow. 62; Beard v. Van 

' Jervis v. Lucas, Style, 345. Wickle, 3 Cow. 335; Seeber v. Yates, 6 

i» 1 Rol. 573, 1. 30. Cow. 40. 

" 1 Rol. 572, 1. 20. " Brown v. Seymour, 1 Wils. 5. 

" Jackson v. Williamson, 2 T. R. 281. 

167 



2658 COURT AND JURY § 1317 

prevailed for a time, the court, in actions for injuries to the 
person, itself often took a view of the injury, and thereupon 
increased or mitigated the damages found by the jury accord- 
ing to its judgment. ^^ So where in such a case a jury gave 
twenty marks damages, on a view in court, and information 
of the surgeons present, the court increased the damages, be- 
cause the party lost the use of his arm.^^ And as lately as 
1856, an appeal from the decision of the circuit judge denying a 
motion to increase the damages super visum vulneris was 
formally argued before the South Carolina Court of Appeals, 
in an action of trespass vi ei armis, where the jury had awarded 
the moderate sum of $30 for a mayhem, whereby one of the 
plaintiff's eyes and his right thumb were destroyed. The 
court held that the old common-law practice, on which, the 
motion was founded, had been abrogated by disuse. The rule 
gradually developed was now long established, that in all cases 
sounding in damages, these damages are to be assessed by a 
jury under the direction of the court, and not by the court 
independently of the jury." * But the fluctuations and os- 
cillations of the system have been gradually corrected and 
brought under fixed rules. The progress of time and the ac- 
cumulation of experience enable us now to draw the lines of 
demarcation with great clearness, and the complication of 
the machinery disappears when carefully examined. 

§ 1317. Present separation of functions. 

The first leading proposition on which the whole structure 
of our system depends is, that the court decides all questions 
of law. Statutes are expounded, contracts interpreted, writ- 
ten instruments construed, evidence admitted or excluded, 
by the court and by the court alone.** And it necessarily 
follows from this, that if the, jury disregard the instructions 
of the court on any question of law, their verdict will be set 
aside. It is by the exercise of this power alone that the control 
of the com-t over questions of law can be preserved. The 

1* See the cases collected in RoUe's " McCoy v. Lemon, 11 Rich. L. 

Abr., pp. 571, 572; also, Broske, Dam. 165. 

49, 86, 87. •» U. S. v. Hodge, 6 How. 279, 12 L. 

'* Freeman v. Trevers, 1 Rol. Abr. ed. 437. 
572. 



§ 1318 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 2659 

correlative proposition to this is, that the jury decides all 
questions of fact. Where the facts are admitted, the rights of 
the parties must depend on a pure question of law, and they 
are, of course, under the control of the court; but the instant 
that an issue of fact is presented, the decision of the cause 
passes from the court to the jury. The rule giving the jury 
the decision of all questions of fact, if no exception were ad- 
mitted, would, as has been said, effectually make the jury 
masters of the whole matter in controversy. Various modi- 
fications have, therefore, been introduced to it,** as for instance 
that the discretion of the jury must be based upon facts and 
circumstances proved in the case,^^ and in some cases the rule 
is changed by statutory enactment. Thus, the Revised 
Statutes of Indiana have abrogated the common-law rule, 
that, in an action of tort, the court cannot assess the damages. 
Under that provision the right to a jury trial of the question 
of damages is waived by not appearing.^" And, in Louisiana, 
the Supreme Court have power to increase the damage on 
appeal.^i And it is well settled that provisions of law provid- 
ing for the ascertainment of damages without the intervention 
of a jury, in the case of the taking of land under the right of 
eminent domain, do not violate the constitutional requirement 
of trial by jury.^^ 

§ 1318. Exemplary damages— Aggravation and mitigation. 

We have already seen ^' that the allowance and amount 
of exemplary damages is a question for the jury. The court 
has, as in every case involving the determination of questions 
of fact, the right to instruct the jury that there is no evidence 
to justify them in allowing exemplary damages, and it is error 
to submit the question of exemplary damages to the jury if 
there is no such evidence; ^^ and the court has the power in 
this, as in any other case, of setting aside the verdict as exces- 

"laeger v. Metcalf, 11 Ariz. 283, New York: Beekman v. Saratoga & 

94 Pac. 1094. S. R. R., 3 Pai. 45. 

» Langdon v. Bullock, 8 Ind. 341. See McDuffee v. Fellows, 157 Mich. 

21 DonneU v. Sandford, 11 La. Ann. 664, 122 N. W. 276. 

645. " §§ 387, 388. 

'^ United States: Bonaparte v. Cam- ^* Lexington Ry. v. Fain, 80 S. W. 

den & A. R. R., 1 Bald. 205. 463, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2243. 



2660 COURT AND JURY §§ 1318a, 1319 

sive.^^ But if there is any evidence which would justify the 
jury in allowing exemplary damages, the question whether 
such damages shall be allowed, and if so, what the amount of 
them shall be, is entirely for the jury, and a direction that they 
shall give exemplary damages is erroneous.^® 

Upon the same principle the amount of weight to be allowed 
evidence in mitigation or aggravation is entirely for the jury; 
and it would seem that the question whether certain evidence 
tends to mitigate or aggravate damages is one of fact for the 
jury." It has, however, been said in Missouri ^* that "what 
circumstances will mitigate or aggravate a wrong done, is a 
question of law, and if any such circumstances exist, they should 
be pointed out by the court. 

§ 1318a. Double and treble damages. 

Where a plaintiff is entitled to double or treble damages it is 
immaterial whether the jury find actual damages and they are 
multiplied by the court, or the jury themselves find the multi- 
ple amount. ^^ In New York it has been held that when the 
plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages unless it appears 
from the record that the verdict is for single damages, it will 
be presumed that the treble value was found. ^^ 

§ 1319. Modifications— Setting aside verdict. 

* In the first place, a verdict may be set aside because it is 
against the weight of testimony. This power is, however, very 
sparingly exercised; and on mere questions of fact the court 
always interferes with great hesitation and reluctance. So, a 
verdict will not be disturbed merely because it appears that 

="> § 388. Nm-th Carolina: Blow v. Joyner, 72 

=« Neeb v. Hope, 111 Pa. 145; see S. E. 319. 

§ 387. 2' See § 52. 

Therefore a verdict cannot be set '^ Rains v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 

aside because the jury failed to include 71 Mo. 164, 36 Am. Rep. 459. 

exemplary damages. 29 Colorado: Richards v. Sanderaon, 

New York: Rockefeller v. Lamora, 39 Colo. 270, 89 Pac. 769. 

106 App. Div. 345, 94 N. Y. Supp. 549. Smdh Dakota: Jensen v. South 

Tennessee: Simpson v. Markwood, 6 Dakota Cent. Ry., 25 S. D. 406, 127 

Baxt. 340. N. W. 650. 

And the amount must be left entirely Ante, § 930a. 

to the jury. ^ Prignitz v. McTieman, 18 Misc. 

Georgia: Selman v. Barnett, 4 Ga. 651, 43 N. Y. Supp. 974. 
App. 375, 61 S. E, 501. 



§ 1320 INSTRUCTIONS ON QUESTIONS OF DAMAGES 2661 

the jury have reasoned incorrectly. In a case in the EngUsh 
Common Pleas, Maule, J., said: "We are not, however, to set 
aside a verdict because the jury, one or all of them, may have 
reasoned inconclusively. If such a doctrine were to prevail, 
scarcely any verdict would stand. The trial by jury is not 
founded upon a supposition so absurd, as that the whole twelve 
will reason infallibly from the premises to the conclusion." 

So, again, where a judge who tries a cause in trespass rec- 
ommends a verdict for nominal damages, but the jury give 
substantial damages (£5), such a verdict will not be set aside 
as perverse. '1 And this rule has been repeatedly affirmed in 
this country. So, in Mississippi, it has been decided that a 
verdict will always be permitted to stand, unless it is opposed 
by a decided preponderance of the evidence, or is based on no 
evidence whatever; ^^ and, in Texas, that the verdict of a jury 
founded on conflicting testimony will not be set aside, unless 
it be very apparent that they decided wrongly. '' 

§ 1320." Instructions on questions of damages. 

The jury should have such guidance from the court, in the 
form of instructions on the law of damages apphcable to the 
facts shown as will enable them to understand and act upon 
the evidence.'* And the instructions should state the law in 
sufficient detail, and not, by too general a charge, give the jury 
a "roving commission" to find such damages as they please.'^ 

■^ For § 1320 of the eighth .edition see Illinois: Haisler v, Hayden, 124 Dl. 

§ 1325. App. 264. 

'• Chilvers v. Greaves, 5 Man. & Gr. Indiana: Monongahela R. C. C. & 

578. C. Co. V. Hardsaw, 169 Ind. 147, 81 

»2 acely V. State of Mississippi, 13 N. E. 492; Knoefel v. Atkins (Ind.), 81 

Sm. & M. 202. N. E. 601; Chicago & E. R. R. v. 

8» Perry v. Robinson, 2 Tex. 400. Fretz, 173 Ind. 519, 90 N. E. 76. 

" Missouri: Howes v. Kansas City Kentucky: Lexington Ry. v. Herring, 

S. Y. Co., 103 Mo. 60, 15 S. W. 97 S. W. 1127, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 269; 

751. Louisville & N. R. R. v. Farris^, 100 S. 

Nebraska: Hoover v. Haynes, 65 Neb. W. 870, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 1193. 

557, 93 N. W. 732. Mississippi: Carbolineum W. P. & 

Pennsylvania: Pauza v. Lehigh V. C. M. Co. v. Meyer, 76 Miss. 586, 25 So. 

Co., 231 Pa. 577, 80 Atl. 1126. 297. 

Texas: Lyon v. Bedgood (Tex. Civ. Missouri: Camp v. Wabash R. R., 94 

App.), 117 S. W. 897. Mo. App. 272, 68 S. W. 96. 

'' Alabama: Southern Ry. v. Cooh- New York: Rhodes v. Union Ry., 52 

ran, 149 Ala. 673, 42 So. 100. Misc. 501, 102 N. Y. Supp. 510. 



2662 



COURT AND JURY 



§1321 



If no assistance is given to the jury by the court, the verdict 
cannot be upheld;^* though in a few cases it is said that if the 
losing party takes no exception to the lack of a definite charge 
he cannot complain of it after the verdict." Where a correct 
charge has been given, it is not error to refuse additional in- 
structions.'^ 

A charge which is not based on evidence is misleading and 
erroneous; '^ so is a charge which properly and fairly under- 
stood, permits the jury to give double damages.** 



§ 1321." Effect of erroneous instructions. 

An erroneous instruction cannot be alleged as ground for a 
new trial by a party who asked for it, *^ or where it was erro- 
neous because based on facts erroneously accepted as true. 



Wisconsin: Guinard v. Knapp, Stout 
& Co., 95 Wis. 482, 70 N. W. 671. 

In Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. v. 
Collins (Ind.), 80 N. E. 415, the in- 
structions were held sufficiently pre- 
cise. 

" For § 1321 of the eighth edition 
see § 1326. 

^^ New York: Barr v. Schefer, 118 
App. Div. 834, 103 N. Y. Supp. 733. 

Tennessee: Citizens' St. R. R. v. 
Burke, 98 Tenn. 650, 40 S. W. 1085. 

" United States: United States Smelt- 
ing Co. V. Parry, 166 Fed. 407, 92 C. C. 
A. 159. 

Missouri: Wheeler v. Bowles, 163 
Mo. 398, 63 S. W. 675. 

Texas: Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Parish, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 493, 100 S. 
W. 1175. 

^'Colorado: Denver C. T. Co. v. 
Hills, 50 Colo. 328, 116 Pac. 125. 

Kentucky: Exchange Bank v. Gaits- 
kill, 37 S. W. 160, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 532. 

Texas: Lyon v. Bedgood (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 117 S. W. 897. 

" Iowa: O'Connor v. Chicago, R. I. 
& P. Ry., 144 la. 289, 122 N. W. 947. 

New York: Clarke v. Westcott, 37 
N. Y. Supp. 1111; Gilbertson v. Forty- 
second St. M. & S. N. A. Ry., 43 N. Y. 
Supp. 782, 14 App. Div. 294; Cam- 



paretti v. Union Ry., 95 App. Div. 66, 
88 N. Y. Supp. 425. 

*" Georgia: Southern Ry. v. Jordan, 
129 Ga. 665, 59 S. E. 802. 

Kentucky: Doerhoefer v. Shew- 
maker, 123 Ky. 646, 97 S. W. 7. 

Missouri: Westervelt v. St. Louis 
Transit Co., 222 Mo. 325, 121 S. W. 
114 (semble). 

Texas: Texas Cent. Ry. v. Brock, 88 
Tex. 310, 31 S. W. 500. 

Washington: Simons v. Cissna, 52 
Wash. 115, 100 Pac. 200. 

The courts in Texas are marvellously 
acute in finding that the charge per- 
mitted the allowance of double dam- 
ages. Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. v. Morris, 
45 Tex. Civ. App. 696, 101 S. W. 1038; 
Beaumont Traction Co. v. Edge, 46 
Tex. Civ. App. 448, 102 S. W. 746; 
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Hibbitts, 49 
Tex. Qv. App. 419, 109 S. W. 228; St. 
Louis & S. F. R. R. v. Lane, 49 Tex. 
Civ. App. 541, 110 S. W. 530; El Paso 
& S. W. R. R. V. O'Keefe, 50 Tex. Civ. 
App. 579, 110 S. W. 1002; Texas Mid- 
land R. R. V. Geraldon, 54 Tex. Civ. 
71, 117 S. W. 1004; International & G. 
N. R. R. V. Hood, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 
334, 118 S. W. 1119. 

"Andrews v. Chicago, M. & S. P. 
Ry., 86 la. 677, 53 N. W. 399. 



1322 



POWEE OF JtTRY 



2663 



during the trial, by both parties;. *^ nor will a verdict be set 
aside for an erroneous instruction which cannot have preju- 
diced the petitioner/' or when the error related to a separable 
item of damage which can be deducted from the judgment/^ 
But in general a verdict based on an erroneous charge will 
be set aside, no matter how reasonable in itself, or how cor- 
rect other portions of the charge may have been.*^ By the 
better view, if the error affects the amount of damages only a 
new trial should be confined to the question of damages.^" 



§ 1322." Power of jury to act without evidence of damages. 

Even in assessing non-pecuniary damages, such as compen- 
sation for pain and suffering, the jury must be guided by the 
evidence, and cannot go counter to it in finding their verdict.*^ 

But in such cases the evidence cannot definitely fix the 
damages, and wherever the evidence leaves the amount of 
damages indefinite, because of the nature of the case, it is the 
duty of the jury to find the amount by the use of their judg- 
ment and general knowledge.^ 



'^ For § 1322 of the eighth edition, 
see §§ 1329, 1330. 

" Colorado: Mountz v. Apt, 119 Pac. 
150. 

Missouri: Taylor v. Scherpe & K. A. 
I. Co., 133 Mo. 349, 34 S. W. 581. 

*^ Michigan: Durfee v. Newkirk, 83 
Mich. 522, 47 N. W. 351. 

Nebraska: Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. 
V. Archer, 46 Neb. 907, 65 N. W. 1043. 

New York: Powell v. Fletcher, 18 N. 
Y. Supp. 451. 

** Kansas: Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. 
V. Turley, 71 Kan. 256, 80 Pac. 605. 

Pennsylvania: Graham v. Keys, 29 
Pa. 189. 

South Dakota: Kime v. Bank of Edge- 
mont, 22 S. D. 630, 119 N. W. 1003. 

*' Missouri: Morris v. Grand Ave. 
Ry., 144 Mo. 500, 46 S. W. 170. 

Texas: Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. 
Godair, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 514, 22 S. W. 
777; International & G. N. R. R. v. 
Cook (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 888. 

«Broughel v. Southern N. E. T. 



Co., 72 Conn. 617, 45 Atl. 435, 49 L. 
R. A. 404. 

" Alabama: Seaboard Mfg. Co. v. 
Woodson, 94 Ala. 143, 11 So. 733. 

Arkansas: St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
V. Dallas, 93 Ark. 209, 124 S. W. 247. 

North Carolina: Shepard v. Western 
U. T. Co., 143 N. C. 244, 55 S. E. 704. 

*» Colorado: Denver C. T. Co. v. 
Riley, 14 Colo. App. 132, 59 Pac. 476 
(companionship of wife). 

Connecticut: Harris v. Ansonia, 73 
Conn. 359, 47 Atl. 672 (shade tree). 

Illinois: Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. 
Warner, 108 111. 538 (pain). 

Iowa: Scurlock v. Boone, 142 la. 
684, 121 N. W. 369. 

Kansas: Chicago, K. & W. R. R. v. 
Willits, 45 Kan. 110, 25 Pac. 576 (in- 
jury to land). 

Nebraska: Ellison v. Brown, 43 Neb. 
68, 61 N. W. 97 (feeUngs); Flinn v. 
Frederickson, 131 N. W. 934 (pain). 

New York: Coimtryman v. Fonda, J. 
& G. R. R., 166 N. Y. 201, 59 N. E. 822 



2664 



COURT AND JURY 



§1323 



§ 1323. Wrong measure of damages adopted by jury. 

Where the verdict is evidently based upon an erroneous 
measure of damages, the court will not hesitate to set it aside. *^ 
And so where interest was not recoverable, the court directed 
it to be remitted.*" And where a vaUd counter-claim was over- 
looked in estimating damages for the plaintiff, the verdict 
was not allowed to stand. ^^ Where no damages are proved, 
and the case does not admit of exemplary damages, a verdict 
for anything more than a nominal sum will not be sustained.*^ 
And where exemplary damages have been improperly allowed 
by the jury, and the verdict exceeds the amount of actual 
damages, the coiu-t will interfere.*' 

Where the loss was entirely pecuniary, and the damages 
are much greater or less than the amount proved to be the 
plaintiff's loss, the verdict will be set aside.** Where the jiu-y 
is known to have included in the verdict an improper item of 
damage, the verdict wiU not be set aside if it can be cured by 
the plaintiff remitting the excess.** But if it is impossible 



(death); Femstein v. Jacobs, 15 Misc. 
474, 37 N. Y. Supp. 345 (loss of sup- 
port); Horowitz V. Hamburg A. P. Co., 
41 N. Y. Supp. 54, 18 Misc. 24 (whether 
injury permanent). 

See ante, § 170a. 

<' United States: Palmer v. Fiske, 2 
Curt. C. C. 14. 

Kentucky: Ray v. Jeffries, 86 Ky. 
367; Bannon v. Rohmeiser, 34 S. W. 
1084, 35 S. W. 280, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 
1378. 

Neit) Jersey: Ellsworth v. Central R. 
R., 34 N. J. L. 93. 

England: Creed v. Fisher, 9 Ex. 472. 

'"Connelly v. McNeil, 2 Jones L. 
51. 

" Havana, R. & E. R. R. v. Walsh, 
85 111. 58. 

'2 Arkansas: Smith i/. Houston, 25 
Ark. 183. 

California: De Briar v. Minturn, 1 
Cal. 450. 

Georgia: Oakley Mills Manf. Co. v. 
Neese, 54 Ga. 459. 

Illinois: Cochrane ii. Tuttic, 75 111. 



361; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. R. v. 
Dewin, 86 111. 296. 

'' Arkansas: St. Louis, I. M. & S. 
Ry. V. Hall, 53 Ark. 7, 13 S. W. 138. 

lUinois: Toledo, P. & W. R. R. v. 
Patterson, 63 111. 304; Farwell v. War- 
ren, 70 111. 28; Becker v. Dupree, 75 111. 
167; Hayes v. Parmalee, 79 111. 563; 
Kolb V. O'Brien, 86 111. 210. 

New Hampshire: Cram v. Hadley, 48 
N. H. 191. 

" Flonda: Jacksonville T. & K. W. 
Ry., V. Roberts, 22 Fla. 324. 

Illinois: Cassell v. Hays, 51 111. 261. 

Indiana: Nutter v. Junction R. R., 
13 Ind. 479. 

Kentucky: Ray v. Jeffries, 86 Ky. 367. 

'* United States: Bank of Kentucky 
V. Ashley, 2 Pet. 327, 7 L. ed. 440. 

Illinois: Toledo, W. & W. Ry. v. 
Beals, 50 111. 150. 

Maine: Cyr v. Dufour, 62 Me. 20. 

Massachusetts: Lambert v. Craig, 12 
Pick. 199. 

Minnesota: Stickney v. Bronson, 5 
Minn. 215. 



§ 1324 MODES OF COMPtrxlNG DAMAGES 2665 

to determine how the jury made up their verdict, so as to cor- 
rect the error, the verdict must be set aside/^ In Georgia 
the court will, it is said, set aside a verdict if, in its opinion, 
there is not evidence from which the jury can ascertain the 
amount of damage.^' 

§ 1324." Modes of computing damages allowed the jury. 

A question has presented itself as to the mode in which the 
jury may arrive at the quantum of damages in cases where 
they are greatly divided on the question of amount. The 
jury cannot abdicate its functions and decide the amount by 
chance. So, in the old case of MelUsh v. Arnold ^* a new trial 
was granted, "because the jury threw up cross or pile, whether 
they should give the plaintiff three hundred pounds or five hun- 
dred pounds damages, and the chance of five hundred pounds 
came up." 

* It has been decided that if they agree beforehand, that 
each juror shall mark the sum to which he conceives the plain- 
tiff entitled, and that the total of these amounts divided in 
twelve (the number of jurors) shall be the verdict, the whole 
proceedings will be void, and a new trial will be ordered, for 
the reason that the whole thing is a mere matter of chance.^' 
So, in New York, it has been decided that the jury will not be 
allowed to arrive at a verdict by each of the jurors marking 
down a particular sum, apd then dividing the whole amount 
by the number of jurors; and on assignment of error in fact, 
the judgment for this cause will be reversed.^" So, in England, 

New Hampshire: Sanborn i/. Emer- ^^ Smith v. Dukes, 5 Minn. 373. 

son, 12 N. H. 57; Pierce v. Wood, 23 " Oakley Mills Mfg. Co. v. Neese, 

N. H. 619; WUlard v. Stevens, 24 N. H. 54 Ga. 459. 

271; Odlin v. Gove, 41 N. H. 465, 77 '«Bunb. 61. 

Am. Dec. 773; Cross v. Wilkins, 43 N. '" /iimois: Illinois Cent. R. R. D.Abie, 

H. 332. 69 111. 131. 

New Jersey: Hatfield v. Central R. Iowa: Manix v. Malony, 7 la. 81. 

R., 33 N. J. L. 251. Mississippi: Parham v. Harney, 6 

Rhode Island: Forbes v. Howard, 4 Sm. & M. 65. 

R. 1. 364. Tennessee: EUedge v. Todd, 1 

Wisconsin: Kavanaugh v. Janesville, Humph. 43, 34 Am. Dec. 616. 

24 Wis. 618; Strong v. Hooe, 41 Wis. «» Harvey v. Rickett, 15 Johns. 87; 

659. Roberts v. Failis, 1 Cowen, 238. 

" For § 1324 of the eighth edition, 
see § 1327. 



2666 coTTRf AND JURY § 1324 

the court will not permit the jury to arrive at a verdict by- 
splitting a difference.'! But if the same course be taken in 
order to ascertain with more accuracy how the jury stands, 
the rule is different; and it has been held not improper for them 
to arrive at their verdict by each marking a sum and dividing 
it by twelve, provided they do not previously bind themselves 
to adhere to the result of the arithmetical computation.^^ ** 
It is, of course, error to charge the jury that this course may 
be pm-sued."' In Boynton v. Trumbull** the jury agreed 
among themselves to give a verdict for half the aggregate 
of the lowest and highest sums allowed by them individually, 
and the verdict was consequently set aside. It seems to be 
improper, if witnesses differ as to value, to charge the jury that 
an average of the estimates may be taken.*^ The evidence of 
a member of the jury will not be received to impeach the ver- 
dict.«« 

" Hall V. Poyser, 13 M. & W. 600. Pennsylvania: Kreider's Estate, 18 

'* California: Wilson v. Berryman, Pa. 374. 

5 Cal. 44, 63 Am. Dec. 78; Turner v. Rhode Island: Forbes v. Howard, 4 

Tuolumne County Water Co., 25 Cal. R. I. 364; Luft v. Linganie, 17 R. 1. 420, 

397; Boyce v. California Stage Co., 25 22 Atl. 942. 

Cal. 460. Tennessee: Tinkle v. Dunivant, 16 

Illinois: Pekin v. Winkel, 77 111. 56. Lea, 503. 

Indiana: Guard v. Risk, 11 Ind. Wisconsin: Fowler v. Colton, Burn. 

156. 175. 

Iowa: Barton v. Holmes, 16 la. 252. « AUard v. Smith, 2 Met. (Ky.) 297. 

Massachusetts: Dorr v. Fenno, 12 «' 45 N. H. 408. 

Pick. 521. " Thomas v. Dickinson, 12 N. Y. 

Minnesota: St. Martin v. Desnoyer, 1 364, per Johnson, J. 

Minn. 156, 61 Am. Dec. 494. "^ Maine: Hovey v. Luce, 31 Me. 346. 

New York: Dana v. Tucker, 4 Johns. Michigan: Wixom v. Bixby, 137 

487. Mich. 479, 86 N. W. 1001. 



CHAPTER LVIII 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§ 1325. 

1326. 
1327. 
1328. 

1329. 
1330. 
1331. 

1332. 

1333. 
1334. 
1335. 
1336. 
1337. 
1338. 
1339. 

1340. 
1341. 
1342. 
1343. 



1344. 
1345. 
1346. 

1347. 
1348. 



Power of court to set aside 
verdicts. 

What damages are excessive. 

Successive verdicts. 

Cases in which the court will 
act. 

Practice. 

Remission of the excess. 

When a remittitur will be en- 
tered. 

Action of appellate courts on 
excessive damages. 

What amount is excessive. 

Pecuniary loss. 

Defamation. 

False imprisonment. 

Malicious prosecution. 

AUenation of affections. 

Breach of promise of mar- 
riage. 

Seduction. 

Telegraph companies. 

Carriers. 

Other malicious torts, or 
wrongs causing mental suf- 
fering. 

Exemplary damages. 

Assault and battery. 

Physical injury; doubtful 
physical consequences. 

Slight or temporary injury. 

Broken bones: bones of leg 
and hip. 



! 1349. 
1350. 
1351. 
1352. 
1353. 
1354. 

1355. 
1356. 
1357. 

1358. 
1359. 

1360. 
1361. 

1362. 
1363. 
1364. 

1365. 
1366. 
1367. 
1368. 
1369. 



1370. 

1371. 
1372. 



Bones of arm or shoulder. 

Bones of the trunk. 

Bones of the head. 

Surgical operation. 

Pain and suffering. 

Permanent injuries: disability 
to labor. 

Permanent crippling. 

Loss of a member: leg or foot. 

Loss of a member: arm, hand, 
or finger. 

Disfigurement. 

Impairment of sight or hear- 
ing. 

Nervous disorders. 

Insanity and loss of mental 
power. 

Shortening of life. 

Other permanent injuries. 

Doubt as to permanence of 
injury. 

Loss of service. 

Civil damage act. 

Damages for death. 

Inadequate damages. 

Failure to allow damages 
where compensation should 
be given. 

What damages are inade- 
quate: torts in general. 

Personal injuries. 

Death. 



§ 1325." Power of court to set aside verdicts. 

The court holds itself at liberty to set aside verdicts and 
grant new trials even in that class of cases where there is no 
fixed legal rule of compensation, whenever the damages are so 



' For § 1325 of the eighth edition see § 1328. 



2667 



2668 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES § 1325 

excessive as to create the belief that the jury have been misled 
either by passion, prejudice, or ignorance. But this power is 
never used except in a clear case. So, in an action for malicious 
indictment of the plaintiff for perjury, where a verdict of £400 
was obtained, on a rule for new trial it was insisted that the 
verdict was excessive. But it was refused, and Lord Mans- 
field said: "New trials are not to be granted in this class of 
cases without very strong grounds indeed, and such as carry 
internal evidence of intemperance in the minds of the jury."' 

The doctrine has been repeatedly affirmed in early cases in 
this country. So Mr. Justice Story decided that in cases 
of tort the verdict will not be disturbed unless it is so excessive 
and outrageous with reference to all the circumstances of the 
case, as to demonstrate that the jury have acted against the 
rules of law, or have suffered their passions, their prejudices, or 
their perverse disregard of justice to mislead them.^ So, again, 
the same sagacious judge said: "A court of law will not set 
aside a verdict upon the ground of excessive damages, unless in 
a clear case where the jury have acted upon a gross mistake of 
facts, or have been governed by some improper influence or 
bias, or have disregarded the law." ' Again, in another case, 
Mr. Justice Story said : 

"The damages are certainly higher than what, had I sitten 
on the jury, I should have been disposed to give; and I should 
now be better satisfied if the amount had been less.* ... It 
is one thing for a court to administer its own measm-e of dam- 
ages in a case properly before it, and quite another thing to set 
aside the verdict of a jury, merely because it exceeds that meas- 
ure. The court, in setting aside a verdict for excessive dam- 
ages, should clearly see that they are excessive; that there has 
been a gross error; that there has been a mistake of the prin- 
ciples upon which the damages have been estimated; or some 
improper motives, or feelings, or bias, which have influenced 
the minds of the jury. . . . Upon a mere matter of damages, 
where different minds might, and probably would, arrive at 

' Gilbert v. Burtenshaw, Cowper, 230. * Much the same language was used 

^ Whipple V. Cumberland Manuf'g by the court in Harris v. Louisville, N. 

Co., 2 Story, 661. O. & T. Ry., 35 Fed. 116. 
' Wiggin V. Coffin, 3 Story, 1. 



§ 1325 POWER TO SET ASIDE VERDICTS 2669 

different results, and nothing, inconsistent with an honest 
exercise of judgment, appears, I, for one, should be disposed to 
leave the verdict as the jury found it." * 

So, in New Jersey, too, it has been declared that the court, 
in actions of trespass for personal torts, where damages can be 
gauged by no fixed standard, but necessarily rest in the sound 
discretion of the jury, interferes with a verdict on the mere 
ground of excessive damages with reluctance, and never except 
in a clear case.* And it has been said that although it is con- 
ceded that the courts have the power of granting a new trial in 
cases of crim. con., still it seems that the power has never been 
exercised.^ Even in cases where rules of law have been disre- 
garded, or where for any reason the verdict cannot be supported, 
the power of the court to set aside the decision of the jury will 
not be exercised without regard to the justice of the case. So, 
where a verdict was obtained for principal and interest, as to 
which latter the defendant was clearly liable, but there being 
no count adapted to it, the verdict was not strictly regular, the 
court nevertheless refused to set it aside, saying: "In motions 
for new trial, the court may fairly endeavor to do that which 
advances the justice of the cause, and by refusing this rule we 
only save the defendant from paying with the tremendous 
interest of accumulated costs, what he is in justice bound to 
pay at once." ' A case in the EngUsh Court of Exchequer 
illustrates the jury's command of the damages, where no rule 
of law is violated. The plaintiff, who claimed special damage 
from a carrier for non-delivery of goods, had sold them for as 
much as he could have obtained if there had been no delay, 
and the defendant paid into court £10, which the court con- 
sidered ample to cover the expense of a journey he had taken 
to look after the goods, and all his actual damages. The jury 
having found a verdict for £5 more than had been paid in, a 
motion was made to set it aside as perverse. (The damages 
being under £20, the motion could not, under the EngUsh prac- 
tice, be entertained on the ground that they were excessive.) 
The court, although considering the amount decreed clearly 

' Thurston v. Martin, 5 Mason, 497, ' Duberley v. Gunning, 4 T. R. 651; 

499. Smith v. Masten, 15 Wend. 270. 

• Berry v. Vreeland, 21 N. J, L, 183. ' Harrison v. Allen, 2 Bing. 4. 



2670 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES § 1325 

too large, reluctantly refused to disturb the verdict, as the 
question whether the amount paid into court was a sufficient 
compensation for the plaintiff's pecuniary loss had been prop- 
erly left to the jury, and the verdict was not contrary to any 
direction of the judge at Nisi Prius.' "I doubt much," says 
Mr. Justice Jackson, in delivering an opinion in the Court of 
the Irish Exchequer Chamber, "whether in any case sounding 
in damages, for an acknowledged breach of covenant, the judge 
ought to take it upon himself to direct a verdict for nominal 
damages." ^^ 

The same ground was taken in City of Ottawa v. Sweely,'^ 
another action for personal injuries, and the court said: "It 
must not be supposed, however, that verdicts in cases of torts 
are beyond control; but they should stand, unless they are 
grossly erroneous, or there is a palpable misconception of the 
testimony, or they are the result plainly of passion or prejudice." 
In cases where exemplary damages are allowable, verdicts are 
rarely set aside. The obvious reason for this custom is that it 
is not easy to decide that such a verdict is so large as to be 
against evidence. It is only in extraordinary cases that the 
court will act.i^ And so, in Walker v. Erie Railway," an action 
to recover damages for personal injuries, a motion to set aside a 
verdict for 120,000 was denied, Daniels, J., saying: "The rule 
so carefully maintained and guarded in actions upon contracts, 
and for tortious injuries to property, is incapable of being ap- 
plied where the injury is to the person; for those injuries are 
without precise pecuniary measure. The law has, accordingly, 

9 Adams v. Midland R. R., 31 L. J. Maher v. Central Park, N. & E. R. R. 
(N. S.) Ex. 35. See, as to the bound- R., 67 N. Y. 52. Unless the excess 
ary between the power of the covirt and arises from error in the judge's charge, 
that of the jury on this subject, Smith Mechanics' & T. Bk. v. Farmers' & M. 
V. Symonds, 1 L. T. R. (N. S.) 299, Nat. Bk., 60 N. Y. 40; Starbird v. Bar- 
where the construction of a document rows, 62 N. Y. 615. 
was left to the jury. In California, it '° Strong v. Kean, 13 Ir. L. R. 93. 
is doubtful whether the courts of first " 65 111. 434, 436. 
instance have power to interfere when " Illinois: Chicago & Alton R. R. v. 
verdicts are excessive. Payne v. Pacific Wilson, 63 111. 167; Singer Manf . Co. v. 
Mail Steamship Co., 1 Cal. 33. In Holdfodt, 86 111. 455. 
New York, the Court of Appeals can- Texas: Barnette v. Hicks, 6 Tex. 352; 
not review the question of excessive McGehee v. Shafer, 9 Tex. 20. 
damages. Metcalf v. Baker, 57 N. Y. " 63 Barb. 260, 267. 
662; Starbird v. Barrows, 62 N. Y. 615; 



§ 1325 POWER TO SET ASIDE VERDICTS 2671 

in this class of cases, cominitted the determination of the 
amount of damages to be awarded to the experience and good 
sense of jurors. And where the verdict rendered by them may 
reasonably be presumed to have resulted from an honest and 
intelligent exercise of judgment upon their part, the policy of 
the coiu-t is, and- necessarily must be, not to interfere with 
their conclusion." So where in an action against a railroad 
company by a farmer for the death of his wife, who had been 
thrown out of his market wagon and killed through collision 
with the defendant's train, although the wagon had descended 
to the point of collision down a gradual slope for more than a 
quarter of a mile, in plain view of the railroad, upon which the 
train could have been seen coming at a great distance, and the 
court considered that there was not a doubt that the evil 
happened from either the plaintiff's misfortune or fault, for 
neither of which was the company Uable; yet as the case had 
been given to the jury without any error in law, they felt 
themselves compelled to affirm a judgment on a verdict of 
$9,150 for the plaintiff." The discretion of the court may also 
be governed, to a limited extent, by previous decisions in other 
cases. ^* This practice cannot, however, be considered as strict 
matter of law. The argument has been sometimes advanced, 
that when the legislature has fixed the limit to the amount of 
damages recoverable for causing the death of a human being, 
it is improper, in actions for personal injuries, to allow a greater 
sum to the person injured than could have been obtained by 
his representative, under the statute, in case of his death.'' 
The reasoning is not viewed with favor by the courts. These 
statutes are enabling in their nature and not restrictive, and 
the intention of the legislatures was evidently to extend, not 
to lessen, the rights of recovery. Besides this, the damages in 
the statutory action go to the family of the person whose death 
the defendant has caused, as compensation for their pecuniary 
loss through his death; while, in the common-law action, it is 

'* Pennsylvania R. R. v. Goodman, " Illinois: Illinois Cent. R. R. v. 

62 Pa. 329. Welch, 52 111. 183. 

" Kentucky: Louisville & N. R. R. v. New York: Collins v. Albany & S. R. 

Fox, 11 Bush, 495. R., 12 Barb. 492; Murray v. Hudson 

New York: Travis v. Barger, 24 Barb. River R. R., 47 Barb. 196. 
614. 



2672 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1326 



the person injured who recovers for the damage done to him- 
self. The two causes of action are thus fundamentally differ- 
ent, and one cannot furnish a measure of damages for the other. 

§ 1326. What damages are excessive. 

The power of the court to set aside a verdict on account of 
excessive damages is closely connected with its right to inter- 
fere when the verdict is against evidence. The power to dis- 
turb the verdict, as being excessive, rests in the discretion of 
the court." But this discretion does not supplant that of the 
jury. The court must decide whether there is enough evidence 
to support the verdict, and if in its opinion there is sufficient, 
then the discretion of the court ceases. Up to that point, the 
discretion of the jury is unrestrained. ^^ Hence it follows that 
verdicts are often sustained, although they do not meet with 
the full approval of the court." If the amount of damages 
given by the jury is between the highest and lowest estimate 
of the witnesses, the verdict will usually be permitted to stand. ^^ 
The court will interpose its power only in extreme cases.^^ The 



" Oeorgia: Duffield v. Tobin, 20 Ga. 
428. 

New Jersey: Searles v. Elizabeth, P. 
& C. J. Ry., 70 N. J. L. 388, 57 Atl. 134. 

'« Idaho: Horn v. Boise C. C. Co., 7 
Ida. 640, 65 Pac. 145. 

New York: Pastor v. Regan, 9 Misc. 
547, 551, 30 N. Y. Supp. 657. 

" California: George v. Law, 1 Cal. 
363. 

Kentucky: Letton v. Young, 2 Mete. 
558. 

Maine: Donelly v. Booth B. & H. I. 
G. Co., 90 Me. 110, 37 Atl. 874. 

Michigan: Retan v. Lake Shore & M. 
S. Ry., 94 Mich. 146, 53 N. W. 1094. 

New York: Potter v. Thompson, 22 
Barb. 87. 

South Carolina: Entzminger v. Sea- 
board A. L. Ry., 79 S. C. 151, 60 S. E. 
441. 

England: Bennett v. Alcot, 2 T. R. 
166; Saunders v. London & N. W. Ry., 
2 L. T. R. (N. S.) 153. 

Canada: Ingraham v. Parks, 19 N. B. 
101. 



21 United States: Alaska S. S. Co. v. 
Collins, 127 Fed. 937, 62 C. C. A. 
569. 

Alaska: Linge v. Alaska Treadwell 
Co., 3 Alaska, 9. 

Colorado: Gaynor v. Clements, 16 
Colo. 209, 26 Pac. 324. 

Florida: Atlantic C. L. R. R. i^. Tur- 
ner, 59 Fla. 118, 52 So. 586. 

Illinois: Lockwood v. Onion, 56 III. 
506. 

Indiana: Sunnyside Coal & C. Co. v. 
Reitz, 14 Ind. App. 478, 39 N. E. 541, 
43 N. E. 46. 

Iowa: Helm v. Anchor F. I. Co., 132 
la. 177, 109 N. W. 605. 

Missouri: Reamer v. Morrison Exp. 
Co., 93 Mo. App. 501, 67 S. W. 718. 

North Carolina: Denby v. Hairson, 1 
Hawks, 315. 

Texas: Texas Cent. R. R. v. Fisher 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. 584. 

Canada: Prescott v. Walton, 2 Han. 
(N. B.) 230. 

^'^ Illinois: Galesburg v. Higley, 61 
lU. 287. 



§1326 



WHAT DAMAGES ARE EXCESSIVE 



2673 



verdict must be clearly excessive to be set aside, ^^ so great as 
to appear at first blush to be outrageous,^' so as to strike every- 
one with its enormity and injustice,^* so large that no twelve 
men could reasonably have given it.^^ The commonest grounds 
on which a vei*dict is set aside as excessive are that it shows 
passion, prejudice, partiality, or corruption. ^^ 



Indiana: Chenowith v. Hicks, 5 Ind. 
224. 

Kentucky: Nolan v. Standard S. M. 
Co., Ill S. W. 290, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 
740. 

New York: Wilcox v. Green, 23 Barb. 
639; Scherpf ». Szadeczky, 4 E. D. 
Smith, 110. 

A verdict will not be set aside because 
it exceeds the limit by a few dollars. 
Hueni v. Freehill, 125 111. App. 345. 

2* United States: The Commerce, 16 
Wall. 33, 21 L. ed. 465. 

Arkansas: Pleasants v. Heard, 15 
Ark. 403. 

California: Weaver v. Page, 6 Cal. 
681. 

Georgia: Coins v. Western R. R., 59 
Ga. 426. 

Illinois: Blanchard v. Morris, 15 111. 
35; Butler v. Mehrling, 15 III. 488; Chi- 
cago & N. W. Ry. V. Peacock, 48 III. 
253; Cleveland, C, C. & S. L. B,y. v. 
Fuller, 122 III. App. 36. 

Indiana: Pittsburg, C. & St. L. R. R. 
V. Hennigh, 39 Ind. 509; Cleveland, C, 
C. & S. L. Ry. V. Hadley, 170 Ind. 204, 
82 N. E. 1025, 84 N. E. 13. 

Missouri: Barth v. Merritt, 20 Mo. 
567. 

New Jersey: Allen v. Craig, 1 Green, 
294. 

South Carolina: Marshall v. Gunter, 
6 Rich. L. 419. 

Wisconsin: Murray v. Buell, 74 Wis. 
14. 

23 Indiana: Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. 
Ry. V. Sponier, 85 Ind. 165; Ohio & M. 
Ry. V. Judy, 120 Ind. 397, 22 N, E. 
252. 

Kentucky: North v. Gates, 2 Bibb, 
591. 

168 



Missouri: Fallenstein v. Bodthe, 13 
Mo. 427. 

'* United States: Wunderlich v. May- 
or of New York, 33 Fed. 854. 

New York: Coleman v. Southwick, 9 
Johns. 45, 6 Am. Dec. 253. 

« Praed v. Graham, 24 Q. B. Div. 53, 
59 L. J. Q. B. 230, 38 W. R. 103. 

^ United States: McGowan v. La 
Plata M. & S. Co., 3 McCr. 393; Brown 
V. Evans, 8 Sawy. 488. 

Arkansas: Kelly v. McDonald, 39 
Ark. 387; Sexton v. Brock, 15 Ark. 345. 

California: Stuart v. Hoffman, 68 
Cal. 381; Shaw v. Southern Pac. R. R., 
157 Cal. 240, 107 Pac. 108; Kimic v. 
San Jose-Los Gatos I. Ry., 156 Cal. 
273, 104 Pac. 312. 

Colorado: Denver & R. G. R. R. v. 
Scott, 34 Colo. 99, 81 Pac. 763. 

Connecticut: Woodruff v. Richardson, 
20 Conn. 238; Haight v. Hoyt, 50 Conn. 
583. 

Florida: McMurray v. Basnett, 18 
Fla. 609, 43 Am. Rep. 327. 

Illinois: Spencer v. McMasters, 16 
111. 405; Walker v. Martin, 52 111. 347; 
Decatur v. Fisher, 53 111. 407; Crose v. 
Rutledge, 81 111. 266; Kennies v. Vogel, 
87 111. 242; Loewenthal v. Streng, 90 
111. 74; Harper v. Black Diamond Coal 
Co., 142 111. App. 594. 

Indiana: Alexander v. Thomas, 25 
Ind. 268; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. v. 
Sponier, 85 Ind. 165; Pittsburgh, C, C. 
& S. L. Ry. V. Lightheiser, 168 Ind. 438, 
78 N. E. 1033. 

Iowa: Berry v. Central Ry., 40 la. 
564. 

Kansas: Union P. Ry. v. Hand, 7 
Kan. 380; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Weaver, 16 Kan. 456; Atchison, T. & S. 



2674 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1326 



Courts have also set aside verdicts as showing on their face 
undue sympathy," intemperance,^' malice, ^^ caprice,'" mis- 
take,'^ malevolence,'^ or evident improper motive.'' "In all 
cases where there is no rule of law regulating the assessment 
of damages, and the amount does not depend on computation, 
the judgment of the jury, and not the opinion of the court, is to 
govern, unless the damages are so excessive as to warrant the 



F. R. R. V. Moore, 31 Kan. 197, 47 
Am. Rep. 497 (statutory). 

Kentucky: North v. Gates, 2 Bibb, 
591; Holbum v. Neal, 4 Dana, 121; 
Riley v. Nugent, 1 A. K. Marsh. 431; 
Louisville & N. R. R. v. Mitchell, 87 
Ky. 327, 8 S. W. 706, 12 Am. St. Rep. 
488. 

Maine: Field v. Plaisted, 75 Me. 476. 

Massachusetts: Treanor v. Donahoe, 
9 Gush. 228. 

Minnesota: Beaulieu v. Parsons, 2 
Minn. 37; Shartle v. Minneapolis, 17 
Minn. 308; Blume v. Scheer, 83 Minn. 
409, 86 N. W. 446; Frigstad v. Great 
Northern Ry., 101 Minn. 40, 111 N. W. 
838. 

Missouri: Wells v. Sawyer, 21 Mo. 
354; Goetz v. Ambs, 27 Mo. 28; 
Graham v. Pacific R. R., 66 Mo. 536. 

Nevada: Quigley v. Gentral P. R. R., 

11 Nev. 350, 21 Am. Rep. 757; Solen v. 
Virginia & T. R. R., 13 Nev. 106 (stat- 
utory). 

New Hampshire: Hovey v. Brown, 59 
N. H. 114. 

New Jersey: Ogden v. Gibbons, 5 N. 
J. L. 518; Merritt v. Harper, 44 N. J. 
L. 73. 

New York: M'Connell v. Hampton, 

12 Johns. 236; Tinney v. New Jersey S. 
B. Co., 5 Lans. 507; Bierbauer v. New 
York C. & H. R. R. R., 15 Hun, 559; 
Oldfield V. New York & H. R. R., 3 
E. D. Smith, 103; Jennings v. Van 
Schaick, 13 Daly, 7. 

Ohio: Simpson v. Pitman, 13 Oh. 365. 

Oklahoma: Waters-Pierce Oil Go. v. 
Deselms, 18 Okla. 107, 89 Pac. 212. 

Rhode Island: Gonoannon v. Tyler, 
(R. I.), 67 Atl. 430. 



South Carolina: Davis v. Davis, 2 N. 
& McG. 81; Wolff v. Cohen, 8 Rich. L. 
144. 

Tennessee: Boyers v. Pratt, 1 Humph. 
90; Moore v. Burchfield, 1 Heisk. 203; 
Nashville & C. R. R. v. Smith, 6 
Heisk. 174; Tinkle v. Dunivant, 16 
Lea, 503; Tennessee Coal & R. R. v. 
Roddy, 85 Tenn. 400. 

Texas: Galveston v. Posnainsky, 62 
Tex. .118, 50 Am. Rep. 517; Willis i>. 
McNeill, 57 Tex. 465; Coffin v. Varila 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 956. 

Virginia: Parish v. Reigle, 11 Gratt. 
697, 62 Am. Dec. 666. 

Wisconsin: Goodno v. Oshkosh, 28 
Wis. 300. 

" Waters v. Bristol, 26 Conn. 398. 

^ New York: M'Connell v. Hampton, 
12 Johns. 236; Travis v. Barger, 2!4 
Barb. 614. 

Tennessee: Boyers v. Pratt, 1 Humph. 
90; Moore v. Burchfield, 1 Heisk. 
203. 

» Wells V. Sanger, 21 Mo. 354. 

'" Illinois: Jacksonville v, Lambert, 
62 111. 519. 

Tennessee: Tennessee Coal & R. R. v. 
Roddy, 85 Tenn. 400. 

'1 Maine: Cyr v. Dufour, 62 Me. 20. 

Minnesota: St. Paul v. Kuby, 8 
Minn. 154. 

New York: Blum v. Higgins, 3 Abb. 
Pr. 104; Feldman v. Levy, 56 Misc. 
■ 563, 106 N. Y. Supp. 1092. 

" Union P. R. R. v. Hause, 1 Wyo. 
27. 

" Minnesota: St. Martin v. Desnoyer, 
1 Minn. 156, 61 Am. Dec; 494; Chap- 
man V. Dodd, 10 Minn. 350; Shartle.v. 
Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 308. 



§ 1326 "WHAT DAMAGES ARE EXCESSIVE 2675 

belief that the jury must have been influenced by partiality or 
prejudice, or have been misled by some mistaken view of the 
merits of the case." '* In Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. 
Fox '^ counsel contended that a court cannot pronounce a ver- 
dict excessive, unless it be so great as to appear "at the first 
blush" to be outrageous. The court says: "There is a large 
number of cases in which the language quoted, or language 
similar in import, has been used by this court; but in nearly if 
not all of the cases in which such language has been used, the 
plaintiff was not only entitled to recover compensation, but 
was likewise entitled to such additional sum, by way of punish- 
ing the defendant, as the jury might deem right." In whatever 
form the rule is stated, it always involves a reasonable dis- 
cretionary power in the court to set aside a verdict when its 
amount, in view of all the circumstances, is so great as to show 
that the jury, in arriving at it, must have been influenced by 
some improper motive. 

A verdict will not be set aside as excessive merely because 
the amount "cannot be demonstrated to be mathematically 
correct" ; ^^ but on the other hand if it is clearly the result of a 
mathematical error, as by faiUng to substract an item, it will 
be corrected.^' If the amount found exceeds the estimate of 
any witness, including the plaintiff, it will be set aside as 
excessive, ^^ but if there is evidence to support it, a verdict will 
not be set aside merely because its amount exceeds the estimate 
of the plaintiff himself; ^^ and an offer by the plaintiff to remit a 
portion of the judgment does not prove it to be excessive.^" A 
judgment will not be reversed for a very snaall excess; de 
minimis non curat lex.^^ 

'* Wilde, J., in Worster v. Canal Soxdk Dakota: Bomeman v. Chicago, 

Bridge Co., 16 Pick. 547. S. P., M. & O. Ry., 19 S. D. 459, 104 

'<■ 11 Bush, 495, 614. N. W. 208. 

'8 Warder B. & G. Co. w. Cuthbert, 99 Tennessee: Illinois Cent. R. R. v. 

la. 681, 68 N. W. 917. Abernathy, 106 Tenn. 722, 64 S. W. 3. 

" Gilmore v. Taylor (Ga. App.), 59 " Taggert v. Hunter, 5 Kan. App. 7, 

S. E. 325. 47 Pac. 313. 

'8 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. v. " Illinois: Spunner v. Roney, 122 111. 

Garrison, 30 Fla. 431, 11 So. 932. App. 19 (excess of $2.81). 

3' Minnesota: Einolf v. Thomson, 95 Kentucky: Weick v. Dougherty, 90 

Minn. 230, 103 N. W. 1026, 104 N. W. S. W. 996, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 390, 3 L. R. 

647. A. (N. S.) 348. 



2676 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES §§ 1327, 1328 

§ 1327. Successive verdicts. 

The reluctance which the court feels in asserting its power 
in doubtful cases is increased, when hke results have been ob- 
tained by successive verdicts.^^ Thus, where the plaintiff had 
been struck by a locomotive engine and badly injured, and had 
obtained successive verdicts for $15,000, $18,000, and $22,250, 
the court refused to disturb the last.*' But this consideration 
is not controlling, and if the verdict is clearly excessive the 
court will exercise its power notwithstanding the number of 
previous verdicts; ** the action of the court in cutting down a 
previous verdict will not control the action of the court on the 
present verdict.*^ 

§ 1328. Cases in which the court will act. 

The court will act more readily in the matter of setting aside 
verdicts in actions of contract, where the pecuniary standard 
is usually followed.** But the cases fully confirm the right of 
the court to set aside verdicts as excessive in any kind of ac- 
tion.*^ In certain cases, such as actions for seduction *^ or 
crim. con., or for breach of promise of marriage,*' it would re- 
quire a very large verdict to authorize the court to take any ac- 
tion; but this is so because the evidence would usually support 

" Arkansas: Sexton v. Brock, 15 ^ So in actions for services rendered, 

Ark. 345. verdicts may be set aside as excessive. 

Colorado: Union D. & R. R. v. Smith, Lockwood v. Onion, 56 111. 506; Darling 

16 Colo. 361, 27 Pac. 329. v. McDonald, 77 111. 520. And this is 

Georgia: Henderson v. Fox, 83 Ga. the practice in all actions on contract. 

233. Arkansas: Wallace v. Brown, 17 Ark. 

Illmms: Chatsworth v. Rowe, 66 111. 449; Ayliff v. Hardy, 25 Ark. 49. 

App. 55; Mills f. Larrance, 120111. App. Illinois: Havana, R. & E. R. R. v. 

83. Walsh, 85 111. 58. 

Kentucky: Ross v. Ross, 5 B. Mon. 20. ■" Boyce v. California Stage Co., 25 

New York: Clark v. Fox, 10 App. Cal. 460. 

Div. 514, 41 N. Y. Supp. 1091. « Morgan v. Ross, 74 Mo. 318. Thus 

" Shaw V. Boston & W. R. R., 8 in Taylor v. Shelkett, 66 Ind. 297, 300, 

Gray, 45. the court said, "a subject for moral and 

"New Jersey: Consolidated Trac. social reasoning, not of mathematical 

Co. V. Graham, 62 N. J. L. 90, 40 Atl. demonstration, is presented." 

773. " Illinois: Richmond v. Roberts, 98 

Wisconsin: Bridge v. Oshkosh, 71 111. 472, 480; Douglas v. Gausman, 68 

Wis. 363, 37 N. W. 409. 111. 170. 

*^ Holmes v. Jones, 69 Hun, 346, 23 Louisiana: Kuck v. Johnson, 114 La. 

N. Y. Supp. 631. 781, 38 So. 559. 



§1328 



CASES IN WHICH COUET WILL ACT 



2677 



a verdict of any magnitude. The right is often exercised in 
actions of tort;^" and the court may even set aside a verdict 



60 Por injuries to land: 

Georgia: Holland v. Brooks, 40 Ga. 
94; Oakley Mills Mfg. Co. v. Neese, 54 
Ga. 459. 

Illinois: Jacksonville v. Lambert, 62 
111. 519. 

Maine: Cyr v. Dufour, 62 Me. 20. 

For damages to 'personal property: 

Louisiana: Haselmeyer v. McLellan, 
24 La. Ann. 629. 

New York: Starbird v. Barrows, 62 
N. Y. 615. 

In trover: Peterson v, Gresham, 25 
Ark. 380. 

For wrongful ejection from a house: 
Dearlove v. Herrington, 70 111. 251. 

For ejection from a car on a railway: 

Illinois: Terra Haute, Alton & St. L. 
R. R. V. Vanata, 21 111. 188, 74 Am. 
Dec. 96; Chicago City Ry. v. Henry, 62 
111. 142; 111. Cent. R. R. v. Johnson, 67 
111. 312; 111. Cent. R. R. v. Cunning- 
ham, 67 111. 316; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. 
V. Griffin, 68 111. 499. 

Ohio: Cincinnati, H. & D. R. R. v. 
Cole, 29 Oh. St. 126, 23 Am. Rep. 
729. 

Wisconsin: Bass v. Chicago & N. W. 
R. R., 39 Wis. 636. 

For personal injuries: 

Illinois: Chicago & R. I. R. R. v. Mc- 
Kean, 40 111. 218; Decatur v. Fisher, 53 
111. 407; Chicago v. Fowler, 60 111. 322; 
Chicago V. Kelly, 69 111. 475; Northern 
Line Packet Co. v. Binninger, 70 111. 
571; Chicago v. Elzeman, 71 111. 131; 
Chicago & Alton R. R. v. Murray, 71 
111. 601, 22 Am. Rep. 122; Chicago v. 
Hoy, 75 111. 530; Chicago, R. I. & P. 
R. R. V. McKittrick, 78 111. 619; Chi- 
cago V. Brophy, 79 111. 277. 

Iowa: Deppe v. Chicago, I. & P. R. 
R., 38 Iowa, 592; Belair v. Chicago & 
N. W. R. R., 43 Iowa, 662. 

Maine: Hanson v. European & N. A. 
R. R., 62 Me. 84, 16 Am. Rep. 404. 

New York: Clapp v. Hudson River 



R. R., 19 Barb. 461; McMahon v. 
Walsh, 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 36. 

For causing death: Potter v. Chicago 
& N. W. R, R., 22 Wis. 615. 

For malicious prosecution: 

California: Potter v. Scale, 5 Cal. 
410; Russell v. Dennison, 45 Cal. 337. 

Illinois: Nelson v. Danielson, 82 111. 
545. 

For false imprisonment: 

Georgia: Green v. Southern Express 
Co., 41 Ga. 515. 

Illinois: Newton v. Locklin, 77 111. 
103. 

For assault and battery: 

Illinois: Mitchell v. Robinson, 72 111. 
382; Alcorn v. Mitchell, 63 111. 553 (an 
action brought against defendant for 
spitting in plaintiff's face, in which 
$1,000 was held not excessive). 

Mississippi: Bell v. Morrison, 27 
Miss. 68. 

For slander: 

Illinms: Flagg v. Roberts, 67 111. 485; 
Miller v. Johnson, 79 111. 58. 

Missouri: Woodson v. Scott, 20 Mo. 
272. 

New York: Potter v. Thompson, 22 
Barb. 87. 

For libd: 

California: McDaniel v. Baca, 2 Cal. 
326. 

Illinois: Storey v. Wallace, 60 III. 
51. 

New York: Daly v. Byrne, 43 N. Y. 
Super. Ct. 261. 

For enticing plaintiff's wife away: 
Scherpf i/. Szadeczky, 1 Abb. Pr. 
(N. Y.) 366. 

For seduction: 

Arkansas: Patterson v. Thompson, 
24 Ark. 55. 

New York: Sargent v. , 5 

Cow. 106; Travis v. Barger, 24 Barb. 
614, and cases there cited. 

For crim. con.: Crose v. Rutledge, 81 
111. 266. (Thou'gh in such an action a 



2678 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES §§ 1329, 1330 

for exemplary damages on the ground that it is excessive. ^^ 
Where, however, a statute makes the jury the sole judges of the 
amount of damages, the court cannot disturb their finding." 
The court can set aside a referee's report on account of excessive 
damages, as well as a verdict.^' And it seems that, in a proper 
case, the assessment of a judge may be reversed for the same 
reason. ^^ 

§ 1329. Practice. 

The objection to a verdict that it is excessive must be made 
by a motion to set it aside on that ground.*^ It cannot be con- 
sidered on a simple appeal from a judgment.** The point must 
be made at the trial, for otherwise the verdict will not be dis- 
turbed, even if it is probably incorrect." The usual practice 
upon setting a verdict aside because it is excessive is to order a 
new trial; which may be upon the quantum of damages alone.** 

§ 1330. Remission of the excess. 

In some cases where the jury have given such excessive 
damages that the court feel bound to set aside the verdict, 
they will, instead of simply ordering a new trial, give the plain- 
tiff the option of reducing the verdict to the sum which the 
court considers reasonable, and on his remitting the excess will 
deny the motion for a new trial, and this is actions of tort as 
well as on contracts.*' 

verdict is seldom disturbed. Harris v. " Colorado: J. W. Hugus & Co. v. 

Rupel, 14 Ind. 209.) Hardenburg, 19 Colo. App. 464, 76 

" Kentucky: Louisville & N. R. R. v. Pac. 543. 

Brown, 127 Ky. 732, 106 S. W. 795, 13 Pennsylvania: Patton v. Philadelphia, 

L. R. A. (N. S.) 1134. 189 Pa. 602, 42 Atl. 296. 

Alabama & V. Ry. v. England: Fletcher v. Tayleur, 17 



Gibbs (Miss.), 12 So. 545. C. B. 21. 

'2 Lewis V. Black, 27 Miss. 425. '» Boyd v. Brown, 17 Pick. 453. 

'' Eastman v. Mayor of New York, In New York the Appellate Division 

5 Robt. 389. of the Supreme Court may further re- 

'* Miles V. Barrows, 122 Mass. 579. . duce a verdict already reduced by the 

'' Maine: Moody v. Camden, 61 Me. trial judge. Stemmerman v. Nassau El. 

264. R. R., 36 App. Div. 218, 56 N. Y. 

Michigan: Casoarella v. National Supp. 730. 

Grocer Co., 151 Mich. 15, 114 N. W. ^^ United States: Blunt v. Little, 3 

857. Mas. 102; The Grecian Monarch, 32 

^ Alfaro V. Davidson, 40 N. Y. Super. Fed. 635; Fotheringham v. Adams Ex. 

Ct. 87. Co., 36 Fed. 252. 



§1330 



REMISSION OF THE EXCESS 



2679 



In New York the Court of Appeals may grant the privilege 
of reducing the verdict when the excess is due to the mistake 
of the court.*" As to whether an intermediate court can give 
the plaintiff the option of reducing the verdict, or of trying the 
case again, when the jury has erred in giving excessive dam- 
ages, the decisions in that State have not been uniform. It 
was once held that the court in banc has no such power.*^ But 
the law is now settled otherwise, and in favor of this power.®^ 
Under the Louisiana Code the damages may be reduced by the 
court absolutely, without any choice on the part of the plain- 
tiff.^' In Georgia it is held that counsel may voluntarily remit 
part of a verdict, pending motion for a new trial, and if the 
balance is not excessive the verdict will not be set aside." 



Arizona: Southern Pac. Co. v. Tom- 
linson, 4 Ariz. 126, 33 Pac. 710. 

California: Kinsey v. Wallace, 36 
Cal. 462, 95 Am. Dec. 199. 

Illinois: Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Ebert, 
74 111. 399. 

Iowa: Collins v. Council Bluffs, 35 la. 
432; Lombard v. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
R. R., 47 la. 494. 

Kansas: Missouri P. Ry. ». Dwyer, 
36 Kan. 68; Francis v. Brock, 80 Kan. 
100, 102 Pac. 472. 

Massachusetts: Doyle v. Dixon, 97 
Mass. 208, 93 Am. Dec. 80. 

Minnesota: Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 
232. 

Mississippi: Young v. Englehard, 1 
How. 19. 

Montana: Kennon v. Gilmer, 5 
Mont. 257, 51 Am. Rep. 45. 

New Hampshire: Belknap v. Boston 
& M. R. R., 49 N. H. 358. 

New Jersey: Union v. Durkes, 38 
N. J. L. 21. 

New York: Bishop v. Autographic R. 
R., 19 App. Div. 268, 46 N. Y. Supp. 
97; Diblin v. Murphy, 3 Sandf. 19. 

Ohio: Pendleton St. R. R. v. Rah- 
mann, 22 Oh. St. 446; Iron R. R. v. 
Mowery, 36 Oh. St. 418, 38 Am. Rep. 
697. • 

Pennsylvania: Yeager v. Weaver, 64 
Pa. 425, 3 Am. Rep. 601. 



Rhode Island: Burdick v. Weeden, 9 
R. I. 139. 

South Carolina: Guerry v. Kerton, 2 
Rich. L. 507. 

Wisconsin: Murray v. Buell, 74 Wis. 
14, 41 N. W. 1010. 

England: Belt v. Lawes, 12 Q. B. D. 
356; Davidson v. Molyneux, 17 L. T. R. 
(N. S.) 289. But the practice has been 
repudiated by the House of Lords: 
Watt V. Watt, [1905] A. C. 115. 

Canada: Steadman v. Venning, 22 
N. B. 639. 

™ Mechanics' & T. Bank v. Farmers' 
& M. Nat. Bank, 60 N. Y. 40. 

" Moffet tf. Sackett, 18 N. Y. 522; 
Cassin v. Delany, 38 N. Y. 178. 

»2 Collins V. Albany & S. R. R., 12 
Barb. 492; Clapp v. Hudson River R. 
R,, 19 Barb. 461; Potter v. Thompson, 
22 Barb. 87; Murray v. Hudson River 
R. R., 47 Barb. 196; Sears v. Conover, 3 
Keyes, 113; Hayden v. Florence Sewing 
Machine Co., .54 N. Y. 221. 

«3 Black V. CarroUton R. R., 10 La. 
Ann. 33, 63 Am. Dec. 586; Mortimer v. 
Thomas, 23 La. Ann. 165; Haselmeyer 
V. McLellan, 24 La. Ann. 629; Cointe- 
ment v. Cropper, 41 La. Ann. 303. 

6* Central R. R. v. Crosby, 74 Ga. 
737, 58 Am. Rep. 463. 



2680 EXCESSIVE OE INADEQUATE DAMAGES § 1331 

But in Texas this power of reducing the verdict by the action 
of the court has been hmited to those cases where the measure 
of damages is matter of law, upon the ground *^ that in other 
cases the court has no right to substitute its opinion for that of 
the jury. 

In Tennessee, in the case of Vaulx v. Herman,®' the trial 
court was dissatisfied with the verdict; but upon the plaintiff 
remitting part of it, refused to set the verdict aside. This was 
held upon appeal to have been error; for the trial court, if dis- 
satisfied with the verdict, should set it aside. This would seem 
to deny the right of the court in that State to give the plaintiff 
an option between a remittitur and a new trial. In Wisconsin 
the Supreme Court, in case of an excessive verdict, grants a 
new trial, no right of remittitur being recognized in that court; 
but the court indicates what amount of damages would not be 
thought excessive.'^ 

The form of the remittitur is, that the verdict will be set aside 
and a new trial granted unless within a time limited the plain- 
tiff' fiieS' in' court his remission of all the verdict except the 
amount riamed. If the plaintiff fails to file his remission within 
the time named, the verdict is set aside; ^ while if the plaintiff 
does file his remission it is a voluntary act, and he cannot 
thereafter ask for judgment on the original verdict.®* 

§ 1331. When a remittitur will be entered. 

While the granting of a remittitur lies entirely within the dis- 
cretion of the com-t, this discretion will usually be exercised in 
accordance with reason and precedent; and an examination of 
the cases in which it has been and had not been ordered is 
profitable. On principle the court should in no case grant the 
remittitur as of course; for the prejudice and passion of the jury 
may well have entered into the finding upon other issues be- 
sides the amount of damages.™ The court should be well satis- 

«5 Thomas v. Womack, 13 Tex. 580. 38, 10.5 Pac. 144 (no further time can 

«^ 8 Lea, 687. be given by the Supreme Court). 

«' Goodno V. Oshkosh, 28 Wis. 300; «' Colorado: Colorado City v. Liafe, 

Patten v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 32 28 Colo. 468, 65 Pac. 630. 

Wis. 524. Florida: Pensacola Gas Co. v. Pebley, 

«8 Winningham v. Philbrick, 56 Wash. 25 Fla. 381, 5 So. 593. 

™ Loewenthal v. Streng, 90 111. 74. 



§ 1331 WHEN A REMITTITUR WILL BE ENTERED 2681 

fied with the finding of the jury upon other issues, before the 
verdict is allowed to stand upon a remittitur being entered. 
And in Arkansas it was held that where exemplary damages 
are wrongly included, the court is incompetent to order a 
remittitur. ''^ In West Virginia it is said that a remittitur will 
not be ordered where the court has no bases for estimating the 
exact amount of the damages.''^ 

Where the damages are excessive, but the excessive portion 
of the verdict may easily be separated, the court wiU order the 
remission of this portion, and, upon that being done, will up- 
hold the verdict; " as where the verdict is so much for com- 
pensatory and so much for exemplary damages, and exemplary 
damages are not permissible,'* or the verdict is excessive only 
because it exceeds the amount claimed.'^ And where the excess 
is due to an error in calculation which is discoverable by the 
court, the error may be corrected by a remittitur.''^ 

On the other hand, if the verdict is excessive because of bias, 
passion, or prejudice, the error taints the whole verdict, and a 
new trial should be granted without remittitur; " or if there is no 
way of estimating the excess, as where exemplary damages 
were wrongly included with compensatory,'* or an erroneous 
conception of the law acted upon by the jury.'' But where 

" St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Hall, 53 Texas: Lewter v. Lindley (Tex. Civ. 

Ark. 7, 13 S. W. 138. App.), 121 S. W. 178. 

" Unfried v. Baltimore & O. R. R., 34 " Colorado: F. M. Davis I. W. Co. v. 

W. Va. 260, 12 S. E. 512. White, 31 Colo. 82, 71 Pac. 384. 

" Georgia: City & S. Ry. v. Brauss, 70 Georgia: Savannah, F. & W. Ry. v. 

Ga. 368. Harper, 70 Ga. 119. 

Iowa: Callanan v. Shaw, 24 la. 441. Iowa: Welsh v. Tri-City Ry., 148 la. 

Nebraska: Brown v. Drake, 28 Neb. 200, 126 N. W. 1118. 

695, 45 N. W. 47. Kansas: Steinbuchel v. Wright, 43 

" Utah: Rugg v. Tolman, 117 Pac. Kan. 307, 23 Pao. 560; Drumm v. Cess- 

54. nun, 68 Kan. 331, 49 Pac. 78. 

Wisconsin: Stone v. Chicago, S. P. M. Minnesota: Mastellar v. Great North- 

& O. Ry., 88 Wis. 98, 59 N. W. 457. ern Ry., 100 Mmn. 236, 110 N. W. 

" Geisberg v. Mutual B. & L. Assoc. 869. 

(Tex. Civ. App.), 60 S. W. 478. ™ Illincds: Chicago U. T. Co. v. 

'8 Montana: Lewis i;. Northern Pac. Lauth, 216 111. 176, 74 N. E. 738. 

Ry., 36 Mont. 207, 92 Pac. 469. Mississippi: Chicago, St. L. & N. O. 

New York: MuUer v. Barker (Misc.), R. R. v. Jarrett, 59 Miss. 470. 

90 N. Y. Supp. 388. " United States: Jayne v. Loder, 149 

Oklahoma: Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. Fed. 21, 78 C. C. A. 653, 7 L. R. A. 

Wehrman, 25 Okla. 147, 105 Pac. 328. (N. S.) 984. 



2682 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES § 1332 

the error is the simple one of grossly overestimating, in the 
opinion of the court, the proper compensation for a loss which 
the jury is properly directed to estimate, it is usually held 
proper for the court to permit a remittitur, even if the injury 
is a non-pecuniary one.^" In a few such cases, however, the 
court has declined to order a remittitur, but has set the verdict 
aside and ordered a new trial.*^ 

§ 1332. Action of appellate courts on excessive damages. 

It is not every court which will interfere in a case of ex- 
cessive damages. In some com-ts which sit exclusively to de- 
cide points of law, the question of excessive damages is not 
considered, being left entirely to the trial court. It has been 
so determined in the New York Court of Appeals,*^ and in the 
Supreme Courts of Illinois,*' New Hampshire,** Oregon,*^ 
South Carolina,** and in the Federal appellate courts.*'' In 
Connecticut it was said that the Supreme Court would not 
review a verdict unless all the evidence were before them.** 

On the other hand, it sometimes happens that the trial court 
sets aside or cuts down the verdict of a jury, and the plaintiff 
thereupon takes the question to an appellate court; and that 

Illinois: Jones & Adams Co. v. Missouri: Thero v. Missouri Pac. 

George, 227 III. 64, 81 N. E. 4. Ry., 144 Mo. App. 161, 129 S. W. 

*" California: Davis v. Southern Pac. 266. 

Co., 98 Cal. 13, 32 Pac. 646. '^ Gale v. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 

Florida: Pensacola Gas Co. v. Peb- 76 N. Y. 594. 

ley, 25 Fla. 381, 5 So. 593. «' McCulIoch v. niinois Steel Co., 243 

Kansas: Union Pac. Ry. v. Mitchell, 111. 464, 90 N. E. 664. 

56 Kan. 324, 43 Pac. 244; Davis v. '* Merrill v. Perkins, 61 N. H. 262. 

Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 81 Kan. 505, '= Nelson v. Oregon Ry. & N. Co., 13 

106 Pac. 288; Rea-Patterson Mill Co. v. Ore. 141, 9 Pac. 321, 57 Am. Rep. 6; 

Myrick, 10 Kan. App. 581, 63 Pac. 462 Lindsay v. Grande R. L. Co., 48 Ore. 

(pecuniary damage). 430, 87 Pac. 145. 

Missouri: Osbom v. Quincy, O. & K. ™ Petrie v. Columbia & G. R. R., 29 

C. Ry. (Mo. App.), 129 S. W. 226. S. C. 303. 

Texas: Producers' Oil Co. v. Barnes " Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Davies, 146 

(Tex. Civ. App.), 120 S. W. 1023. Fed. 247, 76 C. C. A. 613; Mason C. & 

»' Arizona: Southern Pac. Co. v. F. D. R. R. v. Boynton, 158 Fed. 599, 

Fitchett, 9 Ariz. 128, 80 Pac. 359. 85 C. C. A. 421; Toledo, S. L. & W. R. 

Indiana: Nickey v. Zonker, 22 Ind. R. v. Kountz, 168 Fed. 832, 94 C. C. A. 

App. 211, 53 N. E. 478. 244. 

Kansas: Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. v. ^ Page v. Merwin, 54 Conn. 426. 
Richards, 58 Kan. 344, 49 Pac. 436. 



§ 1333 WHAT AMOUNT IS EXCESSIVE 2683 

court may then reverse the action of the trial court and restore 
the verdict of the jury on the ground that it was not excessive.*^ 

§ 1333. What amount is excessive. 

In determining what amount is excessive the court is not 
only exercising its discretion, but also passing on a question of 
fact, raised in a particular case which cannot be hke any other 
case subsequently presented. No decision upon what amount 
of damages is excessive can therefore be an authority in any 
other case. Yet it is sometimes most helpful to a court, in 
deciding the question of excessiveness, to know what has been 
the action of other courts in similar cases; not as establishing 
a controlling rule of law, but as evidence of the common judg- 
ment or opinion of courts on the subject.* A verdict largely 
exceeding the average amount awarded for injuries of a like 
nature and extent has been said to be excessiver'^ And in an 
action in Louisiana, for the death of two children, where the 
court was to estimate the proper compensation, finding that it 
had previously allowed $6,000 for the death of one child of 
about the same age, it allowed $12,000 for the death of the two 
children.^2 

For these reasons it has seemed wise to collect here a large 
number of cases where the courts have passed upon the ex- 
cessiveness or inadequacy of verdicts. But considering that 
"the purchasing power of mon^y is less than it has been in the 
past," ^^ and that any but recent cases might for that reason 
and other similar reasons be misleading rather than helpful, 
we have generally confined our citation of authorities to cases 
recently decided. 

83 Minnesota: Blume v. Scheer, 83 72 App. Div. 578, 76 N. Y. Supp. 528. 

Minn. 409, 86 N. W. 446; Halness v. See McMahon v. New Orleans R. & L. 

Anderson, 110 Minn. 204, 124 N. W. Co., 127 La. 544, 53 So. 857, 32 L. R. A. 

830. (N. S.) 346. 

New York: Scott v. Sun P. & P. " Lockwood w. Twenty-third St. Ry., 

Assoc, 74 Hun, 284, 26 N. Y. Supp. 15 Daly, 374, 7 N. Y. Supp. 663. 

690. ^' Cherry v. Louisiana & A. Ry., 121 

Rhode Island: Smith v. Macomber, La. 471, 46 So. 596, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 

28 R. I. 248, 66 Atl. 570. 505. 

«» Johnson v. Long Island R. R., 144 '' Monroe, J., in Dole v. New Orleans 

N. Y. 719, 39 N. E. 857, 80 Hun, 306, Ry. & L. Co,, 121 La. 945, 46 So. 929, 

30 N. Y. Supp. 318; Swanton v. King, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 623. 



2684 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1334 



§ 1334. Pecuniary loss. 

Where the loss is pecuniary, or to property, the verdict will 
not in general be regarded as excessive where the amount of it 
is no greater than is justified by some evidence in the case,*^ or 
is greater only by the amount of allowable interest.^^ On the 
other hand, if the verdict much exceeds the highest estimate 
of value by the witnesses, it will be set aside as excessive.'' 

The court has passed upon verdicts claimed to be ex- 
cessive in many cases of ordinary trespass,^' aggravated tres- 



»« Iowa: Ball v. Keokuk & N. W. Ry., 
74 la. 132, 37 N. W. 110. 

Kansas: Pate v. Fitzhugh, 46 Kan. 
129, 26 Pao. 452. 

Minnesota: Hinton v. Eastern Ry., 
72 Minn. 339, 76 N. W. 373. 

Nebraska: Buel v. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
Ry., 81 Neb. 430, 116 N. W. 299. 

Nevada: Paul v. Cragnaz, 25 Nev. 
293, 59 Pac. 857, 60 Pao. 983. 

New York: McCarten v. Flagler, 69 
Hun, 134, 23 N. Y. Supp. 263; Meisch 
V. Rochester El. Ry., 72 Hun, 604, 25 
N. Y. Supp. 244; Hentz v. Mt. Vernon, 
78 App. Div. 515, 79 N. Y. Supp. 774; 
-Reisenberg v. New York City Ry. 
(Misc.), 91 N. Y. Supp. 4. 

North Dakota: McDonnell v. Min- 
neapolis, S. P. & S. S. M. Ry., 17 N. D. 
606, 118 N. W. 819. 

Texas: Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Peay 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 768; Foley v. 
Houston, B. & T. Ry. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
110 S. W. 96. 

Wisconsin: Dwight Bros. Paper Co. 
V. Western Paper Co., 114 Wis. 414, 90 
N. W. 444. 

Wyoming: Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. 
Morris, 16 Wyo. 308, 93 Pac. 664. 

Where the verdict was greatly in ex- 
cess of the evidence of all unprejudiced 
witnesses, though no greater than the 
plaintiff's estimate, the court in one 
case set the verdict aside as not sup- 
ported by the evidence. Turner v. 
Hardin, 80 la. 691, 45 N. W. 758. 

»5 Chicago, S. L. & P. R. R. v. Barnes, 
2 Ind. App. 213, 28 N. E. 328. 



" Georgia: Postal T. C. Co. v. Peyton, 
124 Ga. 746, 52 S. E. 803, 3 L. R. A. 
(N. S.) 333. 

Kansas: Wichita & C. Ry. v. Gibbs, 
,47 Kan. 274, 27 Pac. 991; Upcher v. 
Oberlender, 50 Kan. 315, 31 Pac. 
1080. 

New Jersey: Thompson v. Morris C. 
& B. Co., 17 N. J. L. 480. 

Wisconsin: Murray v. Buell, 74 Wis. 
14, 41 N. W. 1010; McNamara v. Mc- 
Namara, 108 Wis. 613, 84 N. W. 
901. 

But see Rhode Island: Shibley v. 
Gendron, 25 R. I. 519, 57 Atl. 304. 

" The following verdicts have been 
held not too great: 

$40 for cutting a fish-net by one who 
claimed exclusive right to fish; actual 
damage 82. Rose v. Belyea, 1 Han. 
(N. B.) 109. 

$50 for occupying one-twelfth of an 
acre of land for four years and a half, 
the land being worth $50 per acre, 
where there were no special damages. 
Henderson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 
83 la. 221, 48 N. W. 1029. 

$150 for breaking open cellar door to 
remove gas meter; no actual damage 
and no aggravation. Reed v. New York 
& R. Gas Co., 93 App. Div. 453, 87 
N. Y. Supp. 810. 

$600 for entering house, expelling 
wife, removing furniture, pulling down 
side of house, and opening cow pen. 
Cook V. Garza, 9 Tex. 358. 

The following have been held exces- 
sive: 



§1334 



PECUNIARY LOSS 



2685 



pass,^* illegal seizure of property on legal process,^'' wrongful 
attachment of wires,"" and other acts of trespass on, or in- 
jury to, real estate;^" and the same general considera- 



$300 for entering house and removing 
goods worth less than $50. Donhard v. 
Shirley, 56 S. W. 17, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 
1653. 

$300 for entering land while hunt- 
ing and resisting ejection. Broughton 
V. Singleton, 2 N. & McC. (S. C.) 
338. 

'* The following verdicts for malicious 
trespass have been upheld: 

$250 for digging up land on Sunday 
in oppressive manner. Koenigs v. 
Jung, 73 Wis. 178, 40 N. W. 801. 

$325 for entering land and tearing 
down wall. Zimmerman v. Bonzar 
(Pa.), 16 Atl. 71. 

$500 for violent and high-handed 
crossing of land. Gelding v. Williams, 
Dud. (S. C.) 92. 

$500 for maliciously pulling down 
house. Chapman v. Kincaid, 8 Humph. 
(Tenn.) 160. 

£500 for boisterously sporting on 
land. Merest v. Harvey, 5 Taunt. 442, 
1 Marsh. 139. 

$3,000 for violent trespass, actual 
damage $20. Johnson v. Hannahan, 3 
Strob. (S. C.) 425. 

$5,000 for entering and putting up 
insulting handbill. Ogden v. Gibbons, 
5 N. J. L. 518. 

" The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$21.60 actual and $50 exemplary for 
taking exempt property on execution. 
Stonestreet v. Crandell, 10 Kan. App. 
675, 62 Pac. 249. 

$400 besides value of property for 
taking exempt property. Caldwell v. 
Porcher (Tex.), 17 S. W. 87. 

$500 for illegal distraint for rent on 
Sunday. Mayfield v. White, 1 Browne 
(Pa.), 241. 

$500 for breaking into house while 
owner was ill to serve summona in civil 



action. Foley v. Martin (Cal.), 71 Pac. 
165. 

$1,350 including exemplary damages 
for kilUng cattle as diseased. Pearson 
V. Zehr, 138 111. 48, 29 N. E. 854. 

The following has been set aside: 

$500 for unlawful seizure of property 
worth $76. Texas Installment Co. v. 
Lewis (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 
486. 

™ The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$50 for attaching wires to chimney. 
Bunke v. New York Tel" Co., 188 N. Y. 
600, 81 N. E. 1161, affirming 110 App. 
Div. 24, 97 N. Y. Supp. 66. 

$280 for loss of time worth on the 
evidence $240. Friedman v. Brooklyn 
Heights R. R., 62 Misc. 477, 102 N. Y. 
Supp. 625. 

$333 for erecting poles on land and 
stringing wires. Dobson v. Postal T. 
C. Co., 79 S. C. 429, 60 S. E. 948. 

The following was set aside: 

$600 actual and exemplary for cut- 
ting eight feet from top of ornamental 
shade trees. Cumberland T. & T. 
Co. V. Cassedy, 78 Miss. 666, 29 So. 
762. 

'" The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$10 for collecting surface water in 
front of plaintiff's premises. Howard 
V. Lamoni, 124 la. 348, 100 N. W. 62. 

$250 for injury lessening yearly rent- 
al $100. Smith V. Felt, 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 
612. 

$250 for obstructing highway for 
two hours. Tutwiler C. C. & I. Co. v. 
Nail, 141 Ala. 374, 37 So. 634. 

$300 for destroying roof, well and 
cistern and breaking fences, sidewalk, 
window glass and porches. Sanitary 
Dist. of Chicago v. Kompare, 135 111. 
App. 312. 



2686 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1335 



tions apply to actions brought for other miscellaneous pecuniary 
injuries.^"^ 

§ 1335. Defamation. 

The jury is always allowed a wide range in finding damages 
for defamation. Actual malice, long-continued defamation, 
and other circumstances justifying exemplary damages will 
support a large verdict; '"' and for imputations against a 
woman's chastity liberal verdicts have been allowed to stand. ^"^ 

'"' The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$40,000 actual and $10,000 exem- 
plary damages for malicious state- 
ments to customers, injuring business. 
American F. L. M. Co. v. Brown, 54 
Tex. Civ. App. 448, 118 S. W. 
1106. 

$45,000, where there had been long- 
continued persecution. Smith v. Times 
Co., 4 Pa. Dist. Ct. 399. 

$25,000, where there was gross ag- 
gravation. Young V. Fox, 49 N. Y. 
Supp. 634. 

$5,000 for wanton publication im- 
puting swindle in newspaper of large 
circulation. Hartman v. Morning Jour- 
nal Assoc, 19 N. Y. Supp. 398. 

$3,000 for malicious publication im- 
puting adultery. Grace v. McArthur, 
76 Wis. 641, 45 N. W. 518. 

$2,000 for malicious blacklisting. 
Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Behee, 2 Tex. Civ. 
App. 107, 21 S. W. 384. 

The following verdicts have been re- 
duced or set aside: 

$2,000 for wanton transmission of 
libellous and insulting message reduced 
to $1,000. Peterson v. Western U. T. 
Co., 75 Minn. 368, 77 N. W. 985. 

$5,200 for same libel set aside. 
Peterson v. Western U. T. Co., 65 
Minn. 18, 67 N. W. 646. 

$40,000 for malicious charges against 
magistrate reduced to $25,000. Crane 
V. Bennett, 77 App. Div. 102, 79 N. Y. 
Supp. 66. 

'»■■ The following verdicts have been 
upheld : 



$675 for nuisance by flooding with 
sewage, causing illness. Houston v. 
Bryan, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 553, 22 S. W. 
231. 

The following has been set aside: 

$400 for obstructing right of way 
causing slight damage. Schaaf v. Penn- 
sylvania R. R., 77 N. J. L. 115, 71 Atl. 
114. 

M2 The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$200 for failure to construct farm 
crossings, causing inconvenience. Van 
Jellico Min. Co. v. Rollins, 108 S. W. 
235, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 1190. 

$2,500 for failure to restore a high- 
way, necessitating use of a road 1}4 
miles longer. Post v. West Shore Ry., 
123 N. Y. 580, 26 N. E. 7. 

$5,000 for slander of title, causing 
business to fall off and loss of sale of 
lease and goodwill for $3,700. Hop- 
kins V. Downe, 21 R. I. 20, 41 Atl. 
567. 

The following have been set aside: 

$127.50 for breach of contract to 
operate sight-seeing cars, being maxi- 
mum loss if car was full each trip. 
Zabinsko v. Bedford Garage, 134 
App. Div. 318, 118 N. Y. Supp. 
959. 

$483.50 for keeping out of possession 
of household goods for a short time. 
Margolith v. McDonald, 62 S. W. 1026, 
23 Ky. L. Rep. 248. 

$1,560, damage to land not taken by 
railway, no special damage shown. St. 
Louis & I. B. Ry. v. Barnsback, 234 
111. 344, 84 N. E. 931. 



§1335 



DEFAMATION 



2687 



A charge of crime, especially if followed by actual prosecution 
as a consequence, will support a finding of heavy damages. ^"^ 
And defamation affecting business or otherwise injuring the 
plaintiff is liberally compensated.^"^ 



$500 for imputing unchastity. Flan- 
nigan v. Stauss, 131 Wis. 94, 111 N. W. 
216. 

$800 for slander by wealthy man. 
Fuller V. Fenner, 16 Barb. 333. 

$800 for slander against married 
woman. Emerson v. Miller, 115 la. 
315, 88 N. W. 803. 

$887.66 for malicious slander against 
recently married woman of 16. Ray- 
nolds V. Vinier, 125 App. Div. 18, 109 
N. Y. Supp. 293. 

$1,000 for imputing criminal inter- 
course with negro. . Smittey v. Pinch, 
148 Mich. 670, 112 N. W. 868. 

$2,485.50 for charging plaintiff with 
keeping company with negro. Luft v. 
Lingane, 17 R. I. 420, 22 Atl. 942. 

$2,500 for charge of keeping dis- 
orderly house. Wendt v. Craig, 17 
N. Y. Supp. 748. 

$3,500 for malicious charge of long- 
continued unchastity with defendant. 
Bloomfield v. Piim, 84 Neb. 472, 121 
N. W. 716. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$3,000, mitigating facts, reduced to 
$2,000. Brooks v. Dutcher, 22 Neb. 
644, 36 N. W. 128; Bailey v. Kling 
(Neb.), 130 N. W. 439. 

$7,000 reduced to $1,700. Riker v. 
Clopton, 83 App. Div. 310, 82 N. Y. 
Supp. 65. 

116 The following verdicts have been 
^upheld: 

$200 for charge of theft. DaUin v. 
Mayer, 122 App. Div. 676, 107 N. Y. 
Supp. 316. 

$437.50 for charge of theft. San- 
born V. Fickett, 91 Me. 364, 40 Atl. 66. 

$450 for charge of counterfeiting. 
Pellardis v. Journal Printing Co., 99 
Wis. 156, 74 N. W. 99. 



$500 for charge of rape. Oilman v, 
McClatchy, 111 Cal. 606, 44 Pac. 241. 

$500 for charge of theft. Fatjo v. 
Seidel, 109 La. 699, 33 So. 737. 

$500 for charge of burglary followed 
by prosecution and arrest. Plummer v. 
Johnson, 70 Wis. 131, 35 N. W. 334. 

$1,458, where prosecution followed 
and cost $700. Provident S. L. A. Soc. 
V. Johnson, 99 S. W. 1159, 30 Ky. L. 
Rep. 1031. 

$1,500 for charge of theft. S. M. 
Burgess & Co. v. Patterson, 106 S. W. 
837, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 624. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$1,000 for charge of theft withdrawn 
in few minutes; reduced to $500. 
Townsley v. Yeutsch (Ark.), 135 S. W. 
882. 

$5,000, charge of embezzlement, no 
circumstances of aggravation. Turton 
V. New York Recorder Co., 22 N. Y. 
Supp. 766. 

'™ The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$50 for calling a "cultured" gentle- 
man a "colored" gentlemen. Upton v. 
Times-Democrat Pub. Co., 104 La. 
141, 28 So. 970. 

$300 for charging butcher with selling 
diseased pork. Mowry v. Raabe, 89 
Cal. 606, 27 Pac. 157. 

$750 foT slander in presence of nu- 
merous people. Childs ». Childs, 49 
Wash. 27, 94 Pac. 660. 

$1,500 for distributing circulars call- 
ing plaintiff a liar. Turner v. Stevens, 
8 Utah, 75, 30 Pac. 24. 

$3,000 (reduced from verdict of 
$7,500) for libel against business char- 
acter. Hines v. Shumaker, 95 Miss. 
477, 52 So. 705. 

$3,500 for charging undertaker with 



2688 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1336 



§ 1336. False imprisonment. 

Damages for false imprisonment have not taken a very wide 
range, except in a few unusual cases. The largest damages 
allowed to stand on a first trial have been for an imprisonment 
which involved peculiar defamation, as in an insane asylum 
or a reformatory for women. '^"^ In a Kentucky case, Schneider 



intoxicatioii at funeral of General 
Grant. Holmes ti. Jones, 69 Hun, 346, 
23 N. Y. Supp. 631. 

$5,000 for charging political corrup- 
tion. Meriwether v. Publishers : George 
Knapp & Co., 120 Mo. App. 354, 97 
S. W. 257. 

15,000 for serious charge of fraud. 
Jacquelin v. Morning Journal Assoc, 
57 N. Y. Supp. 299. 

$7,000 for charge of poUtical corrup- 
tion against judge. Lauder v. Jones, 13 
N. D. 525, 101 N. W. 907. 

The following have been set aside: 

$8,000 for charge of selling impure 
lead. Butterworth v. Todd, 76 N. J. L. 
317, 70 Atl. 139. 

$5,000 for charge of dishonesty in 
profession. Dennis v. Johnson, 42 
Minn. 301, 44 N. W. 68. 

$4,600 for political corruption. 
Evening Post Co. v. Rhea, 81 S. W. 
273, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 375. 

$1,000 for charging school teacher 
with incompetence, reduced to $300. 
Sherwood v. Kyle, 125 Gal. 652, 58 Pac. 
270. 

"' The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$100, imprisonment 13 days, cost of 
discharge $23. Jacques d. Parks, 96 
Me. 268, 52 Atl. 763. 

$250, arrest for illegal voting. 
Thomas v. Henderson, 125 La. 292, 51 
So. 202. 

$250, detained in office 45 minutes, 
became sick from shock and disgrace. 
Kroeger v. Passmore, 36 Mont. 504, 93 
Pac. 805, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 988. 

$250, jail for two days, expenses $40. 
Brosde v. Sanderson, 86 Wis. 368, 57 
N. W. 49. 



$350 and $450, jail for 2}^ hours. 
Bauman ». Lamont, 82 Minn. 477, 85 
N. W. 236. 

$500 (reduced from $876), short de- 
tention caused by honest mistake. 
Dunlevy v. Wolferman, 106 Mo. App. 
46, 79 S. W. 1165. 

$500, arrest for evading fare, son ar- 
rested at same time had recovered six 
cents. Toomey v. Delaware, L. & W. 
R. R., 4 Misc. 392, 24 N. Y. Supp. 108. 

$600 for imprisonment in ball park 
one hour, no special damage. Tolcott 
V. National Exhibition Co., 144 App. 
Div. 337, 128 N. Y. Supp. 1059. 

$800, public arrest. Scott v. Com., 
93 S. W. 668, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 671. 

$800, jail 2 J^ hours. Judson «. Rear- 
don, 16 Mmn. 387. 

$1,000, jaU for some time, illness re- 
sulted, exemplary damages. Wheeler 
& W. M. Co. V. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350, 13 
Pac. 609, 59 Am. Rep. 571. 

$1,000, pubUcly searched, health im- 
paired. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Wilson, 
103 S. W. 364, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 789. 

$1,000, imprisonment 1}^ hours. 
Thorp V. Carvalho, 36 N. Y. Supp. 1. 

$1,000, public arrest, imprisonment 
till released on habeas corpus. Bollon v. 
Vellines, 94 Va. 393, 26 S. E. 847, 64 
Am. St. Rep. 737. 

$1,200, publicly searched. Efroym- 
son V. Smith, 29 Ind. App. 451, 63 N. E. 
328. 

$1,271, detained three days in de- 
tective agency. Pinkerton v. Snydor, 
87 111. App. 76. 

$1,500, imprisonment in an insane 
asylum. "A sad, silent and fragile 
little lady, now beyond middle hfe, 
wrongfully declared a lunatic, and that 



§1337 



MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 



2689 



V. McGilV* an election officer was illegally arrested, was kept 
in custody three hours, and suffered no unusual indignity and 
no violence. A verdict of $4,000 was held excessive. 

§ 1337. Malicious prosecution. 

In actions for malicious prosecution larger verdicts have 
been given and allowed to stand than in actions for false im- 
prisonment.'"' In a case in Illinois Mexican Central Railway 



of the most repulsive style, shut up in 
a madhouse, under the circumstances 
disclosed, and with a stigma branded 
upon her name and character, . . . 
with endurance of such shame, hu- 
miliation, and crucifixion of soul, as 
happily does not often fall to a 
woman's lot." Bacon v. Bacon, 76 
Miss. 458, 24 So. 968. 

$2,500 for imprisonment seven years 
in charitable institution for ref onnation 
of women and giris. Gallon v. House of 
Good Shepherd, 158 Mich. 361, 122 
N. W. 631. 

$2,500, against officer who wantonly 
made false charge, verdict restored by 
Supreme Court after being cut down 
to $200 by trial court. Smith v. Ma- 
comber, 28 R. I. 248, 66 Atl. 570. 

$3,000, third verdict. Union Depot 
& R. R. V. Smith, 16 Colo. 361, 27 Pac. 
329. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$4,000, imprisonment three hours, no 
aggravation. Schneider v. McGill, 64 
S. W. 835, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 587. 

$750, taken to poUce station and 
searched, no exemplary damages. 
Staples V. Schmid, 18 R. I. 224, 26 
Atl. 193. 

$550, arrest for evading fare, no ac- 
tual damage, circumstances of mitiga- 
tion, reduced to $10. Palmer v. Maine 
Cent. R. R., 92 Me. 399, 42 Atl. 800, 
69 Am. St. Rep. 513, 44 L. R. A. 
673. 

$500, no humiUation or expense, 
short imprisonment. Miller v. Ash- 

169 



craft, 98 Ky. 314, 32 S. W. 1085, 17 Ky. 
L. Rep. 894. 

$400, formal arrest for non-payment 
taxes, paid at once; judges respectively 
mentioned $50, $100 and $250 as limit. 
Fanjoy v. Portland, 29 N. B. 24. 

$288, refused to give bonds, asked 
to be locked up, on reaching jail re- 
leased; reduced to $100. Yost o. 
Tracy, 13 Utah, 431, 45 Pac. 346. 

1K8 23 Ky. L. Rep. 587, 64 S. W. 835. 

"' The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$70, ten days in jail. Peterson v. 
Toner, 80 Mich. 350, 45 N. W. 346. 

$300, no special damages. Weil v. 
Israel, 42 La. Ann. 955, 964, 8 So. 826. 

$400, prosecution for larceny of 
worthless fence. Haas v. Powers, 130 
Wis. 406, 110 N. W. 205. 

$450, prosecution for theft of valise. 
Orefice v. Savarese, 113 N. Y. Supp. 
175. 

$500, prosecution for stealing horse. 
Stephens v. Gravit, 136 Ky. 479, 124 
S. W. 414. 

$500, prosecution to force payment 
of debt. Morgan v. Duffy, 94 Tenn. 
686, 30 S. W. 735. 

$550 though not committed to jail. 
Martin v. Corscadden, 34 Mont. 308, 
86 Pac. 33. 

$600, no serious inconvenience or ex- 
pense, exemplary damages. Henderson 
V. McGuder (Ind. App.), 94 N. E. 580. 

$600, imprisoned less than one hour, 
greatly humiliated. Charlton v. Mark- 
land, 36 Wash. 40, 78 Pac. 132. 

$780, jail three hours, temporary loss 



2690 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1337 



V. Gehr "" the defendant railway was sued for malicious prose- 
cution and resulting imprisonment in Mexico. Plaintiff was an 
officer of the company, and was arrested for embezzlement, 
kept in a Mexican jail for two months, when he was dis- 
charged without a trial. The jail was uncomfortable. The 
plaintiff was a man of excellent family and social connections, 
fine personal character, and presumably of fine sensibiUties. 
A verdict of $40,000 was allowed to stand. 



of position, some expense. Fiola v. Mc- 
Donald, 85 Minn. 147, 88 N. W. 431. 

$800 exemplary damages. Merchant 
V. Piekle, 10 N. D. 48, 84 N. W. 574. 

$1,000, confined in cell four hours. 
Scholl V. Schnebel, 8 N. Y. Supp. 865. 

81,000, illness, small expense. Neya 
V. Taylor, 12 S. D. 488, 81 N. W. 901. 

81,000 exemplary damages. Eggett 
V. Allen, 119 Wis. 625, 96 N. W. 803. 

81,500, two public arrests and other 
indignities. Rule v. McGregor, 115 la. 
323, 88 N. W. 814. 

$2,000, jail over night, no injury 
to reputation. Finigan o. Sullivan 
(Wash.), 118 Pac. 888. 

$2,500 exemplary damages, injury 
to reputation and business. Spencer v. 
Cramblett, 56 Kan. 794, 44 Pac. 985. 

86,500. Evansville & T. H. R. R. v. 
Talbot, 131 Ind. 221, 29 N. E. 1134. 

87,500, few hours in jail, attended 
court two or three times. National 
Surety Co. v. Mabry, 139 Ala. 217, 35 
So. 698. 

$12,500, prosecution for arson to de- 
fraud insurance company. Carp v. 
Queen Ins. Co., 203 Mo. 295, 101 S. W. 
78. 

825,000, prosecution of man fifty-five 
years old, salary 84,500 per year, cost 
of defense 85,000. Rawson v. Leggett, 
97 App. Div. 416, 90 N. Y. Supp. 5. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

820,000, former verdict 840,000 set 
aside, no exemplary damages. Bell v. 
Atlantic C. R. R., 58 N. J. L. 227, 33 
Atl. 211. 



$6,000 reduced from 88,000, imprison- 
ment twenty-four days. Fadner v. 
Filer, 27 111. App. 506. 

$4,500, no imprisonment, plaintiff, an 
ignorant negro, released on bond, case 
thrown out by grand jury. Wright v. 
Hagerman, 42 S. W. 917, 19 Ky. L. 
Rep. 1032. 

$4,000, no exemplary damages, for- 
mer verdict 82,800 set aside. Davis v. 
McMillan, 142 Mich. 391, 105 N. W. 
862, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 928. 

$3,500, in custody one hour, dis- 
charged on appearance in court, ex- 
pense 850; reduced to 81,000. Bill- 
ingsley v. Maas, 93 Wis. 176, 67 N. W. 
49. 

$3,000, expenses $150, short arrest, 
man of bad character. Davis v Seeley, 
91 la. 583, 60 N. W. 183. 

$2,500, only technical arrest. 
O'Boyle v. Shively, 65 111. App. 278. 

$2,000, evading fare, no special or ex- 
emplary damages; reduced to 81,000. 
Ruth V. St. Louis Transit Co., 98 Mo. 
App. 1, 71 S. W. 1055. 

81,000, no exemplary damages. Cart- 
wright V. Elliott, 45 111. App. 458. 

$1,000, released on bail, attended 
court three days ; 8500 suflicient . Coin- 
tenent v. Cropper, 41 La. Ann. 303, 6 
So. 127. 

81,000 reduced to .$400. Bell v. 
Morse, 48 Kan. 601, 29 Pac. 1086. 

8500, four days' imprisonment, time 
and expenses $20, no special damages. 
Sasae v. Rogers, 40 Ind. App. 197, 81 
N. E. 590. 

"« 66 III. App. 173. 



§§ 1338, 1339 BEEACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE 



2691 



§ 1338. Alienation of affections. 

In actions for alienation of affections much depends on the 
pecuniary and other circumstances of the parties, and a wide 
range is to be expected in the size of verdicts. For aUenation 
of the affections of a husband, the loss of society and support 
is a large element."" For ahenation of the affections of a wife, 
usually accompanied by seduction, the affection of the husband 
and the wealth of the seducer may justify large verdicts; "^ 
while evidence of lack of affection or condonation by husband 
will prevent the allowance of heavy damages."' 



§ 1339. Breach of promise of marriage. 

Damages for breach of promise of marriage depend largely 
on the wealth of the defendant and upon the fact of seduction, 
and a large range of damages is therefore to be expected."* 



"' The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$1,750. Wilson v. Coulter, 29 App. 
Div. 85, 90, 51 N. Y. Supp. 804. 

$3,000. White v. White, 101 Minn. 
451, 112 N. W. 627. 

$5,000. Nichols v. Nichols, 147 Mo. 
387, 401, 48 S. W. 947. 

$5,000, actual and $1,500 exemplary. 
White V. White, 140 Wis. 538, 122 
N. W. 1051. 

$7,600. Cochran v. Cochran, 127 
App. Div. 319, 111 N. Y. Supp. 588. 

$15,000. Lockwood v. Lockwood, 67 
Minn. 476, 70 N. W. 784. 

The following have been set aside: 

$30,000. Sivley v. Sivley, 96 Miss. 
137, 51 So. 457. 

$7,000 reduced to $2,000. Heisler v. 
Heisler, 151 la. 503, 127 N. W. 823. 

$2,000, wife did not desire husband's 
affection. Van Olinda v. Hall, 88 Hun, 
452, 34 N. Y. Supp. 777. 

"2 The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$15,000. Speck v. Gray, 14 Wash. 
589, 45 Pac. 143. 

$15,000, reduced by trial court to 
$10,000. Fuller v. Robinson, 230 Mo. 
22, 130 S. W. 343, 



$5,250. Hartpence v. Rodgers, 143 
Mo. 623, 45 S. W. 650. 

'1' The following verdicts have been 
set aside as excessive: 

$5,000, husband had connived, and 
had been sent to jail for setting wife on 
hot stove. Peek v. Taylor, 17 Ky. L. 
Rep. 1312, 34 S. W. 705. 

$5,000, second verdict, lack of affec- 
tion shown. Bathke v. Krassin, 78 
Minn. 272, 80 N. W. 950. 

1'* The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$1,500, restoring verdict reduced by 
trial court to $500, seduction, defend- 
ant worth $3,000. Halness v. Anderson, 
110 Minn. 204, 124 N. W. 830. 

$5,000. Kerns v. Hagenbuchle, 17 
N. Y. Supp. 367. 

$8,000, seduction, defendant worth 
$16,000. Lanigan v. Neely, 4 Cal. App. 
760, 89 Pac. 441. 

$8,000, engagement of fourteen years, 
seduction. Hanson v. Johnson, 41 
Wis. 560, 124 N. W. 506. . 

$16,000, seduction, defendant worth 
$60,000 to $75,000. Geiger v. Payne, 
102 la. 681, 69 N. W. 554. 

The following has been set aside: 

$3,500, short engagement, no aggra- 



2692 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES §§ 1340, 1341 



§ 1340. Seduction. 

Large ||amages have been upheld for the seduction of plain- 
tiff's wife "^ or daughter; '" but even larger damages have 
been allowed where a woman sued under a statute for her own 
seduction.^" 



§ 1341. Telegraph companies. 

In jurisdictions where recovery is allowed for mental suffer- 
ing for delay in deUvering telegrams, or for non-deUvery, many 
cases have been presented for determining the excessiveness of 
damages. A frequent cause of action has arisen from delay in 
messages announcing ilhiess or death, so that the plaintiff was 
unable to arrive at the bedside of a relative before uncon- 
sciousness or death,"* or was unable to be present at the 
funeral of a relative. The recovery in the latter case seems to 



vation, defendant worth $6,000. Kel- 
lett V. Robie, 99 Wis. 303, 74 N. W. 781. 

'1' The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$3,000. Smith v. Meyers, 52 Neb. 
70, 71 N. W. 1006. 

$4,275. Dorman v. Sebree, 21 Ky. L. 
Rep. 634, 52 S. W. 809. 

"" The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$1,200. Thiebault v. Prendergast 
(R. I.), 69 Atl. 922. 

$3,000. Riddle v. McGinnis, 22 
W. Va. 253. 

$3,500. Kerns v. Hagenbuchle, 17 
N. Y. Supp. 369. 

"' $25,000 not excessive. Marshall 
V. Taylor, 98 Cal. 55, 32 Pac. 867, 35 
Am. St. Rep. 14. 

11' The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$300. Western U. T. Co. v. Gillis, 97 
Ark. 226, 133 S. W. 833. 

$500. Western U. T. Co. u. Cleve- 
land, 169 Ala. 131, 53 So. 80. 

$500. Arkansas & L. Ry. v. Stroude, 
82 Ark. 117, 100 S. W. 760. 

$955.50. Western U. T. Co. v. Price, 
137 Ky. 758, 126 S. W. 1100, 29 L. R. 
A. (N. S.) 836. 



$1,000. Western U. T. Co. v. Black- 
mer, 82 Ark. 526, 102 S. W. 366. 

$1,150. Western U. T. Co. v. Ben- 
nett (Tex. Civ. App.), 124 S. W. 151. 

$1,200. Western U. T. Co. v. Cobb 
(Tex. Qv. App.), 118 S. W. 717. 

$1,950. Western U. T. Co. v. Zane, 6 
Tex. Civ. App. 585, 25 S. W. 722. 

$1,995. Western U. T. Co. v. Sloss, 
45 Tex. Civ. App. 153, 100 S. W. 354. 

$2,000. Western U. T. Co. v. Hough- 
ton (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 448. 

$2,150. Western U. T. Co. v. Finer, 
9 Tex. Civ. App. 152, 29 S. W. 66. 

$2,500. Western U. T. Co. v. Evans, 
5 Tex. Civ. App. 55, 23 S. W. 998. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$5,000. Western U. T. Co. v. Evans, 
1 Tex. Civ. App. 297, 21 S. W. 266. 

$4,750. Western U. T. Co. v. Finer, 
1 Tex. Civ. App. 301, 21 S. W. 315. 

$1,250, could not have arrived before 
father became unconscious, reduced to 
$500. Western U. T. Co. v. Bouchell, 
28 Tex. Civ. App. 23, 67 S. W. 159. 

$900, delay of several days, but 
reached bedside thirty-six hours before 
death. Newport N. & M. V. R. R. v. 
Griffin, 92 Tenn. 694, 22 S. W. 737. 



§1342 



CARBIERS 



2693 



have been graduated according to the relationship."" In other 
cases also the excessiveness of damages allowed against a tele- 
graph company has been brought in question."" 

§ 1342. Carriers. 

For any misuse of a passenger by a carrier the damages are 
partly non-pecuniary, leaving the assessment to the judgment 
of a jury; and the question of excessiveness is often presented. 
Thus the court has had to pass upon the damages in cases 
where a carrier failed to stop to take on a passenger,"^ or failed 
to stop the conveyance and leave him at his destination, thus 



'" The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$400.25 (brother). Western U. T. 
Co. V. Bell, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 359, 106 
S. W. 1147. 

$500 (brother). Western U. T. Co. !). 
Hill (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 252. 

8700 (brother). Western U. T. Co. 
V. Thompson, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 279, 44 
S. W. 402. 

$1,000 (wife). Western U. T. Co. v. 
Fuel, 165 Ala. 391, 51 So. 571. 

81,000 (brother). Western U. T. 
Co. V. Caldwell, 126 Ky. 42, 102 S. W. 
840, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 497, 12 L. R. A. 
(N. S.) 748. 

81,350 (father). Western U. T. Co. 
V. McDavid (Tex. Qv. App.), 121 S. W. 
893. 

82,000 (mother). Western U. T. Co. 
V. Hardison (Tex. Civ. App.), 101 S. W. 
541. 

The following were set aside: 

$1,354 (brother). Western U. T. Co. 
V. Weniski,84 Ark. 457, 106 S. W. 486. 

8750 (son), could not have arrived 
till after decomposition set in; reduced 
to $350. Western U. T. Co. v. Rhine, 
90 Ark. 57, 117 S. W. 1069. 

"» The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$100, plaintiff not met on arrival at 
station, suffered inconvenience. West- 
em U. T. Co. V. Karr, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 
60, 24 S. W. 302. 

$450, plaintiff told both parents dead 



instead of only one. Western TJ. T. Co. 
t;. Taylor, 122S. W. 131. 

$750, plaintiff traveling with body of 
deceased child not met on arrival at 
station. Western U. T. Co. v. Giffin, 27 
Tex. Civ. App. 306, 65 S. W. 661. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$1,999.99 for delay in getting physi- 
cian for sick child. Western U. T. Co. 
V. Berdine, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 577, 21 
S. W. 982. 

$1,000 for delaying information of 
mother's condition; reduced to $500. 
Western U. T. Co. v. Hiller, 93 Miss. 
658, 47 So. 377. 

$345 for causing necessity of hack 
ride for 20 miles. Western U. T. Co. v. 
Collins, 156 Ala. 333, 47 So. 61. 

^'^ The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$100, plaintiff forced to walk home, 
took all night. Indiana U. T. Co. v. 
Heller, 44 Ind. App. 385, 89 N. E. 419. 

8250, physician on way to see pa- 
tients. Southern Ry. v. Wallis, 133 Ga. 
553, 66 S. E. 370, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
401. 

The following have been set aside as 
excessive: 

81,500, no special damages, exem- 
plary damages allowed. Memphis & 
C. R. R. V. Green, 52 Miss. 779. 

$1,000, caught in rain and became 
sick. Bums v. Alabama & V. R. R., 93 
Miss. 186, 47 So. 640. 



2694 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1342 



compelling him to return from the place where he was left,i^^ 
or where it failed to carry him through to his destination. ^^^ 
For wrongful expulsion of a passenger the damages may be af- 
fected by the humiliating circumstances of the expulsion, i^'* the 
insulting or violent language or conduct of the.conductor,^^^ or 



"' The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

875, carried two miles, exposure and 
illness. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. R. v. 
Knight, 81 Ark. 429, 99 S. W. 684. 

$150, including exemplary damages. 
Birmingham R. L. & P. Co. v. Nolan, 
134 Ala. 329, 32 So. 715. 

$500, including exemplary damages, 
carried three-fourths mile beyond sta^- 
tion at night in rain. Eiggins v. Louis- 
ville & N. R. R., 64 Miss. 80, 8 So. 176. 

$1,000, where passenger was injured 
while waUdng back. Winkler v. St. 
Louis, I. M. & S. R. R., 21 Mo. App. 99. 

$1,000, including exemplary dam- 
ages, conductor used profane and in- 
sulting language. Fordyce v. Nix, 58 
Ark. 136, 23 S. W. 967. 

$1,500, exposure caused illness. St. 
Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Day, 86 Ark. 
104, 110 S. W. 220. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$1,750, insulted, walked half mile, 
made nervous. North Alabama Trac. 
Co. V. Daniel, 158 Ala. 414, 48 So. 50. 

$1,000, walked back at night over 
trestle and was frightened; reduced to 
$500. Texas & P. Ry. v. Mansell (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 549. 

$300, no special damages. Southern 
R. R. V. Bryant, 105 Ga. 316, 31 S. E. 
182. 

"a $210, upheld, dark night, walk of 
several miles. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. 
Sain (Tex. Qv. App.), 24 S. W. 958. 

$300, excessive, reduced to $200. 
Moss ». Missouri Pac. Ry., 128 Mo. 
App. 385, 107 S. W. 422. 

"* The following verdicts have been 
upheld where there were circumstances 
of humiliation: 



$60. Dalton v. Beers, 38 Conn. 529. 

$200, where walked six miles in rain. 
Fordyce v. Manuel, 82 Tex. 527, 18 
S. W. 657. 

$250, boy of thirteen, only thirty 
yards from starting point. St. Louis 
S. W. R. R. V. Furlow, 81 Ark. 496, 99 
S. W. 689. 

$500. Cagney ». Manhattan R. R., 2 
N. Y. Supp. 410. 

$500, Houston & T. C. R. R. v. Lee 
(Tex. av. App.), 123 S. W. 154. 

$650, walked five miles. Chamber- 
lain ». Lake Shore & M. S. R. R., 122 
Mich. 477, 81 N. W. 339. 

The following verdicts have been held 
excessive: 

$5,000. Warner v. Southern Pac. 
Co., 113 Cal. 105, 45 Pac. 187, 54 Am. 
St. Rep. 327. 

$4,000. Elser v. Southern Pac. Co., 
7 Cal. App. 493, 94 Pac. 852. 

$1,900; reduced to $500. Willson v. 
Northern Pac. R. R., 5 Wash. 621, 32 
Pac. 468. 

$1,400, expulsion of woman causing 
great nervous suffering ; reduced to $400. 
Sloane v. Southern California R. R., Ill 
Cal. 668, 44 Pac. 320, 32 L. R. A. 193. 

$900, expulsion from I^illman car. 
Pullman Co. v. Custer (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 140 S. W. 847. 

$500. Camden I. Ry. v. Frazier, 97 
S. W. 776, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 186. 

$390. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. t;. 
Hogue, 50 Kan. 40, 31 Pac. 698. 

"^ The following verdicts were up- 
held where the carrier's servants were 
insulting or used unnecessary violence : 

$150 reduced to $100. Brown v. 
Minneapolis & S. P. S. Ry., 102 Minn. 
298, 113 N. W. 895. 

$299.54. Wightman v. Chicago & 



§1342 



CAERIERS 



2695 



the inconvenience of the place where the passenger is ex- 
pelled; "* or by serious injuries supervening on the expulsion; *" 
but if there are no circumstances of aggravation, large damages 
will not be allowed, ^^ unless exemplary damages may be al- 



N. R. R., 73 Wis. 169, 40 N. W. 689, 9 
Am. St. Rep. 778, 2 L. R. A. 185. 

$300. Southern Pac. Co. v. Craner 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 101 S. W. 534. 

$100 actual and $300 exemplary. 
Short V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. (Mo.), 
130 S. W. 489. 

$500. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. v. 
Cuniffe (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 692. 

$1,000. Chesapeake & O. R. R. v. 
Osborne, 97 Ky. 112, 30 S. W. 21, 53 
Am. St. Rep. 407. 

$1,250. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. 
Moore (Tex. Qv. App.), 39 S. W. 
987. 

$1,500, serious personal injuries, ex- 
emplary damages. St. Louis, I. M. & 
S. Ry. V. Mynott, 83 Ark. 6, 102 S. W. 
380. 

$1,500, walk of thirty miles after im- 
prisonment. Trabing v. California N. 
& I. Co., 133 Cal. XX, 65 Pac. 478. 

$6,000, leg broken. Singleton v. 
Southwestern R. R., 70 Ga. 464. 

The following verdicts were held 
excessive: 

$2,500; reduced to $750. Mobile, J. 
& K. C. R. R. V. Kranfield, 92 Miss. 
494, 46 So. 71. 

$1,000; reduced to $100. Missouri, 
K. & T. Ry. V. Mitchell, 47 Tex. Civ. 
App. 307, 105 S. W. 827. 

"° The following verdicts were up- 
held where inconvenience or physical 
injury resulted from the expulsion: 

$50. Durfee v. Union Pac. Ry., 9 
Utah, 213, 33 Pac. 944. 

$287. Birmingham R. L. & P. Co. !). 
Turner, 154 Ala. 542, 45 So. 671. 

$425. South Covington & C. S. Ry. 
V. Quinn, 110 S. W. 404, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 
534. 

$1,500. Texas & P. R. R. v. Lynch 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 65. 



The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive, in spite of resulting discomfort 
or physical inj\iry: 

$1,000; reduced to $100. St. Louis, 
I. M. & S. Ry. V. Woodruff, 89 Ark. 9, 
115 S. W. 953. 

$850. Masterson v. Chicago & N. 
W. R. R., 102 Wis. 571, 78 N. W. 757. 

$750. Gillen v. Minneapolis, S. P. & 
S. S. M. Ry., 91 Wis. 633, 65 N. W. 
373. 

$500; reduced to $250. Gulf, C. & S. 
F. R. R. V. St. John, 13 Tex. Gv. App. 
257, 35 S. W. 501. 

$250. McLean w. Chicago, S. P. M.& 
O. Ry., 50 Minn. 485, 52 N. W. 966. 

$200. Howe V. Gibson, 3 Tex. Civ. 
App. 263, 22 S. W. 826. 

I*' Where the expulsion caused se- 
rious physical injury the following ver- 
dicts have been upheld: 

$2,500. Flavin v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
R. R., 43 Mont. 220, 115 Pac. 667. 

$10,000. Chicago U. T. Co. v. 
Brethauer, 125 111. App. 204, affirmed, 
223 lU. 521, 79 N. E. 287. 

A verdict of $1,000 was held exces- 
sive, and was reduced to $500. Shan- 
non V. Northern Pac. Ry., 44 Wash. 
321, 87 Pac. 351. 

'^ The following verdicts have been 
upheld where there were no special cir-. 
cumstances of aggravation: 

$150. Gileson v. Minneapolis & St. 
L. R. R., 85 Minn. 329, 88 N. W. 
970. 

$175. Arnold v. Rhode Island Co., 
28 R. I. 118, 163, 66 Atl. 60. 

$200. Chicago, St. L. & P. R. R. v. 
Holdbridge, 118 Ind. 281, 20 N. E. 837. 

$300. Phettiplace v. Northern Pac. 
R. R., 84 Wis. 412, 54 N. W. 1092. 

8500. Marlow v. Southern Pac. Co., 
151 Cal. 383, 90 Pac. 928. 



2696 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1342 



lowed. 1^' Large damages have also been allowed for abuse, as- 
sault, or other injury to passengers by servants of the carrier ^'^ 



$500. Monnier v. New York Cent. & 
H. R. R., 70 App. Div. 405, 75 N. Y. 
Supp. 521. 

84,000, former verdict for S5,000 set 
aside. Peck v. New York C. & H. R. 
R., 8 Hun, 286. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$1,500. Cunningham v. Seattle 
Electric R. & P. Co., 3 Wash. 471, 28 
Pac. 745. 

$1,300. Comer v. Foley, 98 Ga. 678, 
25 S. E. 671. 

$1,000. Terre Haute, A & St. L. R. 
R. V. Vanatta, 21 111. 188, 74 Am. Dec. 
96. 

$800. Olson V. Northern Pac. R. R., 
49 Wash. 626, 96 Pac. 150, 18 L. R. A. 
(N. S.) 209. 

$759. Brian v. Oregon S. L. R. R., 
40 Mont. 109, 105 Pac. 489. 

$750, reduced by trial court from 
$1,500; further reduced to $400. Gil- 
len V. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. 
R. R., 91 Wis. 633, 65 N. W. 373. 

$500. Ijouisville & N. R. R. «. 
Breckinridge, 99 Ky. 1, 34 S. W. 
702. 

$500. Finch v. Northern Pac. R. R., 
47 Minn. 36, 49 N. W. 329. 

$400. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. 
R. V. Carson (Ky.), 140 S. W. 71. 

$250. St. Louis, i. M. & S. Ry. v. 
Woodard, 69 Ark. 659, 64 S. W. 
263. 

^'^ The following verdicts, including 
exemplary damages, have been up- 
held: 

$1,325. Louisville City R. R. v. 
Mercer, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 810. 

$2,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Wilkinson, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 92. 

The following verdict has been held 
excessive : 

$750. Georgia R. & B. Co v. Eskew, 
86 Ga. 641, 12 S. E. 106, 22 Am. St. 
Rep. 490. 



"° The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$250, conductor cursed and threat- 
ened woman. St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. 
Granger (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 
987. 

$50 actual and $450 exemplary; 
brakeman knocked passenger down 
and kicked him in mouth. Cathey v. 
St. Louis & S. F. R. R. (Mo.), 130 
S. W. 130. 

$500, conductor insulted passen- 
ger and struck him in face. Coor- 
man v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 127 
App. Div. 315, 111 N. Y. Supp. 
531. 

$750, conductor cursed and threat- 
ened. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. v. 
Strosnider, 121 S. W. 971. 

$1,000, passenger insulted and im- 
prisoned on steamboat. Ragland v. 
Norfolk & Washington (D. C.) Steam- 
boat Co., 163 Fed. 376. 

$1,000, eyes and nose bruised. 
Sweeney v. Chicago City Ry., 148 111. 
App. 351. 

$1,000. Missouri, K. & T. R. R. v. 
Gaines, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 257, 79 S. W. 
1104. 

$1,000, conductor kissed passenger. 
Craker v. Chicago & N. W. R. R., 36 
Wis. 657, 17 Am. Rep. 504. 

$2,000, driver criminally assaulted 
female passenger. Beardmore ». Bar- 
ton, 108 Minn. 28, 121 N. W. 
228. 

$2,500, negro servant insulted 
woman passenger. Gulf, C. & S. F. 
Ry. V. Luther, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 517, 
90 S. W. 44. 

$2,500, badly beaten. Birmingham 
R. & E. Co. V. Baird, 130 Ala. 334, 30 
So. 456. 

$2,500, left hand crippled. Louis- 
ville & N. R. R. V. Ray, 101 Tenn. 1, 46 
S. W. 554. 

$5,000, operation required. Nien- 



§1342 



CARRIERS 



2697 



or by third persons through lack of protection by the carrier's 
servants,^" and for failure of the carrier to provide proper 
accommodations. ^^^ Verdicts have also been considered in 
actions for other injuries by a carrier to passenger."' 



dorff V. Manhattan Ry., 4 App. Div. 
46, 38 N. Y. Supp. 690. 

In the following cases the verdicts 
were held excessive: 

$1,500; reduced to $1,000. Doran v. 
Brooklyn & N. Y. F. Co., 19 N. Y. 
Supp. 172. 

$1,000, a former verdict of $7,000 
having previously been set aside. 
Georgia S. & F. Ry. v. Ransom, 5 Ga. 
App. 740, 68 S. E. 943. 

$1,000. Mitchell v. United Rys., 125 
Mo. App. 1, 102 S. W. 661. 

$900; reduced to $100. Texas N. 0. 
R. R. V. MarshaU (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 
S. W. 508. 

$500; reduced to $100. Burfeindt v. 
New York City Ry., 52 Misc. 651, 101 
N. Y. Supp. 589. 

$123. Mueller v. Chicago, B. & N. 
R. R., 75 Minn. 109, 77 N. W. 566. 

"1 The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$200, reduced from $300. Jansen v. 
Minneapolis & S. L. R. R., 112 Minn. 
496, 128 N. W. 826, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
1206. 

$250. Lucy w. Chicago G.W.Ry., 64 
Minn. 7, 65 N. W. 944, 31 L. R. A. 551. 

$1,000. Richmond & D. R. R. v. 
Jefferson, 89 Ga. 554, 17 L. R. A. 571, 
16 S. E. 69. 

$2,000. Savannah St. R. R. v. 
Bryan, 86 Ga. 312, 12 S. E. 307, 22 Am. 
St. Rep. 748. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$18,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
McEwan, 31 S. W. 465, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 
406. 

$15,000; reduced to $5,000. The 
Western States, 151 Fed. 929. 

$7,125. Louisville Ry. v. Welling- 
ton, 126 S. W. 370, 137 Ky. 719. 



$1,000; reduced to $500. Whitlock v. 
Northern Pac. Ry., 69 Wash. 15, 109 
Pac. 188. 

"2 The following verdicts hav« been 
upheld: 

$700, blind man with first-class 
ticket put in smoking car and made ill. 
Louisville & N. R. R. v. Weathers, 163 
Ala. 48, 50 So. 268. 

$750 for exclusion from sleeping car. 
Braum v. Webb, 32 Misc. 243, 65 N. Y. 
Supp. 668. 

$900 for failure to reserve berth for 
sick lady. Pullman P. C. Co. v. Nelson, 
22 Tex. Civ. App. 223, 64 S. W. 624. 

$1,800, married woman insulted and 
threatened with ejection from berth. 
Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. R. v. 
Harris, 115 Tenn. 601, 91 S. W. 211, 5 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 779. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive. 

$1,150, defendant suffering with 
rheumatism not allowed to occupy 
berth during day. Pullman P. C. Co. 
V. Fowler, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 755, 27 
S. W. 268. 

$1,000, compelling white woman to 
ride sixty miles in negro coach; reduced 
to $100. Missouri, K. & T. R. R. v. 
Ball, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 500, 61 S. W. 
327. 

$500, failure to reserve berth. Pull- 
man Co. V. Pennock, 118 Tenn. 566, 
102 S. W. 73. 

"' The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$60 for leaving passenger at inter- 
mediate station. St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. 
Germany (Tex. Civ. App.), 56 S. W. 
586. 

$600 for failure to notify woman pas- 
senger to change cars. Central of Ga. 
Ry. w. Ashley, 159 Ala. 145, 48 So. 981. 



2698 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1343 



As an example of extreme cases, a verdict of $50.00 was held 
not excessive where a passenger was compelled to get off and 
walk a short distance in the mud."* And where a conductor 
made a vicious and unprovoked assault on a passenger with a 
switch iron, giving him a long wound on the skull, a fracture of 
the skull, a blood tumor on the eye, causing loss of memory, 
change of disposition, and permanent injury, and exemplary 
damages were recoverable for the malice, $5,000 compensatory 
and $2,000 exemplary damages were held not to be exces- 
sive."^ 

§ 1343. Other malicious torts, or wrongs causing mental 
suffering. 
For other malicious torts large verdicts have been allowed, 
as for malicious attachment,"^ malicious eviction from prem- 
ises,"' malicious discharge from employment "* or expulsion 
from a beneficial order,"' or wrongful invasion of privacy."" 
And damages have been considered for removing the body of a 



$1,500 for misinformation about 
route. Southern Ry. ». Nowlin, 156 
Ala. 222, 47 So. 180. 

$2,500 for delay. Southern Ry. v. 
Miller, 120 S. W. 278 (Ky.). 

$5,500 (reduced from $8,500) for 
causing passenger on alighting to fall 
through a trestle. Bumside v. Min- 
neapolis & St. L. Ry., 110 Minn. 401, 
125 N. W. 895. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$750 for delay; reduced to $100. 
LeCIaire v. Tacoma R. & P. Co., 62 
Wash. 157, 113 Pac. 268. 

$640 for delay in shipping corpse. 
Louisville & N. R. R. v. Hull, 113 
Ky. 561, 68 S. W. 433, 57 L. R. A. 
711. 

"* City & S. Ry. v. Brauss, 70 Ga. 
368. 

"^ Neuer v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 
(Mo.), 127 S. W. 669. 

"' The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 



$996. Friedly v. Giddings, 119 Fed. 
438. 

$5,000. Union Mill Co. v. Prenz- 
ler, 100 la. 540, 69 N. W. 876. 

1" The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$200. Evertson v. Sutton, 5 Wend. 
(N. Y.) 583. 

$400. Wood V. Young, 20 Ky. L. 
Rep. 1931, 50 S. W. 541. 

$800. Walterscheid v. Crupper, 79 
Kan. 627^ 100 Pae. 623. 

$6,500. O'Conner v. Parrott, 22 111. 
App. 429. 

"« $1,200 not excessive. Gibson v. 
Fidelity & Casualty Co., 232 111. 49, 83 
N. E. 539, affirmmg 135 111. App. 
290. 

"' $500 actual and $2,500 exemplary 
damages not excessive. St. Louis S. W. 
Ry. V. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 
108 S. W. 453. 

"» $1,000 not excessive. Rhodes v. 
Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 120 App, 
Div. 467, 104 N. Y. Supp. 1102. 



§§ 1344, 1345 



ASSAULT AND BATTERY 



2699 



child from a cemetery, "^ for expulsion from a theatre,"^ for 
abandonment of an obstetrical case by physician."' 

§ 1344. Exemplary damages. 

Even where exemplary damages are allowed, the amount of 
them is not entirely within the power of the jiu"y, and the 
coiu"t will see to it that they bear some relation to the actual 
damages; if the amount is 'out of all proper proportion to the 
actual damages the verdict will be set aside as excessive."* 



§ 1346. Assault and battery. 

For intentional injury by assault and battery the circum- 
stances may lead to large damages for mental suffering."^ 



"'■ $1,700 excessive. Bessemer L. & 
I. Co. V. Jenkins, 111 Ala. 135, 18 So. 
565. 

1^2 $250 not excessive. WeberrStair 
Co. V. Fisher, 119 S. W. 195 (Ky. L. 
Rep.). 

1^' $2,000 not excessive. Lathrope v. 
Flood, 135 Cal. 458, 63 Pac. 1007. 

i<*The following verdicts for exem- 
plary damages have been held exces- 
sive because out of proportion to the 
actual damages: 

$1,000 for trespass on premises of a 
total value of little over $1,000. Cobb 
V. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.), 105 S. W. 
847. 

$225, actual damages $25. Texas L. 
& C. Co. ». Nations (Tex. Civ. App.), 
63 S. W. 915. 

$800, actual damages $37. Ahrens v. 
Fenton, 138 la. 559, 115 N. W. 233. 

$2,344, actual damages $56. Flanary 
V. Wood, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 250, 73 
S. W. 1072. 

$4,950, actual damages $25. Page v. 
Yool, 28 Colo. 464, 65 Pac. 636. 

$10,000, actual damages $200. In- 
ternational & G. N. Ry. V. Telephone 
& Tel. Co., 69 Tex. 277, 5 S. W. 517, 5 
Am. St. Rep. 74. 

The following verdicts for exemplary 
damages were allowed: 

$50, actual damages $35. Lister v. 



CampbeU (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 
876. 

$1,500, actual damages $800. Sum- 
mers V. Keller, 152 Mo. App. 626, 133 
S. W. 1180. 

$2,500, actual damages $500. St. 
Louis S. W. Ry. v. Thompson (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 108 S. W. 453. 

In Bentley v. Fischer L. & M. Co., 51 
La. Ann. 451, 25 So. 262, exemplary 
damages of $5,000 where the actual 
damages were $500 were held sufficient. 

"5 The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$100, wrist broken. Peterson v. 
Toner, 80 Mich. 350, 45 N. W. 346. 

$225. Schmitz v. Kirchan, 32 Wash. 
546, 73 Pac. 678. 

$300. Matthews v. Gray (Ky.), 137 
S. W. 517. 

$350, malicious assault by man on 
boy. Fleming v. Loughren, 139 la. 
517, 115 N. W. 506. 

$400. Faulkner v. Davis, 38 S. W. 
1049, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 1004. 

$450, malicious assault by man on 
boy. HoUins v. Gorham, 66 S. W. 823, 
23 Ky. L. Rep. 2185. 

$450 exemplary damages. August v. 
Finnerty, 30 Oh. Cir. Ct. 330. 

$200 actual and $300 exemplary. 
McMillen v. Elder (Mo. App.), 140 
S. W. 917. 



2700 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1345 



This is especially true in the case of indecent assault upon a 
woman, "^ or in the case of illegal search of the person."^ 
Where the defendant, while running his saloon on Sunday in 
violation of law, made an assault on the plaintiff which broke 
his jaw, made it necessary to employ surgical aid, and caused 



S500 exemplary damages. Coal B. 
E. Ry. V. Young, 126 111. App. 651. 

$500, assault of man on child. Moore 
V. Sturm, 88 Neb. 793, 130 N. W. 581. 

$570, aggravated case. Smith v. 
Flannery, 69 Hun, 615, 23 N. Y. Supp. 
201. 

$900, pain, and serious injury to hip. 
Williams v. Williams, 132 Mo. App. 
266, 111 S. W. 837. 

$1,000, including exemplary dam- 
ages, defendant publicly spit in plain- 
tiff's face. Alcorn v. Mitchell, 63 111. 
553. 

$1,000, plaintiff maimed. Slater v. 
Rink, 18 111. 527. 

$1,000, patient in hospital injured by 
demented patient. University of Louis- 
ville V. Hammock, 127 Ky. 564, 106 S. 
W. 219. 

11,000, wanton assault in dining- 
room of hotel, exemplary damages. 
Borland v. Barrett, 76 Va. 128, 44 Am. 
Rep. 152. 

$1,250, malicious and unprovoked 
battery on sick woman, exemplary 
damages. Chicago C. T. Co. v. Ma- 
honey, 230 111. 562, 82 N. E. 868, af- 
firming 131 111. App. 591. 

$2,000, gunshot wound. James v. 
Hayes, 63 Kan. 133, 65 Pac. 241. 

$2,000, plaintiff a minister. Wagner 
V. Gibbs, 80 Miss. 53, 31 So. 434, 92 
Am. St. Rep. 598. 

$2,500, serious injury in public place. 
Rand v. Butte E. Ry., 40 Mont. 398, 
107 Pac. 87. 

$2,500, plaintiff rendered insane. 
Spear v. Sweeney, 88 Wis. 545, 60 
N. W. 1060. 

$4,500, severe injury to seaman. 
Bolden v. Jensen, 70 Fed. 505. 

$5,000, pain, eyesight impaired. 



Doerhoefer v. Shewmaker, 97 S. W. 7, 
29 Ky. L. Rep. 1193. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$5,000 for overcoming resistance of 
girl to entry on land. East Jersey Co. 
V. SUngerland, 58 N. J. L. 411, 33 Atl. 
843. 

$2,000, slight injury. St. Peter v. 
Iowa Tel. Co., 151 la. 294, 131 N. W. 
2. 

$2,000, assault with whip. Goetz v. 
Ambs, 22 Mo. 170. 

$1,000 for insulting assault on man 
of poor character; reduced to $300. 
Matson v. Matson, 105 Me. 152, 73 
Atl. 867. 

$600, slight injury. Nagle v. Cohn 
(R. I.), 67 Atl. 419. 

i« The following verdicts were up- 
held: 

$500. Bruske v. Neugent, 116 Wis. 
488, 93 N. W. 454. 

$700 after former verdicts of $500 
and $510 had been set aside. Ragsdale 
V. Ezell, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1567, 49 S. W. 
775. 

A verdict of $3,000 was held exces- 
sive, and reduced to $1,500. Kurpge- 
weit V. Kirby, 88 Neb. 72, 129 N. W. 
127. 

"' The following verdicts were up- 
held: 

$800. Kress v. Lawrence, 158 Ala. 
652, 47 So. 574. 

$2,500. Doane v. Anderson, 15 N. Y. 
Supp. 459. 

A verdict of $1,000 was held exces- 
sive where a woman, accused of taking 
property, went to the office and stayed 
there some time in order to get back 
her property. Fair v. Himmel, 50 111. 
App. 215. 



§§ 1346, 1347 SLIGHT OR TEMPORARY INJURY 2701 

an expense of $225, and loss of time, a verdict of $482 was 
held not excessive."* Where a woman while in a deUcate 
state of health was wrongfully ejected from a house in bad 
weather, at night, and was compelled to seek shelter with a 
neighbor, a verdict of $6,000 actual and $1,000 exemplary- 
damages was held not excessive."" In Pullman Palace Car 
Co. V. Lawrence "" a verdict for $15,000 as compensatory and 
exemplary damages for an assault on a passenger was upheld; 
and in Nirsing v. Smith i" a verdict for $45,000 was allowed 
to stand where the defendant murderously assaulted his son- 
in-law with a shot-gun, seriously disabUng him. 

§ 1346. Physical injury — Doubtful physical consequences. 

Where the plaintiff seeks compensation for alleged injurious 
consequences of an injury, and the court feels serious doubt 
whether the damage suffered was in reality a consequence of 
the injury, this doubt may be considered in passing upon a 
motion to set aside the verdict as excessive."^ 

§ 1347. Slight or temporary injury. 

For a sUght or temporary injury small verdicts have been 
held not excessive, and even in a few cases large verdicts, 
where the injury, though temporary and curable, is severe; ^*' 

1" Bicknese v. Brandl, 46 Ind. App. $4,060. Johnson v. Great N. Ry., 

269, 91 N. E. 41. 107 Minn. 285, 119 N. W. 1061. 

>« Redfield v. Redfield, 75 Iowa, $4,000; reduced to $1,000. Pate v. 

435, .39 N. W. 688. Columbia & P. S. R. R., 52 Wash. 166, 

"» 74 Miss. 782, 22 So. 53. 100 Pac. 324. 

151 222 Pa. 8, 70 Atl. 906. $3,500; reduced to $2,000. Billings 

152 Where serious doubt was felt by v. Snohomish, 51 Wash. 135, 98 Pac. 

the court as to whether an alleged con- 107. 

sequence had followed from the injury, $2,000; reduced to $1,200. Reynolds 

the following verdicts were held exces- v. Smith, 148 la. 264, 127 N. W. 

sive: 192. 

$7,000; reduced to $2,500. Wellman Anything over $1,000. Schierloh ». 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 219 Mo. 126, Interurban St. Ry., 115 App. Div. 455, 

118 S. W. 31. 101 N. Y. Supp. 437. 

$5,000. Louisville Ry. v. Roser, 122 "» For a slight or temporary injury 

S. W. 149. the following^ verdicts have been up- 

$5,000 ; reduced to $3,000. Briscoe v. held : 

MetropoUtan St. Ry., 222 Mo. 104, 120 $200. Tanzer v. New York C. Ry., 

S. W. 1162. 46 Misc. 86, 91 N. Y. Supp. 334. 

$4,250. Webb v. Minneapolis St. $250. Anderson v. Sparks, 142 Wis. 

Ry., 107 Minn. 282, 119 N. W. 955. 398, 125 N. W. 925. 



2702 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1347 



but in general large verdicts 
merely temporary injuries."* 

$300. Sheyer v. Lowell, 134 Cal. 
357, 66 Pac. 307. 

$300. Evansville El. Ry. v. Lerch, 
40 Ind. App. 147, 81 N. E. 22.5. 

$300. Riley v. Iowa Falls, 83 la. 
761, 50 N. W. 33. 

$300. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Tandy, 
107 S. W. 715, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 962. 

$300. Segerstrom v. Lawrence 
(Wash.), 116 Pac. 876. 

$350. Barry v. Kurshan, 103 N. Y. 
Supp. 120. 

$400. Louisville & A. R. R. v. Davis, 
96 S. W. 533, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 846. 

$441.67. Hignett v. Norridgewock, 
105 Me. 189, 73 Atl. 1086. 

$450. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. 
Grimsley, 90 Ark. 64, 117 S. W. 1064. 

$466.66. Vindas v. Bering Coal Co., 
145 111. App. 528. 

$500. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. 
Fambro, 88 Ark. 12, 114 S. W. 230. 

$500. Morton w. Pusey, 237 111. 26, 
86 N. E. 601. 

$500. Southern Ry. o. Johnson, 101 
S. W. 929, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 143. 

$500. Baker v. Best, 107 S. W. 1192, 
33 Ky. L. Rep. 1. 

$500. Campbell v. Dreher, 110 S. W. 
353, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 444. 

$500. Louisville Ry. v. O'Connell, 
126 S. W. 1103 (Ky.). 

$500. Creason v. St. Louis, I. M. & 
S. Ry., 149 Mo. App. 223, 130 S. W. 
445. 

$500. Norman v. Bellingham, 46 
Wash. 205, 89 Pac. 559. 

$600. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. ». 
Neely, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 611, 101 S. W. 
481. 



have not been sustained for 



$600. Carroll v. Centralia Water 
Co., 5 Wash. 613, 32 Pac. 609. 

$650. Scurlock v. Boone, 142 la. 
684, 121 N. W. 369. 

$665. Hill V. Glenwood, 124 la. 479, 
100 N. W. 522. 

$700. Harvey v. News Pub. Co. 
(R. I.), 69 Atl. 69. 

$750. St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. Jackson, 
91 Ark. 14, 124 S. W. 241. 

$750. Lemoine v. Sullivan (Ark.), 
134 S. W. 946. 

$750. Ryan v. Knickerbocker 
Steam-boat Co., 15 Daly, 520, 8 N. Y. 
Supp. 471. 

$800. Winfrey v. St. Louis Trans. 
Co., 122 Mo. App. 388, 99 S. W. 458. 

$825. Chesapeake & O. Ry. t'. 
Dodge, 66 S. W. 606, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 
1959. 

$1,000. Eagle Distillery' v. Hardy 
(Ky.), 120 S. W. 336. 

$1,000. Boyle v. Sagmaw, 124 Mich. 
348, 82 N. W. 1057. 

$1,000. Hedges v. Metropolitan St. 
Ry., 125 Mo. App. 583, 102 S. W. 1086. 

$1,000. Maness v. Joplin & P. Ry., 
149 Mo. App. 259, 130 S. W. 87. 

$1,000. Kelly v. Butte, 34 Mont. 
530, 87 Pac. 968. 

$1,000. Rogers v. Mann (R. I.), 70 
Atl. 1057. 

$1,000. Houston C. S. Ry. v. Ross 
(Tex. Qv. App.), 28 S. W. 254. 

$1,200. Rush V. Spokane F. & N. 
Ry., 23 Wash. 501, 63 Pac. 500. 

$1,200. Hiroux v. Baum, 137 Wis. 
197, 118 N. W. 533, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
332. 

$1,250 (reduced from $2,500). 



"< For a slight or temporary injury 
the following verdicts have been held 
excessive: 

$25,000; reduced to $5,000. Peyton 
V. Texas & P. Ry., 41 La. Ann. 801, 6 
So. 690. 



$25,000; reduced to $12,500. Yazoo 
& M. V. R. R. V. Cobb, 94 Miss. 661, 48 
So. 522. 

$17,500. Dresch v. Elliott, 137 App. 
Div. 252, 122 N. Y. Supp. 14. 

$12,000. Rueping v. Chicago & N, 



§1348 



BROKEN BONES — BONES OF LEG AND HIP 



2703 



§ 1348. Broken bones— Bones of leg and hip. 
For a broken leg the amount of compensation allowed by the 



Bauer v. Ollendorf, 12 Ind. App. 397, 
40 N. E. 644. 

$1,250. Ownesboro v. Williams (Ky. 
L. Rep.), 116 S. W. 280. 

$1,250. Connor v. Wabash R. R., 
149 Mo. App. 676, 129 S. W. 777. 

$1,250. Clegg V. Metropolitan St. 
Ry., 37 N. Y. Supp. 130. 

$1,250. Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. v. 
Bell, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 28, 23 S. W. 922. 

$1,350. Washington v. Rhode Is- 
land Co. (R. I.), 70 Atl. 913. 

$1,400. Smith v. Des Moines, 84 la. 
685, 51 N. W. 77. 

$1,400. Southern Ry. v. Cash, 110 
Va. 282, 65 S. E. 601. 

$1,500 (reduced from $2,000). Mar- 
shall V. Saginaw V. T. Co., 157 Mich. 
541, 122 N. W. 131. 

$1,500. Mack v. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
Ry., 123 Mo. App. 631, 101 S.. W. 
142. 

$1,600. Driscoll v. Humes, Cruise & 
SmUey Co. (R. I.), 69 Atl. 766. 

$1,675. Stevens w. E. & N. A. Ry., 
66 Me. 74. 

$2,000. Prowell v. Waterloo, 144 la. 
689, 123 N. W. 346. 



$2,000. Plozke v. Detroit U. Ry., 
162 Mich. 632, 127 N. W. 700. 

$2,000. Kampmann v. Rothwell 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 107 S. W. 120. 

$2,500. A. L. Clark Lumber Co. o. 
Johns (Ark.), 135 S. W. 892. 

$2,500. Miller v. St. Paul City Ry. 
(Minn.), 68 N. W. 862. 

$2,500. Heiberger v. Missouri & 
Kansas Tel. Co., 133 Mo. App. 452, 
113 S. W. 730. 

$2,500. Citizens' Ry. v. Griffin, 49 
Tex. av. App. 569, 109 S. W. 999. 

$2,500. Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. 
Hoffman, 109 Va. 414, 63 S. E. 432. • 

$2,775. Henderson v. Clayton, 57 
S. W. 1, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 283. 

$3,000. La Doucre v. Nichel 
(Minn.), 131 S. W. 852. 

$3,000. Egan v. Dry Dock, E. B. & 

B. R. R., 42 N. Y. Supp. 188. 
$4,000. Morris v. St. Paul City Ry., 

105 Minn. 276, 117 N. W. 500. 

$6,926.06. Phillips v. Taxi Service 
Co., 183 Fed. 869. 

$7,500. Osterhohn v. Boston & M. 

C. C. & S. M. Co., 40 Mont. 508, 107 
Pac. 499. 



W. R. R., 116 Wis. 625, 93 N. W. 
843. 

$10,000. Duffy V. Jacobson, 135 111. 
App. 472. 

$10,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Brown, 127 Ky. 732, 106 S. W. 795. 

$10,000. Corcoran v. Ulster & D. R. 
R., 40 N Y. Supp. 1117. 

$10,000; reduced to $5,000. Smith 
V. Third Ave. R. R., 10 App. Div. 409, 
41 N. Y. Supp. 977. 

$10,000. Becker v. Albany Ry., 54 
N. Y. Supp. 395. 

$10,000; reduced to $5,000. Mis- 
souri Pacific Ry. v. Texas Pacific Ry., 
41 Fed. 311. 

$6,500. Landro v. Great N. Ry. 
(Minn.), 130 N. W. 553. 



$6,500. Waddell v. Metropolitan St. 
Ry., 213 Mo. 8, 111 S. W. 542. 

$6,300. Fremont E. & M. V. R. R. v. 
French, 48 Neb. 638, 67 N. W. 472. 

$6,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Survant, 27 S. W. 999, 96 Ky. 197. 

$5,500. Karasich v. Hasbrouch, 28 
Wis. 569. 

$5,500; reduced to $3,500. Wad- 
leigh V. Duluth St. Ry., 92 Minn. 415, 
100 N. W. 104. 

$5,000 (reduced from $7,000). Ala- 
bama G. S. R. R. V. Burgess, 119 Ala. 
555, 25 So. 251, 72 Am. St. Rep. 
943. 

$5,000; reduced to $3,500. Moudy 
V. St. Louis D. B. & P. Co., 153 Mo. 
App. 34, 130 S. W. 476. 



2704 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES § 1348 

court has varied greatly."* Verdicts have also been considered 



$5,000; reduced to $1,500. Evers v. 
Weil, 17 N. Y. Supp. 29. 

$5,000. Spofford v. Rhode Island 
Suburban Ry., 29 R. I. 34, 69 Atl. 2. 

$4,500. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. 
Downs, 122 111. App. 545. 

$4,500. Meade v. Brooklyn Heights 
R. R., 39 N. Y. Supp. 320. 

$4,300. Levitt v. Nassau El. Co., 43 
N. Y. Supp. 426. 

$3,500. Southern Ry. v. Lee, 119 
S. W. 170 (Ky. L. Rep.). 

$3,500. Shortsleeve v. New York C. 
& H. R. R., 40 N. Y. Supp. 1105. 

$3,000. Graham v. Rockford, 142 
111. App. 306, affirmed, 238 111. 214, 87 
N. E. 361. 

$3,000. Lexington Ry. v. Wood- 
ward, 106 S. W. 853, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 
653. 

$3,000. Kentucky & I. B. & R. Co. 
V. Singheiser, 115 S. W. 192 (Ky. L. 
Rep.). 

$3,000. Kennedy v. St. Paul City 
Ry., 59 Minn. 45, 60 N. W. 810. 

$3,000; reduced to $1,925. Putz v. 
St. Paul Gas Light Co., 108 Minn. 243, 
121 N. W. 1109. 

$2,500. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. v. 
Payzant, 87 111. 125. 

$2,500. Lake St. El. R. R. ;;. John- 
son, 70 111. App. 413. 

$2,500; reduced to $2,000. West 
Chicago St. R. R. v. Musa, 80 111. App. 
223. 

$2,500. Haywood v. Bering Coal 
Co., 145 111. App. 506. 

$2,500. Votimakis v. Maropulos, 
147 111. App. 630. 

$2,350. Fremont E. & M. V. R. R. v. 
Leslie, 41 Neb. 159, 59 N. W. 559. 

$2,250. Haskins i/. Rhode Island 
Co. (R. I.), 69 Atl. 335. 

$2,000; reduced to $1,000. St. Louis, 
I. M. & S. R. R. V. Stovall (Ark.), 
136 S. W. 169. 

$1,500. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. R. v. 
Snell, 82 Ark. 61, 100 S. W. 67. 



$1,500. Dixon v. Scott, 74 111. App. 
277. 

$l,500;reducedto$l,000. Comrade!). 
Atlas L. & S. Co., 44 Wash. 470, 87 Pac. 
517. 

$1,425; reduced to $1,000. Spring- 
field Consol. Ry. v. Wright, 134 111. 
App. 598. 

$1,000. Parkinson Sugar Co. v. 
Riley, 50 Kan. 401, 31 Pac. 1090. 

$1,000; reduced to $500. Yazoo &M. 
R. R. V. Kelly (Miss.), 53 So. 779. 

$1,000; reduced to $600. Johnson v. 
Ish (Neb.), 133 N. W. 201. 

$750; reduced to $350. Bellerti.Levy, 
68 Misc. 182, 124 N. Y. Supp. 411. 

$700; reduced to $400. Durose v. St. 
Paul City Ry., 80 Minn. 512, 83 N. W. 
397. 

$.500. Southern Ry. v. Turner 
(Miss.), 49 So. 113. 

$400. Chicago v. Colman, 33 111. 
App. 557. 

$250; reduced to $100. Catzer v. 
Brooklyn, O. C. & S. R. R.(Misc.), 112 
N. Y. Supp. 1088. 

$250; reduced to $125. De Noyels v. 
Joline (Misc.), 116 N. Y. Supp. 662. 

$250. Vilicki a. New York Transp. 
Co., 65 Misc. 43, 119 N. Y. Supp. 220. 

'" For a broken leg the following ver- 
dicts have been upheld: 

$275. Madisonville v. Stewart (Ky.), 
121 S. W. 421. 

$500, nervous system injured. Ken- 
tucky Hotel Co. V. Camp, 97 Ky. 424, 
30 S. W. 1010. 

$900, seven months lame, leg per- 
manently shortened. Palmer Transf. 
Co. V. Smith, 137 Ky. 319, 125 S. W. 
725, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 321. 

$985 (reduced from $1,000), both 
legs, permanent deformity. Mitchell v. 
Libby, 149 111. App. 201. 

$1,000. Hobart Lee Tie Co. v. Keck, 
89 Ark. 122, 116 S. W. 183. 

$1,200. Smith v. Heibel, 157 Mo. 
App. 177, 137 S. W. 70. 



§1348 



BROKEN BONES— BONES OF LEG AND HIP 



2705 



for damages from broken ankles,"* broken kneecap,* ^^ and 
broken hips.^^* 



$1,400. Smith v. DeS Moines, 84 lai 
685, 51 N. W. 77. 

$1,500, pernlaiiettt distortion and 
pain. IVibrgan ti. C. Hager & Sbns'H. 
M. Co., 120 Mo. App. 590, 97S.W. 638. 

$1,80©; permanent shorteiiing. Prop- 
som V. Leatham, 80*Wis. 608, SON. W. 
686. 

$^,000. Pearce 'v. Kalisas City, 156 
Mo. App. 236, IS'S'S. W. 629. 

$2,500, permanent itfckpacity. Dries 



». FredeHeh, 73 Tex. 4ea, US. W. 
493. 

$2,500. Patterson v. MelcMor, 106 
Minri:"437, 119 N. W. 402. 

$3,00i0 (redticed from $4;000); Chi- 
cago City Ry. ».' Kenyon, 137 111. App. 
126; affirmed, 235 111.406, 85 N. E. 660. 

$3,000; arm also' broken afld de- 
formed, serious nervous effects. Maine 
ti. CMcsigd City Ry., 148 111. App. 509. 

$3,000, penrianeht injury, incapacity 



"« For a broken anikle the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$2,500. Millel: t). City of New York, 
104 App. Div. 33, 93'N. Y' Siipp. 227. 

$3,000, arm also broken, earning 
capacity imipaired. Selma Street & S. 
R. R. V. Owen, 132 Ala; 420; 31 So. 598. 

$3,000, permianent lameness. St. 
Joseph & G. I. R. R. V. Hedge, 44 Neb. 
446, 62 N. W. 887. 

$3,000, Pott's fracture. Haney v. 
City of New York; 126 App'. Div. 908, 
110 N. Y. Supp. 815. 

$3,000, permanent stiffiiess. St. 
Joseph & G. I. R. R; V. Hedge', 44 Neb. 
446, 62 N. W. 887. 

$4,000, painful and permanent in- 
juries. Missouri, K. &' T. Ry. v. Bris- 
coe (Tex. Civ. App.), 109 S. W. 4S3. 

$4,000, crippled for life. St. Louis & 
S. F. Ry. v. Woolum, 84 Tex. 570, 19 
S. W. 782. 

$5,000, piBrmianerit impairment of 
earning capacity. Louisville v.' Ar- 
rowsmith CKy.), 140 S. W'. 1029. 

$6,500, rupture, permanent incapac- 
ity. The Mineola, 44 Fed. 143. 

$7,5(X), Pott's fracture. Ft. Worth 
V. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 119 S. W. 
137. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$10,000. Adams v: Mo. Pac. Ry., 
100 Mo. 555, 12 S. W. 637, 13 S. W. 
609. 

170 



$8,666, strength of leg permanently 
impaired, but not use of it; reduced to 
$5,000. Nicholds v. Crystal Plate 
Glass Co., 126 Mo. 65, 28 S. W. 991. 

$4,000, great pain, permanent lame- 
ness; reduced to $2,500. Johnson v. St. 
Paul City Ry., 67 Minn. 260, 69 N. W. 
900, 36 L. R. A. 586. 

"' For broken kneecap and dis- 
located collar bone, $3,000 was al- 
lowed. Ward V. Mefeds (Minn.), 130 
N;w. 2; , 

168 For a broken hip the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$2,000, leg permanently shortened 
and'criFfpled. Leonard v. Union Ry., 
98 App. Div. 204, 90 N. Y. Supp. 574. 

$3,0(J0. Beringer v. Dubuque St. R. 
r!, 118 Iowa; 135, 91 N: W. 931. 

$5,000, impacted fractiire, permanent 
injury. Kansas City v. Manning;' 50 
Kaa. 373, 31 Pac. 1104. 

$5,000, inipacted fr&,cture, great paili. 
Peterson v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 211 
Mo. 498; 111 S. W. 37. 

$7,750, permanent lameness. Setzler 
V. Metropolitan St. Ry. (Mb.), 127 S. 

w;i. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$15,000; reduced to $10,000. Cox- 
head V. Johnson, 47 N. Y. Supp. 389. 

$12,500; reduced to $7,000. Dean v. 
Wabash R. R., 229 Mo. 425, 129 S. W. 
953. 



2706 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1349 



1349. Bones of arm or shoulder. 

In case of a broken arm, verdicts have had a rather wide 



to labor for a year. Campbell v. Rail- 
way Transfer Co., 95 Minn. 375, 104 
N. W. 547. 

$3,000, leg shortened. Weingarten v. 
Metropolitan St. Ry., 62 App. Div. 
364, 70 N. y. Supp. 1113. 

$3,000, leg shortened. MaJoney v. 
Stetson & Post Mill Co., 46 Wash. 645, 
90 Pac. 1046. 

$3,250, permanent lameness, severe 
pain. NavaUles v. Dielmann, 124 La. 
421, 50 So. 449. 

$3,850, permanent lameness, shoul- 
der dislocated. North Arkansas Tel. 
Co. V. Steiner, 95 Ark. 275, 129 S. W. 
810. 

$4,000, permanent shortening. Roche 
V. Redington, 125 Cal. 174, 57 Pac. 890. 

$4,000, both legs broken. Atchison, 
T. & S. F. Ry. V. Hastings, 78 Kan. 
499, 100 Pac. 68. 

$4,000. Danville, L. & N. Turnpike 
Road Co. V. Stewart, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 119. 

$4,000, foot crushed, head wound, 
long disablement. Burleigh v. St. 
Louis Tr. Co., 124 Mo. App. 724, 102 
S. W. 621. 

$4,000, left arm and leg permanently 
injured, shock to nervous system, large 
medical expenses. Missouri, K. & T. 
Ry. V. Malone (Tex. Qv. App.), 110 
S. W. 958. 

$4,316.75, wrist sprained, ankle 
bruised, leg shortened. Chicago & A. 
Ry. V. Watsker, 128 111. App. 299. 

$4,500 (reduced from $6,000), per- 
manent shortening, lameness and in- 
capacity. Lehman v. Minneapolis & S. 
L. R. R. (la.), 133 X. W. 327. 

$4,500, both legs, one permanently 
shortened, loss of time and expenses 
$1,143. Burke v. St. Louis Southwest- 
em Ry., 120 Mo. App. 683, 97 S. W. 981. 

$4,500, permanent incapacity. Evers 
V. Wiggins Ferry Co., 127 Mo. App. 
236, 105 S. W, 306. 

$5,000 (reduced from $8,000), per- 



manent crippling. Chicago City Ry. v. 
Mumford, 97 111. 660. 

$5,000, permanent shortening. Eiler- 
man v. Farmer (Ky. L. Rep.), 118 
S. W. 289. 

$5,000, permanent incapacity. Per- 
rette v. City of Kansas City, 162 Mo. 
238, 62 S. W. 448. 

$5,000, permanent incapacity. Pauck 
V. St. Louis D. B. & P. Co., 166 Mo. 
639, 66 S. W. 1070. 

85,000, permanent injury and de- 
formity. Garard v. Manufacturers' C. 
& C. Co., 207 Mo. 242, 105 S. W. 767. 

$5,000, permanent lameness. Baker 
V. Metropolitan St. Ry. (Mo. App.), 
126 S. W. 764. 

$5,000, permanent lameness and de- 
formity. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 771. 

$5,000, broken arm also. Hoseth v. 
Preston Mill Co., 55 Wash. 416, 104 
Pac. 612. 

$5,500, compound comminuted frac- 
ture, permanent injury and lameness. 
Kincaid v. WaUa WaUa V. T. Co., 57 
Wash. 334, 106 Pac. 918. 

$6,000, necrosis of bone, permanent 
disability. Louisiana & Ark. Ry. v. 
Nix, 94 Ark. 270, 126 S. W. 1076. 

87,000, permanent shortening and 
lameness, constitution impaired. 
Moore v. Wabash R. R., 157 Mo. App. 
53, 137 S. W. 5. 

$7,000, leg shortened, permanent 
pain. Fitch v. Broadway & S. A. R. R., 
58 N. Y. Super. Ct. 575, 10 N. Y. Supp. 
225. 

87,500, necrosis of bone, several op- 
erations, chronic invalid for life. Chi- 
cago V. Loebel, 130 111. App. 487, af- 
firmed, 228 111. 52, 81 N. E. 796. 

$7,595, other injuries, permanent 
nervousness, leg shortened. Loftus v. 
Metropolitan St. Ry., 220 Mo. 470, 
119 S. W. 942. 

$7,700, hip crushed, ribs broken, per- 



§1349 



BONES OF ARM OR SHOULDER 



2707 



range, as might be expected from the great variety of ac- 



manent disability. Foster v. B. I. 
Crooker Co., 143 App. Div. 920, 126 
N. Y. Supp. 1020. 

$8,500, several ribs broken, lung in- 
jured, great pain, permanently crip- 
pled. Foster v. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
Ry., 134 la. 67, 111 N. W. 415. 

$9,000, leg shortened and crippled. 
Griffith V. Missouri Pac. R. R., 98 Mo. 
168, 11 S. W. 559. 

$10,000, permanent cripple, great 
pain. Hilton & D. L. Co. v. Ingram, 
136 Ga. 473, 70 S. E. 234. 

$10,000, compound fracture, shock 
to nervous system, permanent impair- 
ment, of capacity. Olson v. Nebraska 
Tel. Co., 85 Neb. 331, 127 N. W. 
916. 

$10,000, arm dislocated, shoulder and 
side injured, long continued incapacity. 
Brown v. Sullivan, 71 Tex. 470, 10 S. W. 
288. 

$10,000, bone would not knit, plain- 
tiff could not stand. HaU v. Northwest 
Lumber Co., 61 Wash. 351, 112 Pac. 
369. 

$12,500, comminuted fracture both 
legs, compound fracture of jaw. Mc- 
Donnel v. Henry EUas Brewing Co., 44 
N. Y. Supp. 652. 

$15,000, compound fracture, intense 
pain for twenty months, $2,300 medical 
expenses. Western U. T. Co. v. Engler, 
75 Fed. 102, 21 C. C. A. 246. 

$15,000, leg shortened, surgical op- 
eration. Mitchell V. Broadway & S. A. 
Ry., 70 Hun, 387, 24 N. Y. Supp. 
32. 

$20,000, both legs, permanent dis- 
ability, excruciating pain. St. Loiiis 
S. W. Ry. V. Ford (Tex. Civ. App.), 121 
S. W. 709. 

$22,000, both legs, ribs and back, 
paralyzed from waist down, use of all 
lower organs lost, total disability. 
Louisville & N. R. R. v. Melton, 127 
Ky. 276, 105 S. W. 366, 110 S. W. 233, 
112 S. W. 618. 



The following verdicts were held to 
be excessive: 

$49,000, both legs and right arm 
broken, shoulder and head hurt, incur- 
able wound, leg shortened; reduced to 
$25,000. Canfield v. Chicago, R. I. & 
P. Ry., 142 la. 658, 121 N. W. 186. 

$15,000, compound fracture, several 
operations, great pain, crippled for life; 
reduced to $7,500. Dole v. New Or- 
leans R. & L. Co., 121 La. 945, 46 So. 
929, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 623. 

$14,833. Southwestern R. R. v. 
Singleton, 66 Ga. 252. 

$12,500, several months' loss of time, 
use of leg somewhat impaired; reduced 
to $7,000. Dean v. Wabash R. R., 229 
Mo. 425, 129 S. W. 953. 

$12,000; reduced to $2,500. Rueping 
V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 116 Wis. 625, 
93 N. W. 843, 96 Am. St. Rep. 1013. 

$11,000, leg shortened; reduced to 
$8,000. Rice v. Reece (Tex. Civ. App.), 
110 S. W. 502. 

$11,000. Bronson v. Forty-Second 
St. M. & St. M. A. Ry., 67 Hun, 649, 21 
N. Y. Supp. 695. 

$10,000, both legs, one permanently 
weakened; reduced to $3,500. Moore 
V. W. R. Pickering Lumber Co., 105 
La. 504, 29 So. 990. 

$9,000 (reduced from $15,000); re- 
duced to $5,266.20. Ross v. Metro- 
poUtan St. Ry., 116 App. Div. 507, 101 
N. Y. Supp. 932. 

$6,000; reduced to $4,000. Clapp v. 
Hudson River R. R., 19 Barb. 461. 

$5,000, both legs broken; reduced to 
$3,500. Hart v. Cascade Timber Co., 
39 Wash. 279, 81 Pac. 738. 

$5,000. North Chicago St. R. R. v. 
Wiswell, 68 111. App. 443. 

$5,000. Ross V. Metropolitan St. 
Ry., 104 App. Div. 378, 93 N. Y. Supp. 
679. 

$4,100, slight limp; reduced to 
$2,100. Slette v. Great Northern Ry., 
53 Minn. 341, 55 N. W. 137. 



2708 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES § 1349 

companying injuries."' Verdicts have also been considered for 



$4,000. Lombard*; Chicago, R. I. & 
P. R. R., 47 la. 494. 

84,000, severe sprain of ankle, in- 
juries to some extent permanent; re- 
duced to $2,000. Galveston Electric 
Co. V. Diekey (Tex. Civ. AppO, 138 
S. W. 1093. 

83,000. Chicago v. Sutton, 136 111. 
App. 221. 

$3,000; reduced to $2,000i South! 
Omaha v. Fennell (Neb.), 94 N. W. 
632. 

82,800, slight permanent limp; for- 
mer verdict of 81,700 set aside, cOUld* 
not sanction more. Collins v. Janes- 
ville, 107 Wis. 436, 87 N. W. 241. 

$1,700 (reduced from $2,500). Col- 
lins V. Janesville, 107 Wis. 436, 83 
N. W. 695. 

$1,500. Johnson v. Heath (Neb.), 
98 N. W. 832. 

"" For a, broken arm the following 
verdicts have been upheld! 

$500, permanent deformity. Gerkfen 
V. Plimpton, 62 App. Div. 35, 70 N. Y. 
Supp. 793. 

$625, compound fracture, front teeth 
knocked out'. D. H. Ewing & SonSw. 
Callahan, 105 S. W. 387, 32 Ky. L. 
Rep. 46. 

$850, dislocated hip, long-continued 
pain. Southern' Ryi v: ButgesS, 143 
Ala. 364, 42 So. 35. 

81,750, compound fracture, perma- 
nent impairment of use of'arnS, large 
medical expenses. Trasfc v. HalloWell 
Granite Wks., 106 Me. 468, 76 Atl. 
919. 

82,600, face bruised, knee hurt, hear- 
ing permaneiltly injured. Louisville & 
N. R. R. V. Roe, 142 Ky. 456, 134 S. W. 
437. 

83,000jpain, loss of time, loss of use of 
three fingers. Mallay v. Ktelly-^Atkin- 
son Const. Co., 144 111. App. 226, af- 
firmed, 240 111. 102, 88 N. E. 234. 

$8,000, pain, partial loss of use of 
hand. Lanccin v. Morgan's' L. & T. 



RJ. R. & S. S. Co., 127 La. 1, 53 
So. 365. 

$3,000, spine and shoulder injured, 
ribs wrenched, injuries permanent. 
Texas Midland R. R. v. Byrd (Tex. 
Civ. Apt).), 110 S. W. 199. 

84,500, permanent reduction of 
working capacity. Sweeney v. Butte, 15 
Mont. 274, 39 Pac. 286. 

$4,750, permanent loss of use, several 
operations. Clark v. Johnson County 
Telephone Co. (la.), 123 N. W. 327. 

85,000, ear torn from head, face dis- 
fl^red, long" suffering, subject to 
spasms. Wankowski v. Crivitz P. 
&- P. Co., 137 Wis. 123, 118 N. W. 
643. 

$8,000, ribs broken, head, hip, back 
and legs wounded. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
Ry. V. Pratt, 94 Ark. 430, 127 S. W. 
711. 

810,000, ribs broken, hand, arm and 
leg- cut, back wrenched, great pain. 
Yazoo & M, V. R. R. v. Grant, 86 Miss. 
585, 38 So. 502. 

$15,000, collar bone broken, arm 
shortened, plaintiff, a surgeon, ren- 
dered Unable to do delicate operations, 
nervous systemi disturbed, great pain. 
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. Young, 
45 Tex. Civ. App. 430, 100 S. W. 
993. 

815,000, collar bone broken, chest 
compressed, elbow crushed. Gulf, C. 
& S. P. Ry. V. Dorsey (Tex.), 18 S. W. 
444. 

825,000, five ribs broken, unable to 
use arm one year, money loss to trial 
89,000. Dieffenbach v. New York, L. 
E. & W. R. R., 5 App. Div. 91, 38 N. Y. 
Supp. 788. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$11,800, stiffness of two fingers; re- 
duced to $6,000. Clifton v: Kansas 
City So. Ry. (Mo.), 135 S. W. 40. 

$1,500; reduced to $500. Diblin v. 
Murphy, 3 Sandf. 19. 



§1350 



BONES OF THE TRUNK 



2709 



broken bones in the hftndj'^*'' -,fii)ger,i" svrist ^*^ and. shoul- 
der. ^^^ 

§ 1350. Bones of the trunk. 

For .fracture of the spine l^ijge dam^iges have been^giyen and 
allowed."^ For a broken ,rib .or ribs "^ the amount recovered 
varies according to the accompanying injuries or other cir- 



160 pof Jjrqken bones jn a l^and the 
following verdicts have been, upheld: 

$700. Townsend v. Joplin (Mo. 
App.), 123 .S. W. 474. 

11,500, hand permanently :Btiffewed. 
Goodloe .V. Metropolitan St- Ry-, 120 
Mo. App. 194, 96 S. W, 482. 

1^'. For a broken .finger .the ipllo)TCing 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$300, hand lacerated, idisability.jf or 
three months. Olsen v. ,Wendt, 58 
Misc. 21, 110 N. Y.,Supp. 153. 

12,500, hand permanently .injured. 
Gregory .w. Slaughter, 99 S. .W. 247, 30 
Ky. Law Rep. 500. 

162 Por a, broken wrist the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$600 (though reduced by trial court 
to $150). Flaunt v. Railway Transfer 
Co., 90 Minn. 499, 97 N. W.,433. 

$1,250, hand crippled. Mohr v. 
Wetherill, 33 Misc. 791, 67 N. Y.Supp. 
690. 

$2,000, CoUes fracture, permanent 
diminution earning capacity. Powers 
i;. Maravia, 125 App. Div. 9Q2, 108 
N. Y. Supp. 159. 

$2,500, Colles fi;acture, hand dis- 
figured and use permanently impaired- 
Schreiber v. Depew, 187 App. Div.;433, 
121 N. Y. Supp. 757. 

"^ For a broken shoulder, with per- 
manent impairment of use of arm, a 
verdict for "$8,000 was held exoessiye. 
Southern Ry. v. Godda,rd, 97 S. ;W. 
392, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 126. 

'°* For fracture of the spine the fol- 
lowing verdicts have been upheld: 

$1,000. Springfield Gonsol. Ry. v. 
Johnson, 134 111. App. 536. 

$4,000, sprained ankle, nervous sys- 



tem affected. The Cityof .Pqrtsmovith, 
125vFed. .264. 

$4,500, .progressive disP'bility for life. 
Hamburg-Amer. S. Co. .v., Backer, 185 
Bed- 40, 107 C. C. A. 290. 

r$18,00O,brqken-neck. Missouri, K. & 
T. Ry. V. Thomas, 48 Tex. ,Civ. App. 
646, 107 S. ,W. 868. 

. $25,000, (broken neck, .total disability . 
Texas & N. O. R. -R. .^..^Baiiwick, 50 
Tex. Civ. App. 544, 110 S. W, 
953. 

In . Gprdon .w. JKansas .City Squthern 
Ry., 222 Mo. 516, 121 -S. W. 80, where 
the plaintiff^ iback and five ribs were 
broken, his pelvis find hip rbones 
mashed, and the injuries . resulted in 
total pajralysis from the middle of the 
back down, and he had no control over 
the functions of that part of his, body, a 
verdict of $35,000 was held excessive, 
and jeduced to $25,000. 

1C6 ]?Qj. fi-acture of one or more .ribs 
the following verdicts have been up- 
held: 

$500 (reduced from $600), several 
ribs br^dten, two attacks fif ..pleurisy- 
Ghiesigp U. T. Co. v. Berfces, 136 111. 
App. 105. 

$988, three ribs-brokep, shou,lder dis- 
located, internal injuries. Beverage v. 
RoGkport,..106 Me. 523, 76 AtI.-677. 

$l,000,.he.alth impaired, pain. Mer- 
chants' I. & C. S. Co. V. Eargholt, 129 
Ky. 60, 110 S. W. 364. 

$1,000, yesj's disabiUty. Dabmer v. 
Metropolitan St. Ry., 136 Mo. App. 
443, 118 S. W. 496. 

$1,000, probably permanent injuries. 
McDermott v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 85 
Wis. 102, 55 N. W. 179. 



2710 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1351 



cumstances. Damages allowed for fracture of the collar bone 
have also been examined."^ 



§ 1361. Bones of the head. 

Verdicts have been examined by the courts which were ren- 
dered for a broken jaw/" or nose/^* or for fracture of the skull. ^^' 



Sl,025. Ashley v. Aberdeen, 46 
Wash. 385, 90 Pac. 210. 

$1,400, shoulder dislocated, permar 
nent injury. Waukegan v. Sharafinski, 
135 111. App. 436. 

$1,500, ribs and foot. West Chicago 
St. Ry. V. Mileham, 138 111. App. 569. 

$2,000, sprained ankle, nervous sys- 
tem shocked, lame for three months. 
Lee V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 146 Mo. 
App. 696, 129 S. W. 773. 

$2,200, bruised back and side, 
wrenched spine, nervous disorders. 
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Hay (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 954. 

$3,000, collar bone broken, great 
suffering. Louisville & S. I. T. Co. v. 
Snead, 93 111. App. 177. 

$3,200, tumor, pleurisy, adhesion of 
lung. Wynne v. Atlantic Ave. R. R., 
14 Misc. 394, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1034. 

$3,500, stomach trouble, permanent 
impairment of use of arms. Craney v. 
Schloeman, 145 111. App. 313. 

$3,750, side bruised, insensible for 
some time. Missouri Pacific Ry. v. 
Aiken, 71 Tex. 373, 9 S. W. 437. 

$4,500, contusion of shoulder and 
head, inability to work, deterioration in 
health. Ivey v. Brooklyn Heights R. 
R., 63 App. Div. 311, 71 N. Y. Supp. 
633. 

14,500, permanent injury affecting 
respiration. Perry v. Metropolitan St. 
Ry., 68 App. Div. 351, 74 N. Y. Supp. 
1. 

$5,000, pain and disability. Texas & 
N. O. R. R. V. Reed, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 
26, 116 S. W. 69. 

$8,250, several ribs, lung punctured. 
Reed v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry., 74 
la. 188, 37 N. W. 149. 



$9,000, use of right arm lost. Burke 
V. City & County Contract Co., 133 
App. Div. 113, 117 N. Y. Supp. 
400. 

$9,000, badly scalded, unable to work. 
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. Croskell, 
6 Tex. Civ. App. 160, 25 S. W. 
486. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$38,750, collar bone fractured, cir- 
culation impaired, chest deformed! 
Tunnel M. & L. Co. v. Cooper, 50 Colo. 
390, 115 Pac. 901. 

$5,000; reduced to $2,500. Mar- 
riott V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 142 Mo. 
App. 199, 204, 126 S. W. 231. 

$5,000; reduced to $3,500. Fry v. 
Great Northern Ry., 95 Minn. 87, 103 
N. W. 733. 

166 por fracture of the collar bone the 
following verdicts have been upheld: 

$2,500, permanent injury to arm and 
hand. Clarke v. Philadelphia & R. C. 
& I. Co., 92 Minn. 418, 100 N. W. 231. 

$2,500. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. 
Barrett, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 366, 80 
S. W. 660. 

"' For a broken jaw the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$4,000, with loss of ear. Well v. 
Moran Bros. Co., 55 Wash. 102, 104 
Pac. 172. 

$6,000, permanent disfigurement. 
Miller v. Erie R. R., 54 N. Y. Supp. 606. 

'»* For a broken nose, and loss of 
teeth $330 was not excessive. Texas & 
P. Ry. V. Crockett, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 
463, 66 S. W. 114. 

'™ For a broken skull the following 
verdicts have been upheld : 

$1,500 (reduced from $3,000), mental 



§§ 1352, 1353 



PAIN AND SUFFERING 



2711 



§ 1352 Surgical operation. 

Where the injury results in a serious abdominal or other 
major operation, the damages will be swelled by the risk, pain, 
and expense of the operation; and heavy damages may be 
given and allowed by the court, i™ 

§ 1353. Pain and suffering. 

In many cases the chief element of damages is the pain and 
suffering, physical and mental, of the plaintifif. Where that is 
the case, it is of course difficult to place any check on the 
discretion of the jury; and the circumstances necessarily vary 
so much, and pain may be felt in such infinite difference of 
degree, that verdicts for very dififerent amoimts wiU be al- 
lowed."^ In a few cases the court is required to pass upon 



disturbance and inability to work. 
Savage v. Chicago & J. Ry., 142 lU. 
App. 342, affirmed, 238 lU. 392, 87 
N. E. 377. 

$3,000, some disturbance of the 
brain. Enos Fire Escape Co. v. Lana- 
gan, 136 111. App. 631, affirmed, Lana^ 
gan V. Enos Fire Escape Co., 233 HI. 
308, 84 N. E. 267. 

§7,500, several pieces of bone and 
portion of brain removed, injuries per- 
manent. Phelps V. Conqueror Z. & L. 
Co., 218 Mo. 572, 117 S. W. 705. 

"' For an injury which caused a 
serious surgical operation the following 
verdicts have been upheld : 

$1,100. Williams ». Shaw (R. I.), 
71 Atl. 207. 

$1,900. Jarvis v. MetropoUtan St. 
Ry., 65 App. Div. 490, 72 N. Y. Supp. 
829. 

$1,999, permanent impairment earn- 
ing capacity. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. 
Mayes, 142'Ky. 382, 134 S. W. 436. 

$3,000, permanent lameness. Keane 
V. Seattle, 55 Wash. 622, 104 Pac. 819. 

$3,000, impairment of health and 
function. Allen v. Voje, 114 Wis. 1, 89 
N. W. 924. 

$3,725, injury to health. Birming- 
ham R. L. & P. Co. V. Moore, 148 Ala. 
115, 42 So. 1024. 



$4,156. O'MaUey v. Rhode Island 
Co. (R. I.), 70 Atl. 915. 

$5,000, great pain. Niendorff v. 
Manhattan Ry., 38 N. Y. Supp. 690. 

$5,000, weakness in back, abscess in 
side. Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Sanders (Tex. Qv. App.), 65 S. W. 889. 

$6,500, heavy expense, great pain. 
Clarke v. Westcott, 2 App. Div. 503, 37 
N. Y. Supp. nil. 

$9,000. Alkire v. Myers Lumber Co. 
(Wash.), 106 Pac. 915. 

$10,933. Van Vranken v. Kansas 
aty E. Ry., 84 Kan. 287, 114 Pac. 202. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$7,500; reduced to $4,000. Kirby i'. 
St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 146 Mo. App. 
304, 130 S. W. 69. 

$4,500; reduced to $2,500. Reems v. 
New Orleans G. N. R. R., 126 La. 511, 
52 So. 681. 

$3,500; reduced to $2,500. Nelson v. 
Bromley, 55 Wash. 256, 104 Pac. 251. 

•" Where pain and suffering, mental 
or physical, was a principal item of re- 
covery the following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$300. Augusta v. Tharpe (Ga.), 38 
S. E. 389. 

$300. Mordente v. New York Cab 
Co., 109 N. Y. Supp. 12. 



2712 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES § 1353 

the proper compensation for the Qonscious sufferuig ;hefore 



f 2,000. Atcliison, T. & S. F. R. .R..!;. 
Stewart, 55 Kan. 667, 41 Pac. 961. 

«2>000. Austin '«. St. Louis .& S.F. 
R..R., 149 Mo. App. §97, 130 S. W. 
385. 

$2,QQ0. .Tp;?as & P. R. R. v. I^wry, 
61 Tex. 149. 

$2,000. Murray v. Seattle Electric 
Co., 50;W_aBh. 444,!.£!7 Pac. 458. 

$2,250. Lpuisyille & E. R. R. v. 
Vincent, 96 S.' W. 898, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 
1049. 

$2,500. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
V. Hartung, 95 Axk. 220, 128 S. W. 
1025. 

$2,500. San Antonio Gas Co. v. 
Singleton (Tex. Civ. App.), 59 S. W. 
9^6.' 

• $2i810 (reduced from |4,000). Evans 
V. Iowa City, 1^5 la. 202, 100 N. W. 
11.12. 

,|3i000. Montgomery v. Shirley, 159 
Ala. 239,, 48 So. 679. 

.$3,258. ;Spires v. Middlesex & M. 
E^ L. H. & P. Co., 70 N. J. L. 355, 57 
Atl. ^3*. 

|4,0Q0. Houston & T. C. R. R. v. 
Pulger, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 478, 80 
S. W. 657. 

$4,000. Ga,lYeston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Matzdorf (Tex. Civ. App.), 107 S. W. 
882. 

$5,000. Hanlpnv. Misspiiri Pac. Ry., 
104 Mo. 381,' 16 S. W. 233. 

$6,333. Lipsky v. C. Reiss Coal 
Co., 136 Wis. 307, 117 N. W. 803. 

$6,300. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. v. 
Richards, 23 Okla. 256, 102 Pac. 92. 

$7,000. Allen t). Ames College Co., 
106 la. 602^ 76 N. W. 848. 

$7,600. Hallack v. Jfohnson, 12 Colo. 
244, 20 Pac. 700. 

$8,000. Southern Ry. v. Brewer, 117 
S. W. 958 (Ky.). 

$22,895. Carr v. Am. Locomotive 
Co., 29 R.I. 276, 77 Atl. ,104. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 



LevjnjW. Nassau Electric R. 
R. (App. Div.), 122 N. Y. Supp. 863. 

$400. Weiskopf v. Ritter, 97 S. W. 
1120, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 1268. 

$460. Barker v. Jefferson, 155 Mo. 
App. 390, 137 S. W. 10. 

$500. Wallace v. Bach, 97 S. W. 418, 
30 Ky. L. Rep. 69. 

$500. Cartwright v. Puisgigur, 125 
-La. 700, 51,So..692. 
' $600. Thompsons. Poplar Bluff, 124 
Mo.' App. 439, 101 S. W. 709." 

$600. Piering v. Dunham Mfg. Co., 
113 N. Y. Supp. 713. 

J|^700. Illinois Central Ry. v. Smith, 
1^2 ky. 732, 118 S. W. 933. ' 

$700. Ilillerbrand v. May Mercantile 
Co., 141 Mo. App. 122, 121 S. W.326. 

$1,000. Ozan Lumber Co. w. Bryan, 
90,Ark. 223, 119 S. W. 73. 

$1,000. Lexington Ry. v. Johnson, 
139 Ky. 323, 122 S. W. 830. 

$i,000. Joseph V. Edison Electjric 
Co., ip4 La. 634, 29 So. 223. 

$1,QOO. Winkler w.St. Loi}is, I. M. & 
S. Ry., 21 Mo. App. 99. 

J51,064. Smith v. Nassau Electric 
R. R., 67 App. Div. 152, 67 N. Y. 
,Supp. 1044. 

^1,125. ' Texas Ccjnt. R. R. v. Wheel- 
er (Tex. Civ. App.), 116 S. W- 83. 

$1,400. Radjaviller v. Third Ave. 
R. R.,(68 App. Div. 11, 68 n! Y..^upp. 
617. 

$1,500. O'Shaugapnessy w. Chicago 
qity Ry., .144 lU. App. 174. 

$1,500 ($lj000 for permanent in- 
juries, $500 for pain). Atchison, T. & 
S. F. R. R. P- Lee, 8 ^an. App. 24, 54 
Pac. 4. 

|1,600. ,Q\irvin v. .Grimes, 132 Ky. 
555, 1],6.S.,W.725. 

$1,500. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. 
V. Browning, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 521, 
118 S. W. 245. 

$1,600. Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. v. 
Brandon (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 
703. 



§1354 



DISABILITY TO LABOR 



2713 



death of a person who died as a result of the (iefendant's 
wrong. ^'^ 



§ 1354. Permanent injuries— Disability to labor. 

The injury caused by permanent impairment or destruction 
of ability to labor varies greatly, according to the capacity of 
the injured person and the nature and completeness of the 
impair^ient. Verdicts varying from small to very large have 
been considered by the courts."* 



S5,000 (reduced from $7,500); re- 
duced to $2,500. Hemenway v. Wash- 
ijigtpn W. P. Co., 49 Wash. 338, 95 
Pac. 269. 

,$3,000 ; reduced to $1,500. Ferringer 
V. Crowley, O. & M. Co., 122 La. 441, 
47 So. 763. 

$3,000;reduced to $2,000. Eeddecki;. 
St. Louis Car Co., 125 Mp. App. 24, 
102 S. W. 675. 

$2,700; reduced to $1,700. Meyers v. 
Syndicate H. & P. Co., 47 Wash.. 48, 91 
Pac. 549. 

$666.66 (reduced from $1,000); re- 
duced to $300. Puis w. Powelson, 142 
la. 604, 121 N. W. 1. 

"2 The following verdicts for pain and 
suffering before death were upheld: 

$1,000, thirty or forty minutes. St. 
Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Pate, 90 Ark. 
135, 118 S. W. 260. 

$2,500, twenty-four hours. St. Louis, 
I. M. & S. Ry. V. Robbins,,57 Ark. 377, 
21 S. W. 886. 

$6,750, excruciating pain for six days. 
BowUng G. G. Co. v. Dean, 141 Ky. 
473, 134 S. W. 1115. 

The following verdicts were -held ex- 
cessive: 

$4,000 where the deceased lived only 
a few moments after the accident.. St. 
Louis, I. M. & S. R. R. v. Dawson, 68 
Ark. 1, 56 S. W. 46. 

$3,500, suffering in the water before 
drowning; reduced to $350. The 
Robert Graham Dun, 70 Fed. 270, 17 
C. C. A. 90. 

"^ For an injury causing partial or 



total disability to IfihoT the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$941.70, total permanent disability. 
Montague v. Sanson, 38 Mont. 376, 99 
Pac. 1063. 

$1,000. Osborn v. Jenkinson, 100 la. 
432, 69 N. ,W. 548. 

$1,000. Lewis J). Wabash R. R., 142 
Mo.' App. 585, 121 S. W. 1090. 

$1,000, permanent incapacity. So- 
derman v. Troy Steel & Iron Co., 70 
Hun, 449, 24 N. Y. Supp. 401. 

$1,200, total disability probably per- 
manent. Hirpux .V. Baum, 137 Wis. 
179, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 332, 118 N. W. 
533. 

$1,250, total disabihty, permanent 
without da-ngsrous operation. Louis- 
ville Ry. V. Pulham, 101 S. W. 295, 30 
Ky. L. Rep. 1325. 

$1,350, seripus impairment of ppwer 
tp labpr. Oklahpma City v. Welsh 
(Okla.), 41 Pac. 598. 

$2,000. Cplprado City v. Smith, 17 
Colo. App. 172, 67 Pac. 909. 

$2,000, permanent disability. Slezak 
V. St. Louis Transit Co., 142 Mo. App. 
693, 121 S. W. 1095. 

$2,000, permanent total disability. 
Felsch V. Babb, 72 Neb. 736, 101 N. W. 
1011. 

$2,000, permanent injuries. Shawnee 
V. Slankard (Okla.), 116 Pac. 803. 

$2,232, permanent diminution of 
earning ppwer. Miller v. Manhattan 
Ry., 73 Hun, 512, 26 N. Y. Supp. 162. 

$2,250, permanent impairment pf 
earning power, exemplary damages. 



2714 



EXCESSIVE OE INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1355 



1355. Permanent crippling. 

Where the injury left the plaintiff a permanent cripple, large 



Louisville Ry. v. Gaddie, 105 S. W. 
454, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 316. 

$2,500, permanent disability. Fuhry 
V. Chicago City Ry., 144 111. App. 521, 
affirmed, 239 III. 548, 88 N. E. 221. 

$2,500, paralysis, permanent disabil- 
ity. Doherty v. Des Moines City Ry., 
144 la. 26, 121 N. W. 690. 

$2,500, permanent disability. Kan- 
sas City C. S. & R. Co. V. Taylor (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 107 S. W. 889. 

$2,700, permanent impairment of 
ability to labor. Louisville & N. R. R. 
V. Freppon, 134 Ky. 650, 121 S. W. 454. 

$3,000, permanent injury. Chicago 
V. Wieland, 139 111. App. 197. 

$3,000, permanent diminution of 
earning capacity. Conrad v. Spring- 
field Consol. Ry., 145 111. App. 564, 
affirmed, 240 111. 12, 88 N. E. 180. 

$3,000, permanent impairment of 
earning capacity. Wesley v. Chicago, 
St. P. & K. C. Ry., 84 la. 441, 51 N. W. 
163. 

$3,000, permanent impairment of 
earning capacity. Nicholson C. M. Co. 
V. Moulden, 143 Ky. 348, 136 S. W. 621. 

$3,000, permanent injury and im- 
pairment of earning capacity. Galves- 
ton, H. & S. A. Ry. V. Garcia, 45 Tex. 
Civ. App. 229, 100 S. W. 198. 

$3,500, severe burns, permanent im- 
pairment of earning capacity. Dow v. 
Sunset T. & T. Co., 157 Cal. 182, 106 
Pac. 587. 

$3,500, permanent and progressive 
injuries. Mowbray v. Brooklyn Heights 
R. R., 59 App. Div. 239, 69 N. Y. 
Supp. 435. 

$3,800, injury to spine, probably per- 
manent disability. Luper v. Henry, 59 
Wash. 33, 109 Pac. 208. 

$4,000 (reduced from $5,000), hear- 
ing of one ear destroyed, sight im- 
paired, ability to work permanently 
impaired. Kennedy v. Chicago, M. & 
S. P. Ry., 57 Minn. 227, 58 N. W. 878. 



$4,000, capacity for labor reduced 
one-half. Dillingham v. Richards 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 1061. 

$4,200, concussion of brain, perma^ 
nent injurj'. Peltomaa v. Katahdin 
P. & P. Co., 149 Fed. 282. 

$4,500 (reduced from $5,500), help- 
less and incurable invalid. Partello v. 
Missouri Pac. Ry. (Mo. App.), 107 
S. W. 473. 

$4,500, permanent disability. Baker 
V. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 179 
Fed. 271. 

$5,000, spine injured, leg shortened, 
earning capacity permanently reduced. 
Ft. Smith, A. & S. Co. v. Nedry (Ark.), 
140 S. W. 711. 

$5,000, miscarriage, total disability. 
Colorado Springs & I. Ry. v. Nichols, 
41 Colo. 272, 92 Pac. 691. 

$5,000, severe injuries, inabiUty to 
work. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. v. Sulli- 
van, 21 111. App. 580. 

$5,000, serious injuries, inability to 
work. Karczenska v. Chicago, 144 111. 
App. 516, affirmed, 239 111. 483, 88 N. 
E. 188. 

$5,000, injury to spine, inability to 
work. Flanagan v. Chicago City Ry., 
145 111. App. 56. 

$5,000, injury to ,spine, paralysis. 
Louisville & N. R. R. v. Wilkins, 143 
Ky. 572, 136 S. W. 1024. 

$5,000, disability to follow trade. 
Kinney v. Folkerts, 84 Mich. 616, 48 
N. W. 283. 

$5,000, section hand, disability to 
work. Dean v. Kansas City, S. L. & 
C. R. R., 199 Mo. 386, 97 S. W. 
910. 

$5,000, permanent injuries, disability 
to earn. Torreyson v. United Rys. Co., 
144 Mo. App. 626, 129 S. W. 409. 

$5,000, total disability to work. 
Stewart v. St. Louis S. W. Ry., 149 
Mo. App. 456, 130 S. W. 441. 

$5,000, total disability for ordinary 



1 1355 



PERMANENT CRIPPLING 



2715 



damages may be recovered and allowed."* The commonest 



work. Mayer v. Liebmann, 16 App. 
Div. 54, 44 N. Y. Supp. 1067. 

$5,000, permanent impairment of 
earning capacity. Davey v. Rhode Is- 
land Co., 29 R. I. 49, 68 Atl. 946. 

$5,000. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Rodgers (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 412. 

$6,000, permanent disability to work 
at trade. Chicago v. Bork, 128 111. App. 
357, affirmed, 227 111. 60, 81 N. E. 27. 

$6,000, permanent and increasing 
impairment of capacity to work. 
Eckels V. Boylan, 136 111. App. 258. 

$6,000, disfigurement and permanent 
disability of child. Bennett v. Brook- 
lyn Heights R. R., 1 App. Div. 205, 
37 N. Y. Supp. 447. 

$6,000, permanent disability. Bryer 
V. Foerster, 7 App. Div. 611, 41 N. Y. 
Supp. 617. 

$6,166.79, total incapacity. Eicholz 
V. Niagara Falls H. P. & M. Co., 68 
App. Div. 441, 73 N. Y. Supp. 843. 

$6,500, permanent disability for pro- 
fession of nurse. Vredenburgh v. N. Y. 
C. & H. R. R. R., 58 Hun, 607, 12 N. 
Y. Supp. 18. 

$6,500, paralysis and total disability. 



Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. Click (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 226. 

$6,500, permanent impairment of 
earning capacity. Galveston, H. & S. 
A. Ry. V. Waldo (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 
S. W. 783. 

$6,565, permanent injury and impair- 
ment of capacity to labor of married 
woman. Miller v. Boone County, 95 
Iowa, 5, 63 N. W. 352. 

$7,000, third trial, business man com- 
pelled to give up business. Southern 
Ry. V. Goddard (Ky.), 108 S. W. 890. 

$7,000, earning capacity of man of 
twenty-seven greatly and permanently 
diminished. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Cox (Ky.), 141 S. W. 59. 

$7,000, earning capacity of man 
greatly and permanently reduced. 
Weeks v. Fletcher (R. I.), 71 Atl. 881. 

$7,500 (reduced from $9,500), total 
disability of strong man. Booker v. 
Southwest Mo. R. R., 144 Mo. App. 
273, 128 S. W. 1012. 

$7,500, total permanent disability of 
man of twenty-nine, already of im- 
paired ability. Dunkin v. Hoquiam, 56 
Wash. 47, 105 Pac. 149. 



"* Where the injui-y made the plain- 
tiff a cripple, the following verdicts 
have been upheld: 

$1,000. Weil V. Kreutzer, 134 Ky. 
563, 121 S. W. 471. 

$1,500. Sidmonds v. Brooklyn 
Heights R. R., 69 App. Div. 471, 74 
N. Y. Supp. 989. 

$1,750. Oohtic Stone Co. v. Ridge, 
(Ind.), 91 N. E. 944. 

$2,500. Miller v. Canton, 123 Mo. 
App. 325, 100 S. W. 671. 

$3,200. Poll V. Numa Block Coal 
Co., 149 la. 104, 127 N. W. 1105. 

$3,500. W. G. Morel & Co. v. Leh- 
man, 159 Fed. 124, 86 C. C. A. 512. 

$6,000. Freeman v. Ortiz (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 136 S. W. 113. 

$7,500. Thomas v. Union Ry., 18 
App. Div. 185, 45 N. Y. Supp. 920. 



$8,000. Heer v. Warren-Scharf 
Asphalt Paving Co., 118 Wis. 57, 94 
N. W. 789. 

$10,000. Foster v. Missouri Pac. 
Ry., 115 Mo. 165, 21 S. W. 916. 

$12,500. El Paso Electric Ry. v. 
Shaklee (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S.W. 188. 

$15,000. Patzke v. Minneapohs & S. 
L. Ry., 109 Minn. 97, 129 N. W. 124. 

$15,000. International & G. N. R. 
R. V. Hugen, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 326, 
100 S. W. 1000. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$15,000; reduced to $10,000. Fur- 
nish V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 102 Mo. 438, 
13 S. W. 1044, 22 Am. St. Rep. 781. 

$13,500; reduced to $7,000. Cop- 
pins V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 48 
Hun, 292. 



2716 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1355 



and in some respects the most 

$7,660, cppductor of freight tr?,in, 
age thirty, permanently disabled from 
business. Barker v. Burlington, C. R. 
& N. Ry., 88 la. 409, 55 N. W. 316. 

$8,000, disfigurement and serious im- 
pairment of earning capacity of .man. 
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Glqssup, 88 
Ark. 225, 114 S. W. 247. 

$8,000, leg shortened, curvature of 
spine, inability to do hard .work. An- 
derson V. Pittsburg Coal Qo., 108 Minn. 
455, 122 N. W. 794. 

$8,000, permanent injury interfering 
with earning power of physician. 
Quinn v. O'Keefe, 9 App. Div. 68, 75, 
41 N. Y. Supp. 116. 

$8,000, disabling brakeman from act- 
ing as such, shock to nervous system 
and pain. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Stoy, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 448, 99 S. W. 
135. 

$8,000, injury to spine and chest of 
boy of fourteen, earning capacity per- 
manently impaired. Ferguson v. Truax, 
132 Wis. 478, 110 N.- W. 395, 111 
N. W. 657, 112 N. W. 513. 

$8,800, bookkeeper, age fifty-eight, 
permanent total disability, life short- 
ened. Cooper V. St. Paul City Ry., 55 
Minn. 134, 56 N. W. 42. 

$9,000, permanent incapacity of 
minor, destruction of function. Jones 
V. Bunker HiU & S. M. & C. Co., 124 
Fed. 675. 

$9,000, total destruction of earning 
capacity of man of fifty-six, earning at 
most $1,500 a year. Furman v. Brook- 
lyn Heights R. R., 25 App. Div. 133, 
49 N. Y. Supp. 194. 

$9,000, total inability to pursue trade 
of printer, age forty-two. Houston 
City St. Ry. v. Medlenka, 17 Tex. Civ. 
App. 621, 43 S. W. 1028. 

$9,000, negro, age twenty-one, frac- 
ture of skull, operation, paralysis, eye- 
sight affected, mind impaired, total 
inability to work. Texas & N. O. R. R. 
!;. McCoy, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 278, 117 
S. W. 446. 



serious injury of this sort is the 

$10,000, loconiptiye .fire?nan, .age 
forty-one, pfiralysis apd tptal disability. 
Central of Q^. Ry. v. Mote, 131 Ga. 
166, 62 S. E. 164. 

$10,P00, boy of sijcteen, permanent 
helpless invalid. 3- Shoninger Co. v. 
Mann, 121 .111. App. 275, affirnjed, 219 
m.,242, 76.N. E. 354. 

$10,000, woman of thirty, employed 
in business,, permanent impairment of 
ability to labor. Chicago v. McNally, 
128 111. App. 375, a,ffirmed,.227 111. 14, 
81 N. E. 23. 

$10,000, permanent reduction of earn- 
ing capE^city by two-thirds. Wilcke v. 
Henrotin, 146 111. App. 481, affirmed, 
241 lU. 169, 89 N. E. 329. 

$10,000, physician, permanent dis- 
ability to practice. Carthage Turn- 
pike Co. V. Andrews, 102 Ind. 138, 1 
N. E. 364, 52 Am. Rep. 653. 

$10,000, manof thirty-five, sight and 
hearing impaired, skull fractured, per- 
manent incapacity from pursuing voca- 
tion. Indianapolis St. Ry. v. Kane, 169 
Ind. 25, 80 N. E. 841, 81 N. E. 721. 

$10,000, scalding, intense suffering, 
deaf, inabihty to do hard work. St. 
Louis & S. F. R. Ja. V. McLain, 80 Tex. 
85, 15 S. W. 789. 

$10,000, locomotive engineer, age 
forty-four, peimanently disabled from 
pursuing occupation. Texas & N. O. 
R. R. V. Middleton, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 
497, 103 S. W. 203. 

$10,000, healthy man rendered un- 
able to do farm work. Missouri, K. & 
T. Ry. V. Dunbar (Tex. Qv. App.), 122 
S. W. 574. 

$10,000, brakeman totally disabled 
for manual work, great suffering. 
Daniels v. Union Pac. Ry., 6 Utah, 357, 
23 Pac. 762. 

$10,325, permanent disabiUty and 
great suffering. Van Orman ti. Lake 
Shore & M. S. Ry., 152 Mich. 185, 115 
N. W. 968. 

$10,500, woman of thirty-eight, in 
business, permanently incapacitated. 



§1355 



PERMANENT CRIPPLING 



2717 



crippling of a leg, or some part 

Smith «. Spokane, 16 Wash'. 403, 47 
Pac. 888. 

$11,000, fireman, right arm rendered 
useless, permanent injury. Baird v. 
New> York- Cent. &~ H. R. R. R., 64 
App. Div. 14, 71 N. Y. Supp. 734. 

$il,500, young vigorous rtian dis- 
abled from manual labor, great pain. 
Citizens' Telephone Co. v. Wakefield 
(Ky.), 126 S. W. 127. 

$1 1,500, brakeman; age twenty-seven; 
inability to earn living. Missouri, K. & 
T. Ry. V. Chambers, 17 Tex. Civ. App; 
487, 43 S. W. 1090. 

$12,000, permanent illness and total 
disability of man twenty-five years old. 
Denhison L. &' I*. Co. v: Patton'(Tex. 
Civ. App;), 135 S. W. 1040. 

$12,500, perrnarient incapacity frdfti 
manual labor' of m'an of forty-five. 
Maw V. Coast' Lurriber Co., 19 Ida. 
396, 114 Pac; 9; 

$12,500, man' of forty-four, physical 
wreck," earning power periiiafiently im- 
paired. Loiiisville & N. R; R. v. 
Smith, 134 Ky. 47, 122 S: W. 806. 

$l2,500, physician, loss of faculties, 
forced to abandon' practice; Gulf, C. 
& S. F. Ry. V. Brown, 16 Tex. Civ. App; 
93, 40 S. W. 60S. 

$12,500, man of 'fifty-twb' totally in-» 
capacitated for work; International & 
G. N. R. R. V. Woodward, 26 Tex. Civ. 
App. 389, 63S. W. 1051. 

112,750, woman of twenty-two, meH- 
tal and physical faculties permanently 
impaired. Hoskovec v. Omah^St; Ry;, 
85 Neb. 2S5, 123 N. W. BOS'. 

$14,000, man of fifty-nine, physical 
wreck for life. Wallace v: 'Vadutim Oil 
Co., 12 N. Y. Supp. 425'. 

$14,000, girl of fi'fieen, fractured 
skull, intense pain, epileptic, insainity 
or death hkely, constant care. 'Van De 
Bogart v: Marinette & M. P. Co., 132 
Wis'. 367, 112 ^f; W. 443.' 

$14,583, brakeman of twen'ty-six, 
earning capacity seriously diminished 
by injury to spine. Missouri, K. & T. 



of it; and many verdicts giv- 

Ry. v. Hawley (Tex. Civ. App.), 123 
S. W. 726. 

$15,000, woman of twenty-nine, con- 
flrined' invalid. Chicago Union Tract. 
Co. V. May, 125 111! App. 144, affirmed, 
221 111. 530, 77 N. E, 933. 

$15,000, mental and physical' inca- 
pacity of woman. Terre Haute & I. R. 
R.V. Sheets, 155 Irid. 74, 56 N. E. 534. 

$15,000, incurable paralysis of left 
side. Bishop w. St. Paul City Ry., 48 
Minn. 26, 50 N. W. 927. 

$15,000, hoUse-pAinter deformed, and 
permanently incapacitated for labor. 
Sfehneider v. Second Ave. R. R., 15 
N. Y. Supp. 566. 

$15,000, flfeman, twetrty-ofie years 
old, spiile injured, incapacitated for 
work. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Garrett, 44 Tex. Civ. Apip. 406, 98 
S. W. 932. 

$15,000, boy of seventeen, serious and 
permanent internal injuries and ner- 
volls troubles. International & G. N. 
R. R. v: Miller (Tex. Civ. App.), 124 
S. W; 109; 

$15,000, paralysis of woman of 
thirty, helpless for' remainder of fife. 
Searfe"!). Seattle Consol. St. R. R., 6 
Wash. 227, 33 Pac. 389; 1081. 

$16,000, man of fifty-five, double 
rupture, physical wreck, inability to 
perform serious laibor; Freeman v. 
Cleary (Tex. Civ. App;), 136 S; W. 521. 

$16,500, lawyer of thirty-nine, income 
of $7,000 to $^,500, permanent' injury 
to throat, permatient loss of iricbtne' of 
about' $'4,000 a year. JohnSon v. 
Unioh Pac. R. R., 35 Utah, 285, 100 
Pac. 390. 

$17,000, total physical and mental 
wreck. Dupuis v. Sagin'aw'Val'ley Trac. 
Co., 146 Mich. 151, 109 N. W. 413. 

$18,000, skilled mechanic, thirty 'two 
years old, disfigured, permanently un- 
able to follow trade as mechanic. Mc- 
CuUbugh v: 111. Steel Co., 148 111. App. 
566. 

$20,000, man of twenty-nine, paraly- 



2718 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1355 



ing compensation for damages 

sis, nerves shattered, sight and hearing 
affected. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Nass (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 910. 

$20,000, man of twenty-nine, perma- 
nent injury. Postal T. C. Co. v. Coote 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 912. 

$20,000, locomotive engineer of 
forty-nine, great pain, paralyzed, total 
disability. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Cherry (Tex. Civ. App.), 98 S. W. 898. 

$20,000, expert printer, paralyzed 
and permanently incapable. Missouri, 
K. & T. Ry. V. Bailey, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 
295, 115 S. W. 601. 

$20,000, switchman, great physical 
and mental suffering, invahd for life, 
total disability. Galveston, H. & S. A. 
Ry. V. Hanson (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 
S. W. 63. 

$20,000, railroad section man, forty- 
three years old, paralyzed, permanent 
total incapacity. Tills v. Great North- 
ern Ry., 50 Wash. 536, 97 Pac. 737. 

$20,000, miner of thirty-seven, per- 
manent incapacity and suffering. 
Starck u. Washington U. C. Co., 61 
Wash. 213, 112 Pao. 235. 

123,750, young man crippled by in- 
jury to spine, paralysis. Missouri, K. 
& T. Ry. V. Farris (Tex. Civ. App.), 120 
S. W. 535. 

$25,000. Dieffenbach v. New York, 
X. E. & W. R. R., 38 N. Y. Supp. 788. 

$30,000, man of thirty-six in extensive 
business, paralysis and total disabihty 
to engage in business. Smith v. Whit- 
tier, 95 Cal. 279, 30 Pac. 529. 

$30,000, boy of eighteen, sight im- 
paired, mutilated, face disfigured, ex- 
cruciating pain, total disability. Wa- 
ters-Pierce Oil Co. V. Snell, 47 Tex. Civ. 
App. 413, 106 S. W. 170. 

$30,000, railroad brakeman, complete 
paralysis, helpless. Houston & T. C. 
R. R. V. Gray (Tex. Civ. App.), 137 
S. W. 729. 

$40,000, man of twenty-nine, private 
secretary, comminuted fracture of 
skull, progressive traumatic epilepsy. 



of this kind have been consid- 

Hughes V. Harbor & S. B. & S. Assoc, 
131 App. Div. 185, 115 N. Y. Supp. 320. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$50,000, brakeman, twenty-two years 
old, totally incapacitated, died during 
trial from broken back; reduced to 
$25,000. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. 
Brown, 97 Ark. 505, 140 S. W. 279. 

$30,000, fireman crippled for life, 
mind unimpaired; reduced to $20,000. 
Strand v. Great Northern Ry., 101 
Minn. 85, 1 1 1 N. W. 958, 1 12 N. W. 987. 

$30,000, disability; reduced to 
$20,000. Cleveland H. V. & T. Ry. v. 
Shannon, 4 Oh. Cir. Ct. 449. 

$30,000, girl of eight; reduced to 
$12,000. Mitchell v. Taooma R. & M. 
Co., 13 Wash. 560, 43 Pac. 528. 

$25,000, man of thirty-one became 
physical wreck; reduced to $12,050. 
Foley V. Everett, 142 111. App. 250. 

$25,000, man of forty-one became 
physically helpless; reduced to $20,000. 
Waterman v. Chicago & A. R. R., 82 
Wis. 613, 52 N. W. 247. 

$21,000, woman, partial disability. 
Vester v. Rhode Island Co. (R. I.), 67 
Atl. 444. 

$15,000, young man, earning capacity 
partially impaired. Chitty v. St. Louis, 
I. M. & S. Ry., 148 Mo. 64, 49 S. W. 
868. 

$12,000, former partial disability 
made total. Louisville & N. R. R. 
V. Kingman, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 82, 35 
S. W. 264. 

$9,000, diminished earning power of 
mason's tender who had earned $2 a 
day; reduced to $5,000. Morris v. 
Eighth Ave. R. R., 68 Hun, 39, 22 
N. Y. Supp. 666. 

$9,000, woman of fifty-five, house- 
keeper; reduced to $6,000. Stone v. 
Seattle, 33 Wash. 644, 74 Pac. 808. 

$8,000, partly permanent disability. 
Campbell v. N. A. Brewing Co., 47 
N. Y. Supp. 992. 
^ $8,000, permanent injury to unskilled 



§ 1355 



PERMANENT CEIEPLING 



2719 



ered."^ In many cases also the court has considered and has 

$3,000. Arkansas Lumber Co. v. 
Wallace (Ark.), 139 S. W. 534. 

$3,500. Rayburn v. Central Iowa 
Ry., 74 la. 637, 34 N. W. 621. 

$3,500. Napier v. Brooklyn Heights 
R. R., 68 App. Div. 200, 74 N. Y. 
Supp. 7. 

$3,650. Gorham v. Kansas City & S. 
Ry., 113 Mo. 408, 20 S. W. 1060. 

$4,000. Bryant v. Omaha & C. B. 
R. & B. Co., 98 la. 483, 67 N. W. 392. 

$4,000. Goins v. Moberly, 127 Mo. 
116, 29 S. W. 985. 

$4,346.93. Bertsch v. Metropolitan 
St. Ry., 68 App. Div. 228, 74 N. Y. 
Supp. 238. 

$4,500. Foels u. Tonawanda, 59 
Hun, 567, 14 N. Y. Supp. 46. 

$5,000. Greenway v. Taylor County, 
144 la. 332, 122 N. W. 943, 

$5,000. Stewart v. St. Louis South- 
western Ry., 157 Mo. App. 225, 130 
S. W. 441. 

$5,000. Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Parrish (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. 
536. 

$5,000. Hoffman v. Rib Lake Lum- 
ber Co., 136 Wis. 388, 117 N. W. 789. 

$6,000. Chicago & J. E. Ry. v. 
Patton, 122 111. App. 174. 

$6,000. Molway v. Chicago, 144 
111. App. 509, 239 111. 486, 88 N. E. 
485. 

$6,000. Chamlee v. Planters' Hotel 
Co., 155 Mo. App. 144, 134 S. W. 
123. 

$6,090. Jordan v. Seattle, 30 Wash. 
298, 70 Pac. 743. 

$6,500. Sellick v. J. Langdon & Co., 
59 Hun. 627, 13 N. Y. Supp. 858. 

$6,583.33. Berry v. St. Louis, M. & 
S. E. R. R., 214 Mo. 593, 114 S. W. 
27. 

$7,500. International & G. N. R. R. 
V. Clark (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 
959. 

$8,000. Henry v. Sioux City & P. 
Ry., 75 la. 84, 39 N. W. 193, 9 Am. 
St. Rep. 457. 



laborer; reduced to $5,000. Jones v. 
Niagara Junction Ry., 63 App. Div. 
607, 71 N. Y. Supp. 647. 

$7,500, partial incapacity for work; 
reduced to $4,000. Heck v. Interna- 
tional S. P. Co., 77 N. J. L. 4, 71 Atl. 
150. 

"* In cases of crippling a leg the fol- 
lowing verdicts have been upheld: 

$750. Seller v. Levy, 68 Misc. 182, 
127 N. Y. Supp. 237. 

$1,000. Morgan v. Fremont County, 
92 la. 644, 61 N. W. 231. 

$1,000. Weil V. Kreutzer, 134 Ky. 
47, 121 S. W. 471, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
657. 

$1,125. Louisville & N. R. R. i-. 
Campbell, 122 S. W. 848 (Ky.). 

$1,200 (reduced from $2,000) Wash- 
ington L. P. Co. V. Goodrich, 110 Va. 
692, 66 S. E. 977. 

$1,200. Cook V. Chehalis River 
Lumber Co., 48 Wash. 619, 94 Pac. 
189. 

$1,450. Fitzgerald v. Dobson, 78 
Me. 659, 7 Atl. 704. 

$1,600. Armstrong v. Auburn, 84 
Neb. 842, 122 N. W. 43. 

$1,650. Larsen v. Sedro-WooUey, 49 
Wash. 134, 94 Pac. 938. 

$2,000. Consolidated Coal Co. v. 
Shepherd, 122 111. App. 323; affirmed 
220 111. 123, 77 N. E. 133. 

$2,000. Bowling Green Stone Co. v. 
Capshaw, 64 S. W. 507, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 
945. 

, $2,000. Winn v. MetropoUtan St. 
Ry., 121 Mo. App. 623, 97 S. W. 547. 

$2,000. Biggie v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
R. R. (Mo. App.), 140 S. W. 602. 

$2,000. Wilcox V. Rhode Island Co., 
29 R. I. 292, 70 Atl. 913. 

$2,500. Carey v. Brooklyn Heights 
R. R., 124 App. Div. 524, 108 N. Y. 
Supp. 1034. 

$2,800. Lattimore v. Union E. L. & 
P. Co., 128 Mo. App. 37, 106 S. W. 543. 

•$3,000. Woodward Iron Co. v. 
Sheehan, 166 Ala. 429, 52 So. 24. 



2720 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1356 



upheld or set aside as excessive vtifdicts for crippling some 
part of an arm."* 

§ 1356. Loss of a member: leg or foot. 

For the loss of a leg, verdicts take a wide range, according to 



18,000. Stephens v. Schmidt, 80 
N. J. L. 193, 76 Atl. 332. 

$8,500. Uren v. Golden Tunnel Min. 
Co., 24 Wash. 261, 64 Pac. 174; 

$9,000 (of which $1,000 for expenses); 
International & G. N. Ry. v. Brett, 61 
Tex. 483. 

$10,000. Field «: Winheim, 123 111. 
App. 227. 

$10,000. Galveston v. Posnainsky, 
62 Tex. 118, 50 Am. Rep. 617. 

$12,000. International & G. N. 
R. R. V. Poloma (TeX. Civ. App.), 123 
S. W. 1149. 

$14,000. Yazoo & M; V. R. R; v. 
Scott, 95 Miss. 43, 48 So. 239. 

$15,000. Mitchell v. Broadway & 
Seventh Ave. R. R., 70 Htm, 387, 24 
N. Y. Supp. 32. 

$15,000. Chicago City Ry. v. Tay- 
lor, 68 111. App. 613. 

$20,000. Clark v. St: L. & S. Ry. 
(Mo.), 137 S.' W; 583. 

$20,000. Lynch t). American Lin- 
seed Co., 122- App. Div. 42'8, 107 N. Y. 
Supp. 458. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$40,000. St; Lotais;' I. M. & S. Ry. 
V. Waren, 65 Ark. 619, 48 S. W. 
222. 

$18,000; reduced to $'16,000'. San 
Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. Coffiiell, 27 
Tex. Civ. App. 533, 66 S. W. 246. 

$15,000 ; reduced to $10,000. Chitty 
V. St. Louis, I; Ml & S; Ry., 166 Mo; 
435, 65 S. W. 959. 

$15,000; reduced to $8,000; Chap- 
man '». Atlantic Ave. R. R., 36 N. Y. 
Supp. 1045. 

$10,000; reduced to $5,000. Cogs- 
well V. West St. &■ N. E. E. Ry., 5 
Wash. 46, 31 Pac. 411. 



$7,500; reduced to $4,000. Kirby v. 
St. Louis' & S. P. R. R. (Mo. App.), 130 
S. W. 69. 

$5,500; reduced to $3,600. Deht v. 
Springfield Trac. Co. (Mo. App.), 129 
S. W. 1044. 

$5,000; reduced to $4,000. Zeigler v. 
Metropolitan St. Ry. (Mo. App.), 134 
S; W. 1067. 

™ In cases of crippling an arm, or 
part' of it, the following verdicts have 
been upheld: 

$500. Youht V. Strickland, 17 Wyo. 
526, 101 Pac; 942. 

$1,000. MacMurray v. Sioux City, 
150 la. 257, 129 N. W. 950. 

$1,000. Kielty v. Buehler-Cooney 
Const. Co., 121 Mo. App. 58, 97 S. W. 
998. 

$1,250. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. 
Sauter, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 309, 103 
S. W. 201. 

$1,300. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. 
Stewart, 130 111. App. 197; affirmed 
230 111. 204, 82 N. E. 590. 

$1,400. Yellow T. L. Co. v. Ford, 
141 Ky. 5, 131 S. W. 1010. 

$1,995. Shalgren v. Red Cliff Lum- 
ber Co., 95 Minn. 450, 104 N. W. 
631. 

$2,500. Chicago City Ry. v. Shreve, 
128 111. App! 462; affirmed 226 111. 630, 
80 N. E. 1049. 

$2,500. Graff v. Illinois Steel Co., 
146 111. App; 238. 

$2,500. Gregory v. Slaughter, 124 
Ky. 345, 99 S. W. 247, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
1228. 

$3,000. Nicholson C. M. Co. v. 
Moulden (Ky.), 136 S. W. 620. 

$3,500. Louisville Cooperage Co. v. 
Farmer, 109 S. W. 893, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 
1110. 



§1356 



LOSS OF A member: leg or foot 



2721 



the earning power of the plaintiff, the amount of pain and suf- 
fering and of medical expenses, and the nature of the accom- 
panying injuries; arid large verdicts have been sustained; "' 

"' The following verdicts for loss of 
a leg have been upheld: 

$2,286. The William Bratafoot, 48 
Fed. 914 (S500 of this was for suffering) 

$2,500. Williamson v. Brooklyn 
Heights R. R., 53 App. Div. 399, 65 
N. Y. Supp. 1054. 

$3,000. The Iroquois, 113 Fed. 964. 

$4,000. Cleveland, C. C. & S. L. Ry. 
V. Foland (Ind. App.), 88 N. E. 787. 

$4,300. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Pitts (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 255. 

$5,000. Brophy v. Illinois Steel Co., 
144 111. App. 309, affirmed 242 111. 55, 
89 N. E. 684. 

$5,500. Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. 
Fort.une, 107 Va. 412, 59 S. E. 1095. 

$6,000. Hebert v. Kingston Lum- 
ber Co., 126 La. 775, 52 So. 1021. 

87,000 (reduced from $10,000). 
Buckry-Ellis v. Missouri Pac. Ry. (Mo. 
App.), 138 S. W. 912. 

$7,000. Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 59 
App. Div. 467, 69 N. Y. Supp. 271. 

$7,500. Com Products Refining Co. 
V. King, 168 Fed. 892, 94 C. C. A. 304. 

$7,500. Thompson v. Great North- 
ern Ry., 79 Minn. 291, 82 N. W. 637. 

$7,500. Flaherty v. St. Louis Transit 
Co., 207 Mo. 318, 106 S. W. 15. 

$8,000. Whalen v. St. Louis, K. C. 
& N. R. R., 60 Mo. 323. 

$8,000. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Dehnisch (Tei. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 
64. 

$8,500. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Price, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 210, 106 S. W. 
700. 

$8,500. Odegard v. North Wis. 
Lumber Co., 130 Wis. 669, 110 N. W. 
809. 

$9,000. Price & Lucas C. & V. Co. v. 
Haley, 125 S. W. 720, 137 Ky. 305. 

$9,450 (reduced from $15,000). Sor- 
enson v. Oregon Power Co., 47 Ore. 24, 
82 Pac. 10. 



$3,500. Detzur v. B. Stroh Brewing 
Co., 119 Mich. 282, 77 N. W. 948. 

$3,500. Sampson v. St. Louis & S. 
F. R. R. (Mo. App.), 138 S. W. 98. 

$4,000. McCoy v. Milwaukee St. 
Ry., 88 Wis. 56, 59 N. W. 453. 

$4,500. Robinson v. St. Louis & S. 
F. R. R., i33 Mo. App. 101, 112 S. W. 
730. 

$4,500. Barree v. Cape Girardeau, 
132 Mo. App. 182, 112 S. W. 724. 

$4,750 (reduced from $7,500). 
Nolan V. Stillwater L. Co. (Wash.), 118 
Pac. 340. 

$4,750. Banderob v. Wisconsin 
Cent. Ry., 133 Wis. 249, 113 N. W. 
738. 

$6,200. Weinhardt v. New Orleans, 
125 I-a. 361, 51 So. 286. 

$7,500. Pearson v. Alaska Pac. S. S. 
Co., 51 Wash. 560, 99 Pac, 753. 

$7,922. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. 
Seeger (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 
1170. 

$8,000. O'Keefe v. Eighth Ave. R. 
R., 33 App. Div. 324, 53 N. Y. Supp. 
940. 

$9,500. Knapp v. Sioux City & P. 
Ry., 71 la. 41, 32 N. W. 18. 

$10,000. Cleveland, C. C. & S. L. 
R. R. V. Hadley, 170 Ind. 204, 82 N. E. 
1025, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 527. 

In the following cases verdicts were 
held excessive: 

$25,000. Standard Oil Co. v. Tier- 
ney, 92 Ky. 367, 17 S. W. 1025, 36 Am. 
St. Rep. 595, 14 L. R. A. 677. 

$10,000; reduced to $6,000. Texas 
& N. O. R. R. V. Geiger, 55 Tex. Civ. 
App. 1, 118 S. W. 179. 

$5,000; reduced to $2,000. Cordrey 
V. Washington Stevedore Co. (Wash.), 
118 Pac. 324. 

$4,500. Georgetown W. G. E. & 
P. Co. V. Forwood (Ky.), 113 S. W. 
112. 

171 



2722 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1356 



On the other hand verdicts have been found excessive in many 

$12,000. Akersloot v. Second Ave. 



$10,000. Montgomery Traction Co. 
V. Knabe, 158 Ala. 458, 48 So. 601. 

810,000. Louisiana & A. R. R. 
V. Hobbs, 87 Ark. 641, 113 S. W. 
46. 

$10,000. Pennsylvania Co. v. Reidy, 
99 111. App. 477. 

$10,000. Momence Stone Co. v. 
Groves, 100 III. App. 98. 

$10,000. Ecltels V. Edison, 139 111. 
App. 75. 

$10,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Mitchell, 87 Ky. 327, 8 S. W. 706. 

$10,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Popp, 96 Ky. 99, 112, 27 N. W. 992, 16 
Ky. L. Rep. 369. 

$10,000. HoUenbeck v. Missouri 
Pac. Ry., 141 Mo. 113, 38 S. W. 
727. 

$10,000. Swearingen v. Consol. 
Troup Min. Co., 212 Mo. 524, 111 
S. W. 545. 

$10,000. Garoni v. Compagnie Na- 
tional, 14 N. Y. Supp. 798. 

$10,000. Houston & T. C. Ry. v. 
Kelley, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 34 S. W. 
809. 

$10,000. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. 
Warner, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 54 
S. W. 1064. 

$10,000. International & G. N. R. 
R. V. Morin (Tex. Civ. App.), 116 S. 
W. 656. 

$10,000. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Redus, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 206, 118 
S. W. 208. 

$10,000. Yerkes v. Northern Pac. 
Ry., 112 Wis. 184, 88 N. W. 33. 

$11,000. Louisville Ry. v. Bryant 
(Ky.), 134 S. W. 182. 

$11,500. Hill V. Starin, 65 App. Div. 
361, 73 N. Y. Supp. 91. 

$11,500. Texas & P. Ry. v. Johnson 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 186. 

$12,000, second verdict. Missouri 
Pac. Ry. V. Mackey, 33 Kan. 298, 6 
Pac. 291. 

$12,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Schroader, 113 S. W. 874 (Ky.) 



R. R., 16 N. Y. Supp. 864. 

$12,500. Eichhom v. Central R. R., 
185 Fed. 624. 

$12,500. Kentucky Cent. Ry. v. 
Ryle, 18 S. W. 938, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 
862. 

$12,500. Texas & P. Ry. v. Johnson 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 186. 

$12,500. Texas & N. O. R. R. v. 
Parsons (Tex. Civ. App.), 109 S. W. 
240. 

$13,500. Parker v. Fairbanks-Morse 
Mfg. Co., 130 Wis. 525, 110 N. W. 
409. 

$13,740. Texas & N. O. Ry. v. Carr 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 126. 

$14,000. Galveston, H. & N. Ry. v. 
Murphy, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 420, 114 
S. W. 443. 

$15,000. Central of Ga. Ry. v. Fore- 
hand, 128 Ga. 547, 58 S. E. 44. 

$15,000. Chicago City Ry. v. Wil- 
cox, 33 111. App. 450. 

$15,000. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. 
Ry. V. Lynn (Ind.), 95 N. E. 577. 

$15,000. Lee v. Powell Bros. & 
Sanders Co., 126 La. 51, 52 So. 
214. 

$15,000. Oglesby v. Missouri Pac. 
Ry. (Mo.), 37 S. W. 829. 

$15,000. Kalfur v. Broadway F. & 
M. A. R. R., 51 N. Y. Supp. 179, 54 
N. Y. Supp. 503, 34 App. Div. 
267. 

$15,000. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Harris, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 542, 101 
S. W. 506. 

$16,000. Roth V. Union Depot Co., 
13 Wash. 526, 646, 43 Pac. 641, 31 L. 
R. A. 855. 

$15,000. Bugge V. Seattle Electric 
Co., 64 Wash. 483, 103 Pac. 824. 

$17,000. Walsh v. New York Cent. 
& H. R. R., 140 App. Div. 1, 124 N. Y. 
Supp. 312. 

$18,000. Murray v. Brooklyn City 
Ry., 7 N. Y. Supp. 900. 

$18,000. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 



§1356 



LOSS OF A member: leg oe foot 



2723 



178 



cases/" For the loss of both legs very heavy damages have 
been allowed."* Much less damages will be permitted in the 



V. Hynes, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 34, 50 
S. W. 624. 

$20,000. Burch v. Southern Pac. 
Co., 32 Nev. 75, 104 Pac. 225. 

$23,000. Erickson v. Brooklyn 
Heights Ry., 11 Misc. 662, 32 N. Y. 
Supp. 915. 

$25,000. Ehrman v. Brooklyn City 
R. R., 14 N. Y. Supp. 336. 

$25,000. Reeks v. Seattle Electric 
Co., 54 Wash. 609, 104 Pac. 126. 

"' In the following cases verdicts 
were held excessive: 

$35,000; reduced to $25,000. Noakes 
V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. R., 
121 App. Div. 716, 106 N. Y. Supp. 
522. 

$30,000; reduced to $20,000. Fisher 
V. Barber (Tex. Civ. App.), 130 S. W. 
871. 

$25,000. TuUy v. New York & T. 
S. S. Co., 42 N. Y. Supp. 29, 11 App. 
Div. 630, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1134. 

$25,000. Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. v. 
Bernard (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 
686. 

$23,071; reduced to $17,500. O'Brien 
V. J. G. White & Co., 105 Me. 308, 
74 Atl. 721. 

$20,320; reduced to $12,000. Alumi- 
num Co. V. Ramsey, 89 Ark. 522, 117 
S. W. 568. 

$20,000; reduced to $15,000. Texas 
& N. O. Ry. V. Conway, 44 Tex. Civ. 
App. 68, 98 S. W. 1070. 

$16,000, third verdict; reduced to 
$9,000. Bailey v. Rome, W. & O. R. 
R., 80 Hun, 4, 29 N. Y. Supp. 816. 

$15,000; reduced to $12,000. Wim- 
ber V. Iowa Cent. Ry., 114 la. 551, 87 
N. W. 505. 

$15,000; reduced to $10,000. Brady 
V. Kansas City St. L. & C. R. R., 206 
Mo. 509, 102 S. W. 978. 

$15,000. Quirk v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 
26 Misc. 244, 56 N. Y. Supp. 49. 

$10,000; reduced to $6,000. Bell V. 



Globe Lumber Co., 107 La. 725, 31 So. 
994. 

$9,500; reduced to $6,000. Rangenier 
V. Seattle Electric Co., 52 Wash. 401, 
100 Pac. 842. 

$9,000; reduced to $5,000. Morris v. 
Eighth Ave. R. R., 68 Hun, 39, 22 
N. Y. Supp. 666. 

$8,000. Baker v. Public Service Ry., 
79 N. J. L. 249, 75 Atl. 441. 

"» For the loss of both legs the fol- 
lowing verdicts have been upheld: 

$7,500. Macon & B. Ry. v. Parker, 
127 Ga. 471, 56 8. E. 616. 

$9,000. Southern Pac. Co. v. Hart, 
53 Tex. Civ. App. 536, 116 S. W. 
415. 

$13,000. Colorado Midland Ry. v. 
O'Brien, 16 Colo. 219, 27 Pac. 701. 

$15,000. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. 
Stewart, 63 S. W. 596, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 
637. 

$20,000. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. 
L. Ry. V. Simons (Ind.), 79 N. E. 
911. 

$22,500. St. Louis, S. W. Ry. v. 
Cleland, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 499, 110 
S. W. 122. 

$25,000. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. j,. 
Rogers, 93 Ark. 564, 126 S. W. 375, 
1199. 

$27,500. Union Pacific Ry. v. Con- 
nolly, 77 Neb. 254, 109 N. W. 368. 

$30,000. Pennsylvania Co. v. Bar- 
ton, 130 111. App. 573. 

$35,000. Whitehead v. Wisconsin 
Cent. Ry., 103 Minn. 13, 114 N. W. 
254, 467. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$50,000; reduced to $30,000. Yazoo 
& M. V. R. R. V. Wallace, 91 Miss. 492, 
45 So. 857. 

$30,000. Heddles ». Chicago & N. 
W. Ry., 74 Wis. 239, 42 N. W. 
237. 



2724 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1357 



case of loss of a foot ^^ or a p^rt of it,^^' or even for the loss of 
two feet.^'^ 



§ 1357. Loss of a member: arm, hand or finger. 

Verdicts for loss erf an arm have been considered; '*' generally 



ISO por loss of a foot the following 
verdicts have beeA upheld: 

$6,950. Elliott V. Newport St. Ry., 
18 R. I. 707, 31 Atl. 694. 

$8,000. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. 
Green, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 5, 49 S. W. 
670. 

$9,000. Manley v. New York C. & 
H. R. R. R., 18 Misc. 502, 42 N. Y. 
Supp. 1076. 

$10,000. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. 
Sparks, 81 Ark. 187, 99 S. W. 73. 

$10,000. Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. 
Davis, 60 S. W. 14, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 
1156. 

$10,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Mitchell, 87 Ky. 327, 8 S. W. 706, 10 
Ky. L. Rep. 211. 

$10,000. Southern Ry. v. Isom, 92 
Miss. 82, 45 So. 424. 

$10,500. Chipman v. Union Pac. 
R. R., 12 Utah, 68, 41 Pac. 562. 

$15,00b. Galvest6n, H. & N. Ry. v. 
Newport (Tex. Civ. App.), 65 S. W. 
657. 

$15,060. Texas & N. O. R. R. v. Mc- 
Leod (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 
311. 

$16,<K)0. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 
V. Abbey, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 211, 68 
S. W. 293. 

In thte following cases the amount 
was held excessive. 

$22,500. International & G. N. R,. 
R. V. Brice (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 
613. 

$12,500; reduced to $6,000. Blades v. 
Des Moihes City Ry., 146 la. 580, 123 
N. W. 1057. 

$12,000; reduced to $8,000. Kroener 
I'. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 88 la. 16, 
55 N. W. 137. 

$12,000; reduced to $9,000. Chicago, 



B. & Q. R. R. V. Krayenbuhl, 70 Neb. 
766, 98 N. W. 44. 

$10,000. Peri v. New York C. & H. 
R. R. R., 87 Hun, 499, 34 N. Y. Supp. 
1009. 

'*' For the loss of part of a foot the 
following verdicts were upheld: 

$1,500, big toe. Jacobsen v. Roths- 
child, 62 Wash. 127, 113 Pac. 261. 

$3,500, three toes, great pain. Lar- 
kin V. New York & N. R. R., 19 N. Y. 
Supp. 479. 

$5,000, second verdict. W. M. Rit- 
ter Lumber Co. v. Jordan, 138 Ky. 522, 
128 S. W. 596. 

$11,000. Jordan v. New York & H. 
R. R., 16 Daly 130, 9 N. Y. Supp. 506. 

"2 For the loss of both feet the fol- 
lowing verdicts were upheld: 

$3,000. Chicago & J. E. Ry. v. Bar- 
rows, 128 111. App. 11. 

$9,600. Texas & N. O. R. R. v. 
Buch (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 316. 

$10,006, and $2,000 additional for 
pain. The Ruth, 178 Fed. 749. 

The following were held excessive: 

$25,000; reduced to $20,000. Wald- 
hier v. H. & St. J. R. R., 87 Mo. 37. 

$11,620.11 ; reduced to $5,000. Pfef- 
fer V. Buffalo Ry., 4 Misc. 465, 24 N. Y. 
Supp. 490. 

$8,000, one foot and four toes of 
other foot; reduced to $4,000. Wood 
V. Louisville & N. R. R.^ 88 Fed. 44. 

183 pgr loss of an arm the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$2,500. St. Louis I. M. & S. Ry. v. 
Holmes (Ark.), 131 S. W. 692. 

$5,000. Collins v. Waterbury Co., 
144 App. Div. 670, 129 N. Y. Supp. 661. 

$6,000. The Buffalo, 147 Fed. 304. 

$6,600. Texarkana Tel. Co. v. Pem- 
berton, 86 Ark. 329, 111 S, W. 2'57, 



§ 1357 LOSS OF A member: arm, hand Or finger 2725 



speaking, of course, greater damages might be expected for 
loss of a right arm ^'^ than for loss of a left arm,"^ but 
in each case the amount of recovery will be controlled by 
other circumstances. For loss of a hand ^*° or of part of a 



$6,975. Schmolt v. H. W. Wright 
Lumber Co., 145 Wis. 577, 130 N. W. 
499. 

87,000. Sobieski v. St. Paul & D. 
R. R., 41 Minn. 169, 42 N. W. 863. 

$8,000. Anglo-American Packing & 
P. Co. V. Baier, 31 111. App. 653. 

$8,000. CKeefew. Eighth Ave. R.R., 
33 App. Div. 324, 53 N. Y. Supp. 940. 

$9,119. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Kirkland, 11 Tex. Qv. App. 528, 32 
S. W. 588. 

$10,000. South Covington & C. S. 
R. R. V. Weber, 82 S. W. 986, 26 Ky. L. 
Rep. 922. 

$10,000. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. ». 
Collins, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 143, 57 S. W. 
884. 

$10,170. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Cason, 116 S. W. 716 (Ky.). 

$12,500. Rodney t;. St. Lpuis, S. W. 
Ry., 127 Mo. 676, 28 S. W. 887, 30 
S. W. 150. 

$14,000. Galveston, H. & H. R. R. v. 
Bohan (Tex. ttv. App.), 47 S. W. 1050. 

$15,000. Greer i;. Great Northern 
Ry. (Minn.), 132 N. W. 6. 

The following amounts have been 
held excessive: 

$20,000; reduced to $12,000. Renne 
V. U. S. Leather Co., 107 Wis. 305, 83 
N. W. 473. 

$15,000 (reduced by trial court from 
$25,000); further reduced to $10,000. 
O'DonneU v. American Sugar Refining 
Co., 41 App. Div. 307, 58 JSf. Y. Supp. 
640. 

$13,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Lowe (Ky.), 66 S. W. 736. 

$10,000 (reduced from $12,500); 
further reduced to $7,000. Burdict v. 
Missouri Pac. Ry., 123 Mo. 286, 27 
S. W. 453, 26 L. R. A. 384, 45 Am. St. 
Rep. 528. 

$6,000 (fourth verdict); reduced to 



$4,500. Vaughn v. Glen Falls Portland 
Cement Co., 59 Misc. 230, 112 N. Y. 
Supp. 240. 

"* For loss of a right arm the follow- 
ing verdicts have been upheld: 

$6,500. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Price, 
72 Miss. 862, 18 So. 415. 

$7,500. Kenny ». Marquette Ce- 
ment Mfg. Co., 149 lU. App. 173. 

$10,000. St. Louis, S. W. Ry. v. 
Groves, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 63, 97 S. W. 
1084. 

$10,500. Larson v. Haglin, 103 
Minn. 257, 114 N. W. 958. 

$11,916. Chobanian v. Washburn 
Wire Coi., (R. I.), 80 Atl. 394. 

$17,500. The Fullerton, 167 Fed. 1, 
92 C. C. A. 463. 

The following have been held exces- 
sive: 

$15,000; reduced to $10,000. Silber- 
stein I/. Houston, W. S. & P. F. R. R., 
52 Him, 611, 4 N. Y. Supp. 844. 

$15,000; reduced to $12,000. Brad- 
bury V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. (la.), 
128 N. W. 1. 

•*' For loss of a left arm the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$7,000. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. v. 
Sledge, 68 Kan. 321, 74 Pac. 1111. 

$10,000. Waggoner v. Porterfield 
(Tex. Qv. App.), 118 S. W. 1094. 

$10,000. Baltzer u. Chicago, M. & 
N. R. R., 89 Wis. 257, 60 N. W. 716. 

$12,000. Lafferty v. Third Ave. R. 
R., 85 App. Div. 592^ 83 N. Y. Supp. 
405 (affirmed 176 N. Y. 594, 68 N. E. 
1118). 

The following verdict has been held 
excessive: 

$12,000; reduced to $7,500. Struble 
V. Burlington C. R. & N. Ry., 128 la. 
158, 103 N. W. 142. 

1^ For loss of a hand the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 



2726 



EXCESSIVE OR iNADEQtTAfE DAMAGES 



§1357 



hand ^^' the damages must be expected to be less. For the loss 
of one or more fingers the amount of damages allowed must in 
all cases depend largely on the particular circimistances. '** 



$4,000. Whitcofsky v. Weir, 32 Fed. 
307. 

$4,700. Central R. R. v. DeBray, 
71 Ga. 406. 

$6,000, right hand. Crosby v. Cuba 
R. R., 158 Fed. 144. 

$7,500. Sprague v. Atlee, 81 la. 1, 46 
N. W. 756. 

$8,500, right hand. Glucina v. F. H. 
Goss Brick Co., 63 Wash. 401, 115 Pac. 
843. 

$10,000, left hand. Deegan v. Gutta 
Percha & R. M. Co., 131 App. Div. 101, 
115 N. Y. Supp. 291. 

The following have been held exces- 
sive: 

$15,000, right hand; reduced to 
$10,000. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 
1172. 

$10,000 (reduced from $12,000), 
Brown v. Southern Pac. R. R., 7 Utah, 
288, 26 Pac. 579. 

$8,000, left hand. Pittsburgh & L. 
E. Ry. V. Blair, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. 579. 

$8,000; reduced to $6,000. Murray v. 
Hudson R. R. R., 47 Barb. 196. 

^^ $4,120 was held excessive for loss 
of part of a hand, and reduced to 
$2,000, in Waggoner v. Sneed (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 219. 

"* In the following cases damages al- 
lowed for loss of one or more fingers 
have been upheld: 

$1,119.25, one finger, others lacer- 
ated. Adams v. Peterman Mfg. Co., 47 
Wash. 484, 92 Pac. 339. 

$1,500, one finger, hand crushed, 
permanent impairment of use. Strong 
V. Iowa Cent. Ry., 94 la. 380, 62 N. W. 
799. 

$1,500, thumb, great pain, permanent 
inconvenience and disfigurement. Ong 
Chair Co. v. Cook, 85 Ark. 390, 108 
S. W. 203. 

$1,500, little finger, severe pain. 



Rommen v. Empire F. M. Co. (Wash.), 
118 Pac. 924. 

$2,080, tips of four fingers, earning 
capacity impaired. Duskey v. Green 
Lake Shingle Co., 51 Wash. 145, 98 Pac. 
99. 

$2,300, right thumb, fingers injured, 
hand weakened. Whalen v. Chicago, R. 
I. & P. Ry., 75 la. 563, 39 N. W. 894. 

$2,750, forefinger of right hand. San 
Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. Muecke, 47 
Tex. Civ. App. 380, 105 S. W. 1009. 

$2,947.60, middle finger, hand crip- 
pled. Lund V. Sargent Mfg. Co., 158 
Mich. 3, 122 N. W. 372. 

$3,000, forefinger and middle finger 
of right hand, much pain. Sailer v. 
Friedman Bros. Shoe Co., 130 Mo. 
App. 712, 109 S. W. 794. 

$3,000, right forefinger. Finkelstein 
V. Kramer, 133 App. Div. 565, 118 N. 
Y. Supp. 152. 

$3,008, three fingers. Rood v. Seattle 
El. Co., 55 Wash. 217, 104 Pac. 249. 

$3,250, left thumb and right fore- 
finger. Bemier v. St. Paul Gaslight 
Co., 91 Minn. 214, 99 N. W. 778. 

$3,300, two fingers of left hand, two 
others crippled. Chapman v. Southern 
Pac. Co., 12 Utah, 30, 41 Pac. 551. 

$4,000, little finger, right hand dis- 
abled, body bruised, much pain. Nib- 
lock V. Ann Arbor R. R., 158 Mich. 
582, 123 N. W. 35. 

$4,500, two fimgers, strength of hand 
and arm impaired, plaintiff a musician. 
Obom V. Nelson, 126 S. W. 178 (Mo. 
App.) 

$5,000, three fingers, bums. Walker 
V. Sinunons Mfg. Co., 131 Wis. 542, 111 
N. W. 694. 

$6,000, three fingers, operation re- 
quired, wrist stiffened. Mm-taugh v. 
New York C. & H. R. R. R., 49 Hun, 
456, 3 N. Y. Supp. 483. 

$7,250, several fingers, loss of use of 



1 1358 



biSJFlGttilEMEM'f 



2727 



§ 1368. Disfigurement. 

Permanent disfigurement is sometimes an element in dam- 
ages, either increasing the damages ^** or sometimes because it 



hand, permanent incapacity. Ft. 
Worth & R. G. Ry. v. Bowen (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 68 S. W. 700. 

$7,500, two fingers, scar on pabn, per- 
manent nervousness. Johnson v. Bay 
City, 164 Mich. 251, 129 N. W. 29. 

$7,500, all fingers of right hand. Mis- 
souri, K. & T. Ry. V. Hauer (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 33 S. W. 1010. 

$9,000 (reduced from $12,000), four 
fingers. Phippin v. Missouri' Pac. Ry., 
196 Mo. 321, 93 S. W. 410. 

$12,000, two fingers, hand disabled, 
pain. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. 
Beauchamp, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 123, 116 
S. W. 1163. 

$16,000, one finger right hand, all 
fingers of left, plaintiff trained in music. 
Murray u. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. (la.), 
133 S.W. 123. 

In the following cases the verdict 
was held excessive: 

$15,000, one finger, bums, temporary 
crippling; reduced to $7,500. Cutler v. 
Pittsburg S. P. G. M. Co. (Nev.), 116 
Pac. 418. 

$7,500, four fingers of right hand; re- 
duced to $5,000. Campbell v. Wheeli- 
han-Weidauer Co., 45 Wash. 675, 89 
Pac. 161. 

$6,500, right thumb and left fore- 
finger. Gray-Meek P. B. Co. v. Mc- 
Nally (Ky.), 129 S. W. 299. 

$6,500, thumb and forefinger. Kan- 
sas Pac. Ry. V. Peavey, 29 Kan. 169, 34 
Kan. 472, 8 Pac. 780. 

$5,125, three fingers; reduced to 
$4,000. Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 
355, 68 N. W. 45. 

$5,000 two fingers. Louisville & N. 
R. R. V. Foley, 94 Ky. 220, 21 S. W. 
866. 

$5,000, thumb and one finger of left 
hand, hand crippled; reduced to $4,000. 
Richardson v. St. Louis & H. Ry., 223 
Mo. 325, 123 S. W. 22. 



$S,000, two fingers. Barclay v. Puget 
S. L. Co., 48 Wash. 241, 93 Pac. 430, 16 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 140. 

$4,500, right forefinger and part of 
thumb; reduced to $3,500. Rittel w; 
E. E. Souther Iron Co., 127 Mo. App. 
463, 105 S. W. 662. 

$4,000, httle finger, hand stiffened, 
pain; reduced to $3,000. Mahood v. 
Pleasant Valley Coal Co., 8 Utah, 85, 
30 Pac. 149. 

$4,000, two fingers; reduced to 
$3,000. Gagnon v. Klauder-Weldon 
D. M. Co., 174 Fed. 477. 

$3,500 (reduced from $4,500), two 
fingers; reduced to $2,500. Stiller v. 
Bohn Manuf. Co., 80 Minn. 1, 82 
N. W. 981. 

$2,500, one finger; reduced to $1,000. 
Ball V. Peterman Mfg. Co., 47 Wash. 
653, 92 Pac. 425. 

$2,000, thumb. Louisville & N. R. 
R. V. Law, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 850, 21 S. W. 
648. 

$1,800 two fingers; reduced to $1,200. 
Gahagan v. Aerometer Co., 67 Minn. 
252, 69 N. W. 914. 

$1,250, one joint of right thumb. 
N. N. & N. V. Co. V. Walker, 14 Ky. 
L. Rep. 175. 

18' The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$600 for pain and scar. The North 
Star, 169 Fed. 711. 

$1,000 for pain, expense, and dis- 
figured face. Frankfort v. Kendrick 
(Ky.), 114 S. W. 289. 

$1,200 (reduced from $1,600), for 
pain, loss of time, and permanent scars. 
O'Callaghan v. Dellwood Park Co., 149 
111. App. 34. 

$1,500 for pain, expenses, and 
scarred face, by girl of eighteen. 
Cameron v. Bryan, 89 la. 214, 56 
N. W. 434. 

$3,000 for pain, loss of taste and 



2728 



EXCESSIVE Or INADEQtTATE DAMAGES 



§1359 



furnishes of itself the principal ground for the recovery of 
damages. "° 

§ 1359. Impairment of sight or hearing. 

Verdicts have been exacmined by the courts which gave 
compensation for the impairment of sight/^^ for the entire loss 



smell, and distorted face. Illinois Val- 
ley Ry. V. Haremski, 132 111. App. 423. 

$3,000 for permanent lameness and 
distorted face. Juul v. Kitsap Transp. 
Co., 55 Wash. 156, 104 Pac. 191. 

$3,500 for pain, nervous irritation, 
and disfigurement. Frank Parmelee 
Co. V. Wheelock, 127 111. App. 500. 

$3,500 (reduced from $4,500), for 
pain and disfigurement of face. Pron- 
skeviteh v. Chicago & A. Ry., 232 111. 
136, 83 N. E. 545, affirming 135 111. 
App. 401. 

$4,000 for permanent pain and dis- 
figurement of face. Shortridge v. Scar- 
ritt Estate Co. (Mo. App.), 130 S. W. 
126. 

$4,500 for pain, loss of time ten 
months, expense, and permanent dis- 
figurement. The J. G. Lindauer, 158 
Fed. 449. 

$5,000 for bodily and mental pain, 
permanent disability, and disfigure- 
ment. Gurdon & Ft. S. Ry. v. Cal- 
houn, 86 Ark. 76, 109 S. W. 1017. 

$5,000 for permanent injury and dis- 
figurement. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. 
R. V. Price, 83 Ark. 437, 104 S. W. 157. 

$6,000 for broken ribs and permanent 
disfigurement of face, of young girl 
eight years old. Bennett v. Brooklyn 
Heights R. R., 1 App. Div. 205, 37 
N. Y. Supp, 447. 

$7,000 for suffering and permanent 
disfigurement of girl sixteen years old. 
St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. v. Andrews, 
44 Tex. Civ. App. 426, 99 S. W. 871. 

$15,000 for injury requiring serious 
surgical treatment of face, permanent 
lameness, and disfigurement of girl 
thirteen years old. James v. Oakland 
Trac. Co., 9 Cal. App. 21, 103 Pac. 
1082. 



$16,338.82 for frightful and perma- 
nent injury and disfigurement of a 
woman. Kenney v. South Shore N. G. 
& F. Co., 131 App. Div. 859, 119 N. Y. 
Supp. 363. 

For injury to brain, permanent in- 
jury to health, and deforming scars of 
young girl, a verdict of $30,000 was re- 
duced to $12,000. Mitchell v. Tacoma 
R. & M;. Co., 13 Wa^sh. 560, 43 Pac. 528. 

"" Newbury v. Getchel & M. L. & 
M. Co., 100 la. 441, 457, 69 N. W- 743, 
62 Am. St. Rep. 582. 

The following verdicts were upheld 
wtere the principal damage was per- 
manent deformity: 

$700. Gibbs v. Poplar Bluff L. & P. 
Co. (Mo- App.), 125 S. W. 840. 

$1,500. Cameron v. Bryan, 89 la. 
214, 56 N. W. 434. 

$2,000. Chicago v. Reid, 141 111. 
App. 514. 

The following verdict was held ex- 
cessive: 

$7,000; reduced to $3,000. Kihner v. 
Reckitt, 75 App. Div. 180, 77 N. Y. 
Supp. 395. 

"1 For impairment of sight the fol- 
lowing verdicts have been upheld: 

$750. Lemoine v. Sullivan (Ark.), 
134 S. W. 946. 

$2,500, also impairment of hearing. 
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. Bean, 45 
Tex. Civ. App. 52, 99 S. W. 721. 

$3,000. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. s. 
Sanchez (Tex. Civ. App,), 122 S. W. 44. 

$5,000, incapacitated for business. 
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Hulf (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 551. 

$6,500. scalded all over body, ijjtense 
pain. Winona Technical Institute v. 
Stolte, 173 Ind. 39, 89 N. E. 393. 

$9,000, fracture of leg, wrists, and 



§1359 



IMPAIIMENT Of sight OR HEARING 



2729 



of sight in one eye/^^ usually accompanied by impairment of 
the sight of the other eye; "^ and recovery for total blind- 



skull, leg and wrist permanently de- 
formed. Welk V. Jackson Architectural 
Ironworks, 98 App. Div. 247, 90 N. Y. 
Supp. 541. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$10,000, burned and scarred, no per- 
manent injury. Kentucky Wagon 
Mfg. Co. V. Sha,ke, 137 Ky. 742, 126 
S. W. 1095. 

$8,000; reduced to $7,000. De La 
Vergne R. M. Co. v. Stahl, 24 Tex. Civ. 
App. 471, 60 S. W. 319. 

$4,650; reduced to $2,500. McGrew. 
V. Chicago & M. E. R. R., 142 111. App. 
210. 

'^^ For loss of an eye the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$2,500. Orscheto v. Scott, 106 Mo. 
App. 583, 80 S. W. 982. 

$3,682. Potvin v. West Bay City 
Shipbuilding Co., 156 Mich. 201, 120 
N. W. 613. 

$4,400. Sherley v. BiUings, 8 Bush 
(Ky.) 147, 8 Am. Rep. 451. 

$4,500. Shaver v. 3. Neils Lumber 
Co., 109 Minn. 376, 123 N. W. 1076. 

$5,000. Texas & P. Ry. v. Bowlin 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 918. 

$5,000; pain and operation. Hocking 
V. Windsor Spring Co., 131 Wis. 532, 
111 N. W. 685. 

86,000, disabling injury to head. 
Starnes v. Pine Woods Lumber Co., 122 
La. 284, 47 So. 607. 

$6,500. Dallas & G. Ry. v. Abler, 72 
Tex. 150, 9 S. W. 871. 

$7,000. Shaw v. Chicago & G. T. 
Ry., 123 Mich. 629, 82 N. W. 618, 49 
L. R. A. 308. 

$7,500. Korzib v. Netherlands- 
American S. N. do., 175 Fed. 998. 

$10,000, skull crushed, inability to 
labor from effects of injurj'. Missouri, 
K. & T. Ry. V. Parker, 20 Tex. Civ. 
App. 470, 49 S. W. 717. 



$11,400, skull fractured, mental and 
physical wreck. Cobb v. St. Louis & H. 
Ry., 149 Mo. 609, 50 S. W, 894. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$15,000, badly burned; reduced to 
$10,000. Ribich v. Lake Superior 
Smelting Co., 123 Mich. 401, 82 N. W. 
279, 48 L. R. A. 649. 

$12,821, disfigurement of face; re- 
duced to $7,500. Hajmes v. Maine 
Cent! R. R., (Me.), 80 Atl. 38. 

193 Pqp iQgg Qf Qng gyg ajj J impairment 
of the sight of the other the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$1,000 (reduced from $6,200). Nel- 
son V. A. H. Stange Co., 140 Wis. 657, 
123 N. W. 152. 

$7,000, incapacitated for business. 
Chicago Veneer Co. v. Jones (Ky.), 135 
S. W. 430. 

$7,948, other serious injuries. Haley 
V. Solvay Process Co., 127 App. Div. 
753, 112 N. Y. Supp. 25. 

$8,500, bones of face and skull in- 
jured, operation. Wysocki v. Wiscon- 
sin Lakes I. & C. Co., 121 Wis. 96, 98 
N. W. 950. 

$14,400. Vant Hul v. Great Northern 
Ry., 90 Minn. 329, 96 N. W. 789. 

$25,(K)0, side paralyzed, spine curved, 
other injuries. Perkins v. Sunset T. 
& T. Co., 155 Cal. 712, 103 Pac. 
190. 

$30,000, severely burned, scars, arm 
stiffened, several operations, total dis- 
ability. Commonwealth Electric Co. 
V. Rooney, 138 111. App. 275. 

A verdict of $15,000 where there were 
severe burns, causing loss of time, but 
completely cured, was held excessive 
and reduced to $12,000; there having 
been a former verdict of $8,000. Hardy 
V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 149 la. 4i, 
127 N. W. 1093. 



2730 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



1360 



ness has also been brought in question."* So the courts have 
considered the question of excessive damages for total deaf- 
ness "^ and for an impairment of hearing."* 

§ 1360. Nervous disorders. 

Where the injury causes some sort of nervous disorder, the 
amount of recovery may be greatly increased thereby; though 
juries appear often to be misled by the indefinite and intangible 
nature of the disease to giving verdicts which courts regard as 
excessive. Courts have been called upon to pass on the ex- 
cessiveness of numerous verdicts in which compensation had 
been assessed for neurasthenia, nervous prostration, or trau- 
matic neurosis,'" or for nervous shock, hysteria, and many 
other forms of nervous disorder."* 



"* For total blindness the follow- 
ing verdicts have been held excess- 
ive: 

$37,500. Deep Mining & Drainage 
Co. V. Fitzgerald, 21 Colo. 533, 43 Pac. 
210. 

$9,500; reduced to $8,000. Peterson 
V. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co., 
131 Fed. 156. 

196 For deafness the following ver- 
dicts have been upheld: 

$1,000. American E. & C. Co. v. 
Crawford (Ky.), 134 S. W. 448. 

$2,500. West Chicago St. R. R. v. 
Lups, 74 III. App. 420. 

$7,500, eyesight weakened, wound at 
base of skull. Ronald v. Pacific Trac- 
tion Co. (Wash.), 118 Pac. 311. 

For deafness which prevented plain- 
tiff, an engineer, from continuing in his 
business, a verdict of $25,000 reduced 
to $15,000 by the trial court, was held 
so excessive as to bear on its face the 
evidence of an error which remittitur 
could not cure, and it was set aside. 
Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. v. Forrester 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 137 S. W. 162. 



196 por impairment of hearing the 
following verdicts have been upheld: 

$2,5(X), four teeth lost. Wilson v. 
Chicago City Ry., 144 lU. App. 604. 

$4,000 (reduced from $5,000), sight 
and memory impaired. Kennedy v. 
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 57 Minn. 227, 
58 N. W. 878. 

$5,900. Southwestern T. & T. Co. 
p. Abeles, 94 Ark. 254, 126 S. W. 
724. 

"' For neurasthenia or similar ner- 
vous disease caused by the defendant 
the following verdicts have been up- 
held: 

$2,500 (reduced from $6,448). Mur- 
phy V. South St. Paul, 101 Minn. 341, 
112 N. W. 259. 

$3,000. Louisville v. Tompkins 
(Ky.), 122 S. W. 174. 

$4,000. Roe V. MetropoUtan St. Ry., 
131 Mo. App. 128, 110 S. W. 611. 

$4,000. Garthley v. Seattle Electric 
Co., 49 Wash. 616, 96 Pac. 155. 

$5,000. Berger v. St. Paul City Ry., 
95 Minn. 84, 103 N. W. 724. 

$5,000 (reduced from $8,500). Fall- 



198 For nervous shock, hysteria, or 
other nervous disorder resulting from 



defendant's wrong, the following ver- 
dicts have been upheld; 



lS6l 



IlSrSANITY AND LOSS OF MENTAL POWER 



2731 



§ 1361. Insanity and loss of mental power. 

Verdicts have been considered where the principal element 

R. I. & G. Ry. V. Swann (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 127 S. W. 1164. 

S12,000; reduced to $8,000. Schwartz- 
bauer v. Great Northern Ry., 112 
Minn. 356, 128 N. W. 286. 

$10,000; reduced to $4,000. Becker 
V. Albany Ry., 35 App. Div. 46, 54 
N. Y. Supp. 395. 

$10,000; reduced to $4,000. Lock- 
wood V. Twenty-third St. Ry., 15 Daly, 
374, 7 N. Y. Supp. 633. 

$5,500. Edwards v. Seattle R. (fe S. 
Ry., 62 Wash. 77, 113 Pac. 563. 

$5,000; reduced to $3,000. O'Plana- 
gan V. Missouri Pac. Ry. (Mo. App.), 
129 S. W. 1019. 

$4,500; reduced to $3,500. DeCourcy 
V. Prendergast Const. Co., 140 Mo. 
App. 169, 120 S. W. 632. 

$3,000, also diseased heart, injury to 
eye and spine. Gay v. Milwaukee E. 
R. & L. Co., 138 Wis. 348, 120 N. W. 
283. 



dm V. Seattle, 57 Wash. 307, 106 Pac. 
914. 

$7,000. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Farris (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 1174. 

$8,000. Pierce v. Spokane, 59 Wash. 
615, 110 Pac. 537. 

$9,500, internal injuries, paralysis. 
Crozier v. Minneapolis St. Ry., 106 
Minn. 77, 118 N. W. 256. 

$16,000, severe attack, danger of 
dementia or paresis. St. Louis, I. M. 
& S. R. R. V. Osborne, 95 Ark. 310, 129 
S. W. 537. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$34,000, mind impaired, partial and 
progressive paralysis, lungs injured; 
reduced to $27,500. Missouri, K. & T. 
Ry. V. Dalton (Tex. Civ. App.), 120 
S. W. 240. 

$18,000. Chlanda v. St. Louis Tran- 
sit Co., 213 Mo. 244, 112 S. W. 249. 

$13,000; reduced to $8,000. Chicago, 



(Note 198 — continued.) 

$800. Robinson v. Marino, 3 Wash. 
434, 441, 28 Pac. 752, 28 Am. St. Rep. 
50. 

$800 (reduced from $1,500) . Pf eiffer 
V. Radke, 144 Wis. 430, 129 N. W. 413. 

$1,000. Indianapolis T. T. Co. v. 
Uhrick, 45 Ind. App. 149, 90 N. E. 321. 

$1,000. Lang V. Hill, 151 Mo. App. 
685, 138 S. W. 698. 

$1,135.45. Des Moineaux v. New 
York City Ry., 118 App. Div. 848, 103 
N. Y. Supp. 618. 

$2,500. Averitt v. Metropolitan St. 
Ry., 151 Mo. App. 265, 131 S. W. 752. 

$3,750. Colorado Springs Electric 
Co. V. Soper, 38 Colo. 126, 88 Pac. 165. 

$4,000. Wyman v. Pike, 108 Minn. 
481, 122 N. W. 310. 

$4,000. Kupke v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 
122 Mo. App. 355, 99 S. W. 472. 

$6,400. Kimic v. San Jose-Los Gatos 
I. U. Ry., 156 Cal. 273, 379, 104 Pac. 
312. 



$6,500. Olson v. Great Northern 
Ry., 68 Minn. 165, 71 N. W. 5. 

$9,000 (reduced from $12,500). 
Lake St. Elevated R. R. v. Sandy, 137 
111. App. 244. 

$10,000, heart diseased, disabled 
from work. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 
V. Worth, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 478, 116 
S. W. 365. 

$11,500. Savage v. Joseph H. 
Bauland Co., 42 App. Div. 285, 58 
N. Y. Supp. 1014. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$30,000. Gibney v. St. Louis Tran- 
sit Co., 204 Mo. 704, 103 S. W. 43. 

$26,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Long, 94 Ky. 410, 22 S. W. 747. 

$20,000 (reduced from $30,000). 
Partello v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 217 Mo. 
645, 117 S. W. 1138. 

$20,000; reduced to $7,500. Hamil- 
ton V. Great Falls St. Ry., 17 Mont. 
334, 42 Pac. 860. 



2732 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



1362 



of loss was insanity supervening upon the injury,"' or idiocy,^ 
or at least a permanent loss of mental power, or other mental 
trouble. 2" 



§ 1362. Shortening of life. 

The fact that a physical injury will appreciably shorten the 
victim's life, either by resulting in a fatal disease ^^ or by the 
general debilitating effect,^"' justifies heavy damages. In 
Clay V. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway ^* a verdict 
of $35,000 was given for very severe and painful injuries which 
resulted, after suit brought but before verdict, in plaintiff's 
death. The verdict was upheld. It was urged that no greater 
damages could be recovered than would be allowed for death; 



$12,000. Davidson v. St. Ix)uis 
Transit Co., 211 Mo. 320, 109 S. W. 
583. 

$7,500; reduced to $5,000. Lapleine 
V. Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. Co., 40 
La. Ann. 661, 4 So. 875. 

$4,500; reduced to $2,500. Hase v. 
Seattle (Wash.), 107 Pac. 515. 

"' The following verdicts, where the 
injury resulted in insanity, were up- 
held: 

$6,000. Anderson v. Smith, 104 
Minn. 40, 116 N. W. 743. 

$10,000. Bochat i;. Knisely, 144 111. 
App. 551. 

$12,000. Cherbuhez v. Parsons, 59 
Misc. 613, 111 N. Y. Supp. 616. 

™ The following verdicts were up- 
held where the plaintiff entirely lost his 
mental power as a result of the injury: 

$3,600. Chicago U. Tract. Co. v. 
Scanlon, 136 Ul. App. 212. 

$8,500. Wihnyk v. Second Ave. R. 
R., 14 App. Div. 515, 43 N. Y. Supp. 
1023. 

$10,000. International & G. N. R. 
R. D. Dalwigh (Tex. Civ. App.), 56 
S. W. 136. 

$18,962.88. Alamo D. B. Co. v. 
Yeargan (Tex. Civ. App.), 123 S. W. 
721. 

""1 The following verdicts were up- 
held: 



$6,000 for permanent impairment of 
mental faculties. Powell v. Nevada C. 
& O. Ry., 28 Nev. 40, 78 Pac. 978. 

$7,000 for injury resulting in incur- 
able epileptic convulsions. Romona 
O. S. Co. v. Shields, 173 Ind. 68, 88 
N. E. 695. 

^^ The following verdicts have been 
upheld where a fatal disease was caused 
by the injury: 

$3,000, tuberculosis. Paauhau Sugar 
Plantation Co. v. Palapala, 127 Fed. 
920, 62 C. C. A. 552. 

$3,400, disease of heart. Mont- 
gomery Tr. Co. V. Bazeman, 152 Ala. 
145, 44 So. 559. 

$4,500, tuberculosis. Van Cleve v. 
St. Louis, M. & S. E. Ry., 137 Mo. 
App. 332, 118 S. W. 116. 

$7,500, cancer. Louisville Ry. v. 
Steubing (Ky.), 136 S. W. 634. 

$15,000, progressive pa,ralysis. San 
Antpnio Traction Co. v. Prpbandt (Tex. 
av. App.), 125 S. W. 931. 

^^ The following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$2,500. Yazoo & M. V. R. R. v. 
Seattle (Miss.), 49 So. 609. 

$8,800. Cooper v. St. Paul City Ry., 
54 Minn. 379, 56 N. W. 42. 

$13,625. Sutton v. Snohomish, 11 
Wash. 24, 39 Pac. 273. 

«>< 104 Minn. 1, 115 N. W. 949. 



§ 1363 OTHEE PERMANENT INJURIES 2733 

and these were restricted by law to $5,000. Mr. Justice Jag- 
gafd> however, held that> the amount of damages not being 
restricted in this action, the limit fixed by law for damages for 
death had no relation to the amount recoverable. He said: 
"There is no dispute that plaintiff's injuries resulted in in- 
describable anguish ahd in death. They were as serious as 
they could possibly have been. That they were necessarily 
fatal, or that only $5,000 could have been recovered by his 
administrator for the next of kin, does not constitute any 
reason whatever for holding the verdict improper. It has 
never been the law in this court that, the worse a servant is 
hurt by his master's negligence, the less he can recover. The 
fact that death was likely to result does not diminish the ex- 
tent of the proper recovery. Plaintiff, surviving the casualty, 
had a cause of action totally different from that of his admin- 
istrator on his death. For his injury he was entitled to com- 
pensation. The greater the injury, the larger should the 
verdict be. In the present case, calculations of the value of the 
verdict in money, intelligently invested, show that the verdict 
was not unreasonable upoii a strictly pecuniary basis." 

§ 1363. Other permanent injtxries. 

Verdicts for other permanent personal injuries in great 
variety have been considered by the courts, and the verdicts 
seem to have been usually upheld. ^"^ 

™' In the following cases verdicts for disability to do housework. State v. 

permanent injuries have been upheld: Miller, 180 Fed. 796. 

$500, permanent and serious itijuty $1,000, miscarriage, permanent suf- 

to arm. Henderson v. White, 49 S. W. fering and mortification. Singer S. M. 

764, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1525. Co. v. Phipps (Ind. App.), 94 N. E. 

$500, miscarriage. Big Sandy & C. 79^, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 431. 

R. R. v. Slankenship (Ky.), 118 S. W. $1,000, health permanently impaired. 

316, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 345. • University of Louisville v. Hammock, 

$*0 (reduced from $2,000), t)ferima- 127 Ky. 664, 106 S. W. 219, 14 L. R. A. 

nent injury to arm, continued pain. (N. S.) 784. 

Rock Island v. Larkin* 136 111. App. $1,000, baby contracted blood poi- 

579. soning and catarrhal pneumonia, per- 

$900, internal injuries, causing per- manently injuring health. Covington 

manent weakness. Monongahela R. v. BoUwinkle (Ky.), 121 S. W. 

C. C. & C. Co. V. Kramer (Ky.), 121 664. 

S. W. 978. $1,500, impaired hearing, great pain, 

$1,000, Bight and hearing impaired, inability to do heavy work. St. Louis, 



2734 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1364 



§ 1364. Doubt as to permanence of injury. 

A ^«„K+ „o +,^ tjie permanence of the injury may exist in the 



A doubt as to 



I. M. & S. Ry. V. Reed, 92 Ark. 350, 122 
S. W. 645. 

$1,500, spine injured, partial paraly- 
sis. Witty V. Springfield Traction Co. 
(Mo. App.), 134 S. W. 82. 

$1,500, injury to liver and spine. 
Ferguson v. Ehret, 14 Misc. 454, 35 
N. Y. Supp. 1020. 

$1,500, permanent dizziness and 
headache. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Allen, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 433, 115 S. W. 
1179. 

$1,600, injury to leg, hip and back, 
continued bad health with headaches. 
Western S. C. & F. Co. v. Bean, 163 
Ala. 255, 50 So. 1012. 

$2,000, bruises, curvature of spine, 
wasting of muscles, drooping of shoul- 
der. Hanchett v. Haas, 125 111. App. 
111. 

$2,000, bums leaving scars, legs per- 
manently weakened. Asmossen v. 
Swift & Co., 148 111. App. 248. 

$2,000, permanent scar on leg, prob- 
ability of varicose ulcerations. Bayles 
V. Savery Hotel Co. (la.), 126 N. W. 
808. 

$2,000, lower part of body injured, 
no control over organs. Louisville Ry. 
V. Bohon, 99 S. W. 915, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 
862. 

$2,000, permanent injury, confined to 
bed ten months. Louisville & N. R. R. 
V. MacMillan (Ky.), 134 S. W. 185. 

$2,000, incurable affection of spine, 
permanent suffering. Waldron v. St. 
Paul, 33 Minn. 87, 22 N. W. 4. 

$2,000, woman, constant hem- 
orrhages of stomach. Newbury v. 
Great Northern Ry., 109 Minn. 113, 
122 N. W. 1117. 

$2,000, severe case of varicocele. 
McNamara v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 
133 Mo. App. 645, 114 S. W. SO. 

$2,000, internal injuries and nervous 
disability. O'Donnell v. Hannibal 
(Mo. App.), 128 S, W, 819. 



$2,000, permanent injury to spine. 
Wohlenberg v. Melchert, 35 Neb. 803, 
53 N. W. 982. 

$2,250, internal injuries. St. Louis 
S. W. Ry. V. Freedman, 18 Tex. Civ. 
App. 563, 46 S. W. 101. 

$2,250. Smalley v. Appleton, 75 
Wis. 18, 43 N. W. 826. 

$2,500, varicose veins, internal in- 
juries and indigestion. Kriainger v. 
Creston, 141 la. 154, 119 N. W. 
526. 

$2,500, internal injuries, continued 
bad health. Louisville H. & S. L. Ry. 
V. Foulks, 103 S. W. 266, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 
632. 

$2,500, diseased lung. Donelly ». 
St. Paul City Ry., 70 Minn. 278, 73 
N. W. 157. 

$2,750, neuralgia, permanent weak 
side. Fulmore v. St. Paul City Ry., 72 
Minn. 448, 75 N. W. 589. 

$3,200, tumor, adhesion of lung to 
chest. Wynne v. Atlantic Ave. R. R., 
14 Misc. 394, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1034. 

$3,500, nervous shock, internal in- 
juries, impairment of health. Watkiss 
V. Chicago, 146 111. App. 562. 

$3,500, hemorrhages, loss of control 
of functions. Louisville Ry. v. Worley, 
101 S. W. 926, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 96. 

$3,500, permanent injury to spine. 
Morris v. New York, O. & W. Ry., 73 
Hun, 560, 26 N. Y. Supp. 342. 

$3,500, leg lengthened, permanent 
injury to nervous system. Willis v. 
Second Ave. Traction Co., 189 Pa. 430, 
42 Atl. 1. 

$4,000, permanent injury to health. 
Indiana U. T. Co. v. Ohue, 45 Ind. App. 
632, 89 N. E. 507. 

$4,000, permanent paralysis of shoul- 
der muscle and curvature of spine. 
Degnan v. Brooklyn City R. R., 14 
Misc. 388, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1047. 

$4,300, internal injuries, nervousness, 
palpitation of heart. Cunningham V, 



§1364 



DOXJBT AS TO PERMANENCE OF INJURY 



2735 



minds of the judges who have to pass on the question of ex- 
cessiveness. If the verdict is moderate, this doubt will not 



Neal, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 613, 109 S. W. 
455. 

$4,500, chronic invalid, hernia. 
Chicago V. Saldman, 129 III. App. 282, 
affirmed 225 111. 625, 80 N. E. 349. 

$5,000, deaf, rupture, prematurely 
old. Chicago Union Tr. Co. v. Lowen- 
rosen, 125 111. App. 194, affirmed 222 
111. 506, 78 N. E. 813. 

$5,000, tuberculous foot, lameness. 
Mattoon City Ry. v. Graham, 138 111. 
App. 70, affirmed Graham v. M. City 
Ry., 234 111. 483, 84 N. E. 1070. 

$5,000, hernia, internal injury. 
Louisville, H. & St. L. Ry. ;;. Kessee, 
103 S. W. 261, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 617. 

$5,000. Southern Ry. v. Brewer, 105 
S. W. 160, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 43. 

$5,000, internal injuries, health per- 
manently impaired. Louisville, H. & 
St. L. Ry. V. Armstrong (Ky.), 125 S. 
W. 276. 

$5,000, internal injuries. Price v. 
Metropolitan St. Ry., 220 Mo. 435, 
119 S. W. 932. 

$5,000, stiff neck, constant pain, chin 
partially paralyzed. Commercial Tel. 
Co. V. Davis, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 547, 96 
S. W. 939. 

$5,000, bruises, failing health, pain, 
inability to work. Texas & G. Ry. v. 
Hall (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 71. 

$5,000, constant suffering and inter- 
ference with work. Bitner v. Utah 
Cent. Ry., 4 Utah, 502, 11 Pac. 620. 

$5,000, permanent injm-y, femoral 
hernia. Hodd v. Tacoma, 45 Wash. 
436, 88 Pac. 842. 

$6,000, permanent invalid, lame, 
nervous disorders. Westervelt v. St. 
Louis Transit Co., 222 Mo. 325, 121 
S. W. 114. 

$6,500, inflammation of sciatic nerve, 
atrophy of adjacent parts, never well. 
Louisville Ry. v. Owens, 97 S. W. 356, 
29 Ky. L. Rep. 1294. 

$7,500, partial paralysis, functional 



derangement, helpless condition, in- 
creasing disability. Cumberland T. & 
T. Co. V. Overfield, 127 Ky. 548, 106 
S. W. 245. 

$7,500, skull crushed, mind affected, 
pain, continual headache, and dis- 
ability. Beave v. St. Louis Transit Co., 
212 Mo. 331, 111 S. W. 52. 

$7,500, dislocation of spine, injury 
progressive. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Stone (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 587. 

$8,000, partial paralysis, excruciating 
pain. Stomne v. Hanford Produce 
Co., 108 la. 137, 78 N. W. 848. 

$8,000, face crushed, jaw stiffened, 
imperfect nutrition, invalid for life. 
Oties V. Cowles E. S. & A. Co., 54 Hun, 
635, 7 N. Y. Supp. 251. 

$8,000, physical wreck, partially 
paralyzed, impaired vision, total in- 
capacity. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. 
Long (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 214. 

$8,000, spine affected, causing stiff- 
ness, aggravating prior hernia. Gal- 
veston, H. & S. A. Ry. V. Coker (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 135 S. W. 179. 

$8,500, rupture, bowel trouble, 
ataxia, hemianesthesia, and chronic 
peritonitis, permanently impaired 
health. Klein v. Atchison, T. & S. F. 
Ry., 10 Cal. App. 19, 107 Pac. 147. 

$10,000, miscarriage, eyesight and 
action of heart impaired. Howland v. 
Oakland C. S. Ry., 110 Cal. 513, 42 
Pac. 983. 

$10,000, permanent internal and 
spinal troubles. Barr v. City of Kan- 
sas, 121 Mo. 22, 25 S. W. 562. 

$11,000, serious irreducible rupture. 
Chicago V. GiUett, 91 111. App. 287. 

$11,000, permanent invalid. Chi- 
cago V. Didier, 131 III. App. 406, af- 
firmed Chicago V. Ogden Sheldon & 
Co., 227 111. 595, 81 N. E. 698. 

$20,000, arm and shoulder injured, 
bones of head and shoulder diseased, 
brain weakened, sight and hearing im- 



2736 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1364 



cause the court to set the verdict aside; in fact, the reasonable 
possibility of permanent consequences might even enhance the 
amount of a verdict.^"* But if the amount of the verdict is 
such that it could be justified only if the injury were per- 
manent, and serious doubt is felt as to the fact of permanence, 
this doubt may be considered in passing upon the excessive- 
ness of the verdict.^"' 



paired, jawbone broken, epilepsy and 
death likely to follow. Sabine & E. T. 
Ry. V. Ewing, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 8, 26 
S. W. 638. 

$25,000, man of thirty-nine, inter- 
mittently suffers from pain in head, 
sleeps poorly, right side partially 
paralyzed, his voice useless, injuries 
probably permanent and will ultimately 
cause death. St. John v. Northern Pac. 
Ry. (Mont.), Ill Pac. 632. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$30,000, paralysis of lower part of 
body, no control over functions. Mc- 
Kenzie v. North Coast Coll. Co., 55 
Wash. 495, 104 Pac. 801, 28 L. R. A. 
(N. S.) 1244. 

$25,000; reduced to $15,000. De 
Wardener v. Metropolitail St. Ry., 1 
App. Div. 240, 37 N. Y. Supp. 133. 

$15,000, permanent injury to leg; re- 
duced to $8,000. Chapman v. Atlantic 
Ave. R. R., 14 Misc. 384, 35 N. Y. 
Supp. 1045. 

$10,000, deformity of foot not seri- 
ously interfering with use; reduced to 
$5,000. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. v. 
Swan (Tex. Qv. App.), 130 S. W. 
855. 

2IW WTiiere a serious injury may be 
permanent, the following verdicts have 
been upheld: 

$400. Weber v. Creston, 75 la. 16, 
39 N. W. 126. 

$750. Jackson v. St. Paul City Ry., 
74 Minn. 48, 76 N. W. 956. 

$1,350. Young v. O'Brien, 36 Wash. 
570, 79 Pac. 211. 

$1,750. Carlson v. Great Northern 
Ry., 106 Minn. 254, 118 N. W. 832. 



$2,000. Whitmg v. Eagan, 189 N. 
Y. 587, 83 N. E. 1016. 

$2,500. Calumet E. S. Ry. v. Jen- 
nings, 83 111. App. 616. 

$3,000. Curtis v. Barber Asphalt 
Paving Co., 44 Wash. 334, 87 Pac. 345. 

$3,000 (reduced from $4,000). Gris- 
son V. Hofius, 39 Wash. 51, 80 Pac. 
1002. 

$4,000. The Little Silver, 189 Fed. 
980. 

$4,000. Bryant v. Omaha & C. B. 
R. & B. Co., 98 la. 483, 67 N. W. 392. 

$4,000. Covington v. Diehl, 59 S. 
W. 492, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 955. 

$6,000. St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. 
Gresham (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 
483. 

$6,300. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. v. 
Richards, 23 Okla. 256, 102 Pac. 92, 
23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1032. 

$9,000, tuberculosis which may be 
cured. Roenbeck v. Brooklyn Heights 
R. R., 123 App. Div. 606, 108 N. Y. 
Supp. 80. 

$10,000. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
Cook; 12 Tex. Civ. App. 203, 33 S. W. 
669. 

^ In the following cases the verdict 
was held excessive on account of doubts 
as to the permanence of the injury: 

$15,000. Stevens v. New Jersey & 
H. R. liy., 74 N. J. L. 237, 65 Atl. 
874. 

$12,500; reduced to $8,000. Morri- 
son V. Northern Pac. Ry., 34 Wash. 70, 
74 Pac. 1064. 

$10,500. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. 
Houchins, 89 S. W. 530, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 
499, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 375. 

$10,000. Louisville Southern R. R. 



§1365 



LOSS OF SERVICE 



2737 



§ 1365. Loss of service. 

The estimation of the value of services lost contains many 
elements of uncertainty, and the jury has therefore great 
latitude in finding a pecuniary equivalent. This is especially 
true in the case of loss of service of a wife, where there can be 
no possible pecuniary test of the value of consortium and 
affection. Large verdicts have therefore been allowed to stand 
in such cases. ^"^ For loss of service of a minor child the possi- 
ble range of compensation is not so great. ^"^ 



V. Minogue, 14 S. W. 357, 12 Ky. L. 
Rep. 378. 

$10,000. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Mattingly, 38 S. W. 686, 18 Ky. L. 
Rep. 823. 

$10,000. Louis-idlle & N. R. R. v. 
Reaume, 128 Ky. 90, 107 S. W. 290. 

$9,000. Covington & C. B. Co. v. 
Goodnight, 60 S. W. 415, 22 Ky. L. 
Rep. 1242. 

$9,000. Watson v. Brightwell, 82 
S. W. 454, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 887. 

$8,750. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. 
Ry. V. Richardson (Ky.), 140 S. W. 
648. 

$8,000. Southern Ry. v. Goodard, 
97 S. W. 392, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 126. 

$7,225. H. P. Phillips & Co. v. 
Pruitt, 82 S. W. 628, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 
831. 

$7,000. Houston & T. C. R. R. v. 
Bird (Tex. Civ. App.), 48 S. W. 756. 

$5,000; reduced to $1,500. Kansas & 
T. C. Co. V. Reed, 1 Ind. Terr. 245, 40 
S. W. 898. 

$4,000. Bucher v. Wisconsin Cent. 
Ry., 139 Wis. 597, 120 N. W. 518. 

$3,500; reduced to $1,000. Keddenv. 
Public Service Ry. (N. J. L.), 75 Atl. 
179. 

$3,100. Kennedy v. St. Paul City 
Ry., 59 Minn. 45, 60 N. W. 810. 

$2,000. Belvidere City Ry. v. Bute, 
128 111. App. 620. 

208 por loss of service of a wife the 
following verdicts have been upheld: 

$25, loss of society of wife, who lived 
only a few hours after the injury. 

172 



Chapman v. Pfarr, 145 la. 196, 132 
N. W. 957. 

$500. State v. Miller, 180 Fed. 796. 

$600. El Paso El. Ry. v. Sierra 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 109 S. W. 986. 

$700. The Little Silver, 189 Fed. 
980. 

$1,200. Birmingham R. L. & P. 
Co. V. Lavender, 158 Ala. 434, 47 So. 
1026. 

$1,800. Texas T. & T. Co. v. Scott 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 587. 

$2,500. Citizens' R. & L. Co. v. 
Johns, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 489, 116 S. W. 
62. 

$3,000. Allen v. Manhattan Ry., 17 
N. Y. Supp. 187, 60 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
230. 

$3,500. Sherman S. & S. Ry. v. 
Eaves, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 409, 61 S. W. 
550. 

$4,571.75. Southern Pac. Co. v. 
Blake (Tex. Civ. App.), 128 S. W. 668. 

$10,000. Cannon v. Brooklyn City 
R. R., 14 Misc. 400, 35 N. Y. Supp. 
1039. 

$16,000. International & G. N. 
R. R. V. SandliQ (Tex. Civ. App.), 122 
S. W. 60. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$10,000. Indianapolis T. & T. Co. v. 
Menze, 173 Ind. 31, 88 N. E. 929. 

$150. Pratt V. Greenwich & J. Ry., 
57 App. Div. 628, 68 N. Y. Supp. 117. 

™ For the loss of service of a child 
the following verdicts have been up- 
held: 



2738 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES §§ 1366, 1367 

§ 1366. CivU Damage Act. 

In some cases the damages awarded under the Civil Damage 
Act have been held excessive, as in Franklin v. Schermerhorn.^" 
In this case the plaintiff's husband was a cripple, and could 
earn but little. He had a pension of |54 a quarter, became 
intoxicated and lost $50, and the jury gave the plaintiff $75. 
It was held to have been too large, and that the verdict should 
have been for $50. But in Roth v. Eppy,"^ where the plain- 
tiff brought an action against defendant for sale and gift of 
liquors to her husband, whereby he became habitually in- 
toxicated and then insane, it was held that $1,200 damages 
were not excessive for the injury to her means of support; and 
other large verdicts have been upheld.^^^ 

§ 1367. Damages for death. 

Two elements enter into the assessment of damages for 
death, even when there is no statutory limit and such dam- 
ages are based on general principles of compensation. In the 
first place, the actual or potential value of the life in itself is 
to be considered: the age, trade or profession, earning capac- 
ity, etc., of the deceased. In the second place, there is also to 
be taken into account the value of the life of the particular 
person; the relationship, the age, poverty, and dependence of 

$300. Bredcson r. C. A. Smith Lum- $5,000 (reduced from $7,000). Ala- 

ber Co., 91 Minn. 317, 97 N. W. 977. bama G. S. R. R. v. Burgess, 119 Ala. 

$640. Chicago U. T. Co. v. Brody, 555, 25 So. 251. 

123 111. App. 331. $4,860; reduced to $3,000. McHugh 

$825. Cincinnati N. & C. Ry. v. v. Rhode Island Co., 29 R. I. 206, 69 

Cooke (Ky.), 121 S. W. 956. Atl. 853. 

$1,000. Johnson v. St. Paul & W. C. $4,500. Hurt v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. 

Co., 131 Wis. 627, HI N. W. 722. Ry., 94 Mo. 265, 7 S. W. 1, 4 Am. St. 

$1,800. Pittsburg, C, C. & S. L. Ry. Rep. 374. 

V. Blum (Ky.), 125 S. W. 300. "« 8 Hun, 112. 

$1,900. Texas & N. O. Ry. v. Wood =" 80 III. 283. 

(Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 569. "= $1,000. Bennett v. Levi, 19 N. Y. 

$2,000. Akersloot v. Second Ave. Supp. 226, 46 N. Y. St. 754. 

Ry., 56 Hun, 640, 8 N. Y. Supp. 926. $4,500. Pilkins v. Hans, 87 Neb. 

$3,000. Texas & N. O. R. R. v. Mc- 7, 126 N. W. 864. 

Leod (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 311. On the other hand, in Lahey v. Crist, 

$3,250. Birmingham R. L. & P. Co. 130 111. App. 152, a verdict of $3,000 

V. Chastain, 158 Ala. 421, 48 So. 85. was held excessive, and reduced to 

The following verdicts have been $2,000. 
held excessive; 



§1367 



DAMAGES FOR DEATH 



2739 



the beneficiary, the disposition of the deceased to use his earn- 
ings for the latter's benefit, etc. The existence of these two 
diverse elements leads to unusual uncertainty in the amount of 
recovery. Thus in actions for the death of a man ^^^ of adult 



2" For the death of a man the fol- 
lowing verdicts have been upheld: 

$500, man of seventy, able to do 
light work. Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. 
Dupee, 67 S. W. 15, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 
2349. 

$600, man of seventy-one, able to earn 
more than hving. Moore v. Keokuk & 
W. R. R., 89 la. 223, 56 N. W. 
431. 

$1,000, man of twenty-seven, not of 
good habits, earning money. Johnson 
V. Rochester Ry., 61 App. Div. 12, 70 
N. Y. Supp. 113. 

$1,100, unmarried man of thirty-five, 
salary of $1,800, assisted mother and 
sister. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. v. 
Young, 67 Neb. 568, 93 N. W. 922. 

$1,324, son of twenty-one, only sup- 
port of mother. De Puy v. Cook, 90 
Hun, 43, 35 N. Y. Supp. 632. 

$1,500, man of fifty, wife and four 
children, received fifty cents an hour. 
Boden v. Demwolf, 56 Fed. 846. 

$1,500, man of forty-three, earning 
$150 a month. El Paso & S. W. R. R. 
V. Murtle, 108 S. W. 998, 49 Tex. Civ. 
App. 273. 

$1,600, fireman, paid mother $25 a 
month. Chicago & E. R. R. v. Stephen- 
son, 33 Ind. App. 95, 69 N. E. 270. 

$2,000, unmarried man of thirty-two, 
contributed to support of parents. 
Grace & Hyde Co. v. Strong, 127 111. 
App. 336. 

$2,000, vigorous man of thirty-five, 
earning $10 to $15 a week. Sipple v. 
Laclede Gaslight Co., 125 Mo. App. 81, 
102 S. W. 608. 

$2,000, unmarried man of twenty-one, 
earning $10 a week. Predmore v. 
Consumers' L. & P. Co., 99 App. Div. 
651, 91 N. Y. Supp. 118. 

$2,000, farmer of fiftv-six, supporting 



wife and daughters. Choctaw O. & G. 
R. R. V. Baskins (Okla.), 93 Pac. 757. 

$2,000, son with expectancy of thirty- 
six years, contributing $20 a month to 
support of mother. Gulf, C. & S. F. 
Ry. V. Royall, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 86, 43 
S. W. 815. 

$2,150, laborer. Chicago, B. & Q. 
R. R. V. Blank, 24 111. App. 438. 

$2,391.50, man earning $35 a month 
and board, sent earnings to parents. 
Fordyce v. McCants, 55 Ark. 384, 18 
S. W. 371. 

$2,400, industrious man of twenty- 
one. Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Adler, 28 
111. App. 102. 

$2,500, deck hand of thirty-eight, 
devoting wages to three young children. 
Cheatham v. Red River Line, 56 Fed. 
248. 

$2,500. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. R. 
V. McCain, 67 Ark. 377, 55 S. W. 165. 

$2,500, watchman. Savannah, etc., 
R. R. V. Flannagan, 82 Ga. 679, 9 
S. E. 471, 14 Am. St. Rep. 183. 

$2,600, laborer in brewery. Consoli- 
dated Ice Machine Co. v. Kiefer, 26 III. 
App. 466. 

$2,600, farmer of thirty-three. 
Thornton v. Maine S. A. Soc, 97 Me. 
108, 63 Atl. 979. 

$2,600, unmarried man of twenty- 
eight, no evidence ever helped father. 
Sieber v. Great Northern R. R., 76 
Minn. 269, 79 N. W. 96. 

$2,500, man of thirty-eight, comfort- 
ably provide^ for wife. Woxland v. 
Northwestern C. M. Co., 113 Minn. 
440, 129 N. W. 856. 

$2,500, unmarried man of twenty-one 
intended to take care of parents. 
Leque v. Madison G. & E. Co., 133 
Wis. 647, 113 N. W. 946. 

12,700, laborer of twenty-six, sending 



2740 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1367 



age the amount of verdicts upheld ranges from small to very 

tence for misdemeanor. Tillar v. Rey- 



eamings to mother in Sweden. Swan- 
son V. Oakes, 93 Minn. 404, 101 N. W. 
949. 

$3,000, single young man, sole sup- 
port of mother and younger brothers, 
earning $40 to $50 a month. O'Cal- 
laghan v. Bode, 84 Cal. 489, 24 Pac. 
269. 

$3,000, man left widow and young 
child. Falender v. Blackwell, 39 Ind. 
App. 121, 79 N. E. 393. 

$3,000, laborer, sole support of wife 
and three children. Potter v. St. Louis 
& S. F. R. R., 136 Mo. App. 125, 117 
S. W. 593. 

$3,000, unmarried man of twenty-six, 
earning $400 a year, never contributed 
to support of his relatives. Kane v. 
Mitchell Transportation Co., 90 Hun, 
65, 35 N. Y. Supp. 581. 

$3,000, laborer, earning $1.10 per 
day, parents dependent on him. Gal- 
veston H. & S. A. Ry. V. Arispe, 5 Tex. 
Civ. App. 611, 23 S. W. 928, 24 S. W. 
33. 

$3,250, coal miner leaving widow. 
Northern C. & C. Co. v. AUera, 46 
Colo. 224, 104 Pac. 197. 

$3,500, longshoreman of thirty-five, 
earning $60 a month. The Aurora, 178 
Fed. 587. 

$3,500 (reduced from $5,000), man of 
sixty-five, earning $3.50 to $4.00 a day, 
left a widow. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. 
Sample, 138 111. App. 95, affirmed. 
Sample v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R., 233 
111. 564, 84 N. E. 643. 

$3,500, by widow. Voelker v. Hill- 
O'Meara Construction Co., 153 Mo. 
App. 1, 131 S. W. 907. 

$3,500, man of forty, hard worker. 
ConkUn v. Tice, 48 Hun, 618, 1 N. Y. 
Supp. 803. 

$3,500, man of 22Ji, action by 
mother. Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Henry, 
75 Tex. 220, 12 S. W. 828. 

$3,700, man of thirty-one, earning 
$50 to $60 a month, most contributed 
to plaintiff's support, serving short sen- 



nolds, 96 Ark. 358, 131 S. W. 959, 30 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 1043. 

$3,750, son of twenty-two, contrib- 
uted $250 to $350 a. year to mother's 
support, earning $1,000. McVeigh v. 
Minn. & R. R. Ry., 110 Minn. 184, 129 
N. W. 852. 

$3,800, section hand of thirty-three, 
making living for himself and family. 
Gulf, C. & S. L. Ry. v. Duvall, 12 Tex. 
Civ. App. 348, 35 S. W. 699. 

$4,000, seaman of twenty-six, con- 
tributing $300 a year to wife and chil- 
dren. Nickerson v. Bigelow, 62 Fed. 
900. 

$4,000, healthy young man of 
twenty-four. Gould Const. Co. v. 
Childers, 129 Ky. 536, 112 S. W. 622. 

$4,000, unmarried son, intended to 
support parents. Bright v. Barnett & 
Record Co., 88 Wis. 299, 60 N. W. 
418. 

$4,200, man of twenty-six, supported 
widowed mother. Texas & P. Ry. v. 
Lester, 75 Tex. 56, 12 S. W. 955. 

$4,334.50, father of plaintiff, seven- 
teen years old, who was being educated. 
Healy v. Hoy, 112 Minn. 138, 132 N. W. 
208. 

$4,500, brakeman of thirty-four, 
earning $60 to $75 a month, lived with 
mother and supported her. St. Louis 
& S. F. Ry. V. French, 56 Kan. 584, 44 
Pac. 12. 

$4,500, strong man of thirty-eight, 
provided comfortably for himself and 
wife. Woxland v. Northwestern C. M. 
Co., 113 Minn. 440, 129 N. W. 856. 

$4,995, strong man of twenty-eight, 
earning $1.75 a day. Webb v. Denver 
& R. G. Ry., 7 Utah, 17, 26 Pac. 981. 

$5,000, ship's cook of thirty-nine, 
earning $50 a month. In re Humboldt 
L. M. Assoc, 60 Fed. 428. 

$5,'000, man of fifty-two. Hall v. 
North Pass. C. R. R., 134 Fed. 309. 

$5,000, industrious man of twenty- 
seven, earning $100 a month. South- 



§1367 



DAMAGES FOE DEATH 



2741 



large; while on the other hand in a number of cases small 



em Pac. Co. v. Wilson, 10 Ari. 162, 85 
Pac. 401. 

$5,000, man of forty-six, widow and 
six children, to whom contributed $700 
to $900 a year. St. Louis, I. M. & S. 
Ry. V. Raines (Ark.), 119 S. W. 665. 

$5,000, laboring man earning $1.50 a 
day, leaving widow and two children. 
Wightman v. Waade, 54 111. App. 215, 
226. 

$5,000, industrious young man of 
twenty-two, attending college and earn- 
ing $2 a day in vacations. Geo. B. 
Swift Co. V. Gaylord, 126 111. App. 281. 

$5,000, industrious and healthy la- 
borer, supporting wife and several 
children. Turck v. Chicago, 146 111. 
App. 472. 

$5,000, postal clerk of fifty, earning 
$1,150 a year, leaving widow and two 
dependent sons. Malott v. Shimer, 153 
Ind. 35, 54 N. E. 101, 74 Am. St. Rep. 
278. 

$5,000, industrious man of fifty- 
eight, earning $10.50 a week. Indian- 
apolis T. & T. Co. V. Romans, 40 Ind. 
App. 184, 79 N. E. 1068. 

$5,000, locomotive engineer of forty- 
one, earning $1,600 a year, leaving 
widow and dependent children. Pitts- 
burg, C, C. & S. L. Ry. V. Sudhoff, 173 
Ind. 314, 90 N. E. 467. 

$5,000, brakeman of twenty-five, 
earning $55 a month. Lowe v. Chicago, 
S. P., M. & O. Ry., 89 la. 420, 56 
N. W. 519. 

$5,000, man of forty-nine, earning $8 
a week. Louisville Water Co. v. Phil- 
lips, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 557, 89 S. W. 700. 

$5,000, man of middle life, earning 
good wages, left wife and family. 
BoUnger v. St. Paul & D. R. R., 36 
Minn. 418, 31 N. W. 856, 1 Am. St. 
Rep. 680. 

$5,000, industrious man earning 
$2.25 a day, left wife and several chil- 
dren. Peteraon v. Merchants' Elevator 
Co., Ill Minn. 105, 126 N. W. 534, 27 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 816. 



$5,000, steamboat engineer, plaintiff, 
his mother, dependent upon him, third 
trial. Erwin v. Neversink S. B. Co., 
23 Hun, 573. 

$5,000, healthy man of thirty-seven. 
Johnson v. Long Island R. R., 80 Hun, 
306, 30 N. Y. Supp. 318. 

$5,000, man of eighty-five. Under- 
wood V. Old Colony St. Ry., 31 R. I. 
253, 80 Atl. 390. 

$5,000, healthy young man who had 
been supporting family, out of employ- 
ment at time of death. San Antonio 
St. Ry. V. Renken, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 
229, 38 S. W. 829. 

$5,000, farmer of thirty-two, deaf- 
mute, supported family and helped 
aged mother. International & G. N. 
R. R. V. Munn, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 276, 
102 S. W. 442. 

$5,500, locomotive engineer of fifty- 
five, earning $1,200 a year. Western, 
& A. R. R. V. Hyer, lis Ga. 776, 39 
S. E. 447. 

$5,500, man of thirty-three, earning 
$75 to $100 a month. Lake Shore & M . 
S. Ry. V. Hottman, 25 Oh. Cir. Ct. 140. 

$6,000, man of twenty-four contrib- 
uted to support of parents. 111. Steel 
Co. V. Paige, 136 111. App. 410, aflSrmed, 
Paige V. 111. Steel Co., 233 HI. 313, 84 
N. E. 239. 

$6,000, industrious young man, prin- 
cipal support of mother and younger 
brothers. Casey v. Kelly-Atkinson 
Const. Co.,, 146 111. App. 551, affirmed, 
240 111. 416, 88 N. E. 982. 

$6,000, man of twenty-one, running 
milk wagon, supporting wife and child. 
Racine v. Erie R. R., 69 App. Div. 437, 
74 N. Y. Supp. 977. 

$6,000, man of twenty-five, earning 
$12 a week. Sembler v. Cowperthwait, 
53 Misc. 28, 103 N. Y. Supp. 979. 

$6,000, man of thirty-two, supporting 
wife and four children. Texas & P. 
Ry. V. Hudman, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 309, 
28 S. W. 388. 

$6,000, man of twenty-five, earning 



2742 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



1367 



verdicts have been set aside 

$18 to $25 a week. Missouri, K. & T. 
Ry. V. WaU (Tex. Civ. App.), 110 S. W. 
453. 

$6,250, man of fifty-five, earning $500 
to $1,200 a year. Pasohall v. Owen, 77 
Tex. 583, 14 S. W. 203. 

$5,500, young man contributing $30 
to $50 a month to mother and invalid 
sister. Little Rook & F. S. Ry. v. Voss 
(Ark.), 18 S. W. 172. 

$6,908.98, industrious man earning 
$630 a year. Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Graham, 98 Ky. 688, 34 S. W. 229, 17 
Ky. L. Rep. 1229, 

$7,000, shipmaster of thirty-five, 
earning $100 a month. In re Humboldt 
L. M. Assoc, 60 Fed. 428. 

$7,000, industrious man of forty-six, 
saving money. Ryan v. Oshkosh G. L. 
Co., 138 Wis. 466, 120 N. W. 264. 

$7,500, railroad engineer of twenty- 
five, earning $100 to $130 a month, and 
giving most of it to his mother. Baker 
V. Philadelphia & R. Ry., 149 Fed. 882. 

$7,500, industrious man of fifty-two, 
drawing pension of $72 a month. St. 
Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Maddry, 57 
Ark. 306, 21 S. W. 472. 

$7,500, section foreman of twenty- 
eight, leaving widow and four children. 
Mobile, J. & K. C. R. R. v. Hicks 
(Miss.), 46 So. 360. 

$7,830, miner of forty earning $42 a 
month. Atchison, T. & S. F, R. R. v. 
Hughes, 55 Kan. 491, 40 Pac. 919. 

$8,000, young man earning $2.20 a 
day. Hass v. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 
90 la. 259, 57 N. W. 894. 

$8,000, brakeman of twenty-three. 
Louisville & N. R. R. v. Mulfinger, 80 
S. W. 499, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 3. 

$8,000, mail carrier of thirty-five, 
earning $50 a month. Louisville & N. 
R. R. V. Lucas, 98 S. W. 308, 99 S. W. 
959, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 539. 

$9,000, sober and industrious man of 
twenty-nine. Voelker v. Chicago, M. 
& S. P. Ry., 116 Fed. 867. 

$0,000, station master of thirty-two. 



as excessive, though in most 

of good habits and business ability, 
Louisville & N. R. R. v. Scott, 108 Ky. 
S92, 56 S. W. 674, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 30, 50 
L. R. A. 381. 

$9,400, industrious young farmer, ex- 
pectancy of life of thirty-eight years, 
earning $50 a month, left wife and in- 
fant child. Pittsburg, C, C. & S. L. 
Ry. V. Burton, 139 Ind. 357, 37 N. E. 
150, 38 N. E. 594. 

$9,500, man of thirty-two, in mail 
service, under civil service rules, earn- 
ing $1,000 a year. Malott v. Central 
Trust Co., 168 Ind, 428, 79 N. E. 
369. 

$10,000, man of thirty-two, earning 
$1,500 a year. The Oceanic, 61 Fed. 
338. 

$10,000, healthy man with life ex- 
pectancy of twenty-five years, contrib- 
uting $800 a year to family, St. Louis, 
I. M. & S. Ry. V. Sweet, 60 Ark. 550, 31 
S. W. 571. 

$10,000 ($8,000 for widow and $2,000 
for estate), brakeman of thirty-three, 
earning $60 a month. Warren & O. 
V. R. R. V. Waldrop (Ark.), 123 S. W. 
792. 

$10,000,, strong man of twenty-two 
earning $90 a month. Pulaski G. L. 
Co. V. McCUntock, 97 Ark. 318, 134 
S. W. 1189, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 825. 

$10,000, man of thirty-eight, earning 
$125 a month. Smith v. Chicago, P. & 
S. L. Ry., 143 111. App. 128, affirmed, 
236 111. 369, 86 N. E. 150. 

$10,000 for death of brakeman. 
Louisville & N. R. R. v. Brooks, 83 Ky. 
129, 4 Am. St. Rep. 135. 

$10,000, telegraph operator of sixty- 
one, earning $1,000 a year. Beecher v. 
Long Island R. R., 53 App. Div. 324, 
65 N. Y. Supp. 642. 

$10,000, brakeman of twenty-six, 
earning $650 a year, prospects of pro- 
motion. Douglass V. Northern Cent. 
Ry., 59 App. Div. 470, 69 N. Y. Supp. 
370. 

$10,000, man of thirty-five earning 



§1367 



DAMAGES FOR DEATH 



2743 



of the decided cases a verdict for damages for death has 



$1.25 a day. Missouri Pac. Ry. v. 
Lehmberg, 75 Tex. 61, 12 S. W. 104, 
838. 

$10,000 ($5,000 for widow, $5,000 for 
infant daughter), locomotive engineer 
earning $125 a month. St. Louis, A. & 
T. Ry. V. Johnston, 78 Tex. 536, 15 
S. W. 104. 

$10,000, engineer of twenty-five, 
earning $125 a month. Texas & P. Ry. 
V. Geiger, 79 Tex. 13, 15 S. W. 214. 

$10,000, brakeman of forty, earning 
$75 a month, but qualified for higher 
position in railroad service. Texas & 
P. Ry. V. Robertson, 82 Tex. 657, 17 
S. W. 1041, 27 Am. St. Rep. 929. 

$10,000 ($5,000 for widow, $5,000 for 
minor son). Gulf, C. & S. P. Ry. v. De- 
laney, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 427, 55 S. W. 
538. 

$10,000 ($5,500 for widow, $1,500 
each for three minor children), man of 
thirty-seven, earning $50 a month. 
Houston & T. C. R. R. v. Rutland, 45 
Tex. Civ. App. 621, 101 S. W. 529. 

$10,000, fireman of twenty-nine, 
earning $50 to $75 a month. St. Louis 
S. W. Ry. V. Holt (Tex. Civ. App.), 
121 S. W. 581. 

$11,000 ($5,000 to wife, $3,000 to 
each of two children), hostler of forty- 
seven, earning $60 a month. Tyler S. 
E. Ry. V. McMahon (Tex. Civ. App.), 
34 S. W. 796. 

$11,490, man of sixty-three, manag- 
ing valuable estate. Chicago, R. I. & 
G. Ry. V. Trippett (Tex. Civ. App.), 
Ill S. W. 761. 

$11,750, healthy industrious man of 
twenty-seven, earning $75 to $100 a 
month. Ft. Worth & R, G. Ry. v. 
Wilkinson, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 279, 110 
S. W. 470. 

$12,000, engineer of thirty-one, earn- 
ing $1,300 to $1,500 a year. The 
Volund, 181 Fed. 643, 104 C. C. A. 
373. 

$12,000, manager of insurance com- 
pany of thirty-four, salary $2,000. 



Stockton V. Pennsylvania R. R., 182 
Fed. 282. 

$12,000, railroad engineer, $125 to 
$175 a month, Vreeland v. Michigan 
Cent. R. R., 189 Fed. 495. 

$12,000, man of twenty-six employed 
in hardware store at $75 a month. 
Hale V. San Bernardino V. T. Co., 156 
Cal. 713, 106 Pac. 83. 

$12,000, structural iron worker of 
twenty-nine, earning S4 a day. Con- 
rad V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. R., 
137 App. Div. 760, 121 N. Y. Supp. 
774. 

$12,958, man of thirty-five conduct- 
ing profitable business. McCormick v. 
Rochester Ry., 133 App. Div. 760, 117 
N. Y. Supp. 1110. 

$13,500, conductor. Chesapeake & 
O. R. R. V. Judd, 106 Ky. 364, 50 S. W. 
539, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1978. 

$14,000, man of thirty, earning $80 
a month. Tyler S. E. Ry. v. Rasberry, 
13 Tex. Civ. App. 185, 34 S. E. 794. 

$14,000, man of thirty-one, earning 
$80 a month. Texas & P. Ry. v. John- 
son, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 135, 106 S. W. 
773. 

$14,000, man in good health, earning 
$1,000 to $1,200 a year. Temple E. L. 
Co. V. Halliburton (Tex. Civ. App.), 
136 S. W. 584. 

$14,500, railroad brakeman of thirty, 
earning $40 a month. Louisville & A. 
R. R. V. Cox (Ky.), 125 S. W. 1056. 

$14,500, head brakeman of thirty- 
six, earning $65 a month, wife and child 
dependent on him. Gulf, C. & S. F. 
Ry. V. Johnson, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 254, 
31 S. W. 255. 

$15,000, healthy young locomotive 
engineer earning $125 a month; third 
verdict. Southern Ry. v. Scanlon, 105 
S. W. 152, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 38. 

$15,000, physician of fifty, income of 
$2,000 a year. Ericius v. Brooklyn 
Heights R. R., 63 App. Div. 353, 71 
N. Y. Supp. 596. 

$15,000, stone-cutter of twenty-nine. 



2744 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1367 



not been set aside as excessive unless it was a remarkably 



East Line & R. R. Ry. v. Smith, 65 
Tex. 167. 

$15,000, head brakeman of thirty, 
earning $75 a month, supporting wife 
and yomig child. Ft. Worth & R. G. 
Ry. V. Kime, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 271, 51 
S. W.558. 

$15,000 ($7,000 for wife, $4,000 each 
for two children), section foreman of 
fifty-four, earning .SlOO a month. Gal- 
veston, H. & S. A. Ry. V. Perry, 38 Tex. 
Civ. App. 81, 85 S. W. 62. 

$15,000, bright industrious man of 
forty-one, earning $115 a month. Har- 
ris V. Puget Sound El. Ry., 52 Wash. 
289, 100 Pac. 838. 

$15,190, man of twenty-nine, earning 
$2,000 a year, leaving wife and infant 
child. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. 
Cleere, 76 Ark. 377, 88 S. W. 995. 

$16,000, engineer. San Antonio & A. 
P. Ry. V. Harding, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 
497, 33 S. W. 373. 

$16,000, industrious man of thirty- 
two, earning $70 to $110 a month, in 
line of promotion. Missouri, K. & T. 
Ry. V. McDuffey, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 
202, 109 S. W. 1104. 

$16,500, railroad employee of forty- 
three, earning $100 a month. Houston, 
E. & W. T. Ry. V. McHale, 47 Tex. Civ. 
App. 360, 105 S. W. 1149. 

$17,000 ($7,000 for widow, $2,500 
each for four children). Galveston, H. 
& S. A. Ry. V. Davis, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 
279, 65 S. W. 217. 

$17,500, railway engineer of forty- 
five, earning $150 to $200 a month. 
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. 0. Boyce, 39 Tex. 
Civ. App. 195, 87 S. W. 395. 

$20,000. Texas Loan Agency v. 
Fleming, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 668, 46 
S. W. 63. 

$20,000, section foreman earning $50 
a month. International & G. N. R. R. 
I'. McVey (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 
991. 

$20,000, healthy man of thirty-three, 
earning $90 a month (formerly $140 a 



month), two young children. Texas 
& N. O. R. R. V. Walker (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 125 S. W. 99. 

$20,000, engineer of fire department. 
Houston B. & T. Ry. v. O'Leary (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 136 S. W. 601. 

$21,000, man of twenty-nine, earning 
$150 a month, leaving widow and minor 
children. Neary v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
(Mont.), 110 Pac. 226. 

$22,000 ($10,000 for widow, $6,000 
to each of two daughters), railroad line- 
man of fifty-three, earning $75 a 
month. Freeman v. McElroy (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 657. 

$25,000, successful business man of 
sixty-two, earning $5,000 a year. Stern- 
fels i). Metropolitan St. Ry., 73 App. 
Div. 494, 77 N. Y. Supp. 309. 

$25,000, man of thirty-eight, holding 
life position, salary $3,300, supporting 
wife and two children. Lane v. Brook- 
lyn Heights R. R., 85 App. Div. 85, 82 
N. Y. Supp. 1057. 

$25,000 ($10,000 for widow, $7,500 
for each of two young children), loco- 
motive fireman of thirty-six, earning 
$80 to $100 a month, in line of promo- 
tion. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. Mit- 
chell, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 381, 107 S. W. 
374. 

$25,000, locomotive engineer of 
thirty-one, earning $165 to $175 a 
month. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Wil- 
liams (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. W. 1043. 

$25,000 ($7,000 for wife, $2,000 for 
mother, $8,000 for each of two chil- 
dren). International & G. N. R. R. v. 
White (Tex. Civ. App.), 120 S. W. 958. 

$27,000, promoter of sixty-one, earn- 
ing over $5,000 a year. Boyce v. New 
York C. Ry., 126 App. Div. 248, 110 
N. Y. Supp. 393. 

$30,000, musician of forty-six, earning 
$75 to $100 a month. Jucher v. Whit- 
ridge (App. Div.), 128 N. Y. Supp. 233. 

$32,000, locomotive engineer of 
thirty-five, earning $150 to $225 a 
month, leaving wife and three minor 



§1367 



DAMAGES FOR DEATH 



2745 



large one."^ There is less variation between verdicts for other 

$17,000. Scofield v. Pennsylvania 
Co., 149 Fed. 601. 

816,000. Cooper v. New York O. & 
W. Ry., 25 App. Div. 383, 49 N. Y. 
Supp. 481. 

$13,500; reduced to $8,000. Creamer 
I). Moran Bros. Co., 41 Wash. 636, 84 
Pac. 592. 

$12,000; reduced to $5,000. Leliman 
V. Louisiana R. W. Co., 37 La. Ann. 
705. 

$10,000; reduced to $6,000. Felt v. 
Puget Sound El. Ry., 175 Fed. 477. 

$10,000; reduced to $4,826. Latch- 
timacker v. Jacksonville T. & W. Co., 
181 Fed. 276. 

$10,000; reduced to $8,000. St. 
Louis & N. A. Co. V. Mathis, 76 Ark. 
185, 91 S. W. 763, 113 Am. St. Rep. 85. 

$10,000; reduced to $5,000. Rose v. 
Des Moines V. R. R., 39 la. 246. 

$10,000 sufficient. Stevens v. Union 
Ry., 176 N. Y. 607, 68 N. E. 1125, 
affirming 75 App. Div. 602, 78 N. Y. 
Supp. 624. 

810,000; reduced to $6,586.73. Stil- 
lings V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 84 App. 
Div. 201, 82 N. Y. Supp. 726. 

$10,000 sufficient. Gorman v. Hand 
Brewing Co., 28 R. I. 180, 66 Atl. 209. 

$10,000; reduced to $6,000. Vowell 
V. Issaquah Coal Co., 31 Wash. 103, 71 
Pac. 725. 

$9,395.95. McAdory v. Louisville & 
N. R. R., 94 Ala. 272, 10 So. 507. 

$8,721; reduced to $5,000. O'Connor 
V. Union Ry., 67 App. Div. 99, 73 N. 
Y. Supp. 606. 

.$8,250; reduced to $6,000. Engvall 
V. Des Moines City Ry., 145 la. 560, 
121 N. W. 12. 

$8,000; reduced to $5,000. St. Louis, 
I. M. & S. Ry. V. Caraway, 77 Ark. 405, 
91 S. W. 749. 

$8,000. Harrison v. Sutter St. R. R., 
116 Cal. 156, 47 Pac. 1079. 

$8,000; reduced to $4,000. Atchison, 
T. & S. F. Ry. V. Van Belle, 26 Tex. 
Civ. App. 511, 64 S.W. 397. 



children. Houston & T. C. R. R. v. 
Davenport (Tex. Civ. App.), 110 S. W. 
150. 

$40,000, man of middle age, in good 
health, earning $10,000 a year. Cun- 
ningham V. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. 
Co., 125 App. Div. 688, 109 N. Y. 
Supp. 1070. 

^" For the death of a man the follow- 
ing verdicts have been held excessive: 

$40,000; reduced to $15,000. Sergy 
V. Helena L. & R. Co. (Mont.), 102 
Pac. 310. 

$32,500 ; reduced to $25,000. Kansas 
City S. Ry. v. Henrie, 87 Ark. 443, 112 
S. W. 967. 

$27,306.12; reduced to 810,996.95. 
Scarpati v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 69 
App. Div. 609, 74 N. Y. Supp. 499. 

825,000; reduced to $10,000. Dobyns 
V. Yazoo & M. V. R. R., 119 La. 72, 43 
So. 934. 

825,000; reduced to 812,500. Cum- 
berland T. &T.Co. V. Pitchford(Miss.), 
30 So. 41. 

$22,000; reduced to $15,000. Cool- 
idge V. New York, 99 App. Div. 175, 
90 N. Y. Supp. 1078. 

$20,000; reduced to $15,000. O'Do- 
herty v. Postal T. C. Co., 134 App. Div. 
298, 118 N. Y. Supp. 871. 

820,000 ($10,000 for widow, $5,000 
for each of two children). Galveeton, 
H. & S. A. Ry. V. Miller (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 57 S. W. 702. 

$20,000; reduced to $16,000. San 
Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. Waller, 27 Tex. 
Civ. App. 44, 65 S. W. 210. 

818,000; reduced to 812,000. Hoff- 
man V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 42 
Misc. 579, 87 N. Y. Supp. 617. 

$18,000. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. 
Johnson, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 103, 20 S. 
W. 1123. 

818,000 (reduced from $27,000); re- 
duced to $12,000. Ohrstrom v. Ta^ 
coma (Wash.), 106 Pac. 629. 

$17,545; reduced to $6,000. Duke 
V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 172 Fed. 684. 



2746 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1367 



deaths, as for instance in the case 

$7,500. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. 
Robbins, 57 Ark. 377, 21 S. W. 886. 

$7,500; reduced to $2,000. Cline v. 
Crescent City Ry., 43 La. Ann. 327, 
9 So. 122. 

$7,500; reduced to $6,000. MoFee 
V. Vicksburg R. R., 42 La. Ann. 790, 
7 So. 720. 

$7,000; reduced to $5,000. Spring- 
field E. L. & P. Co. V. Calvert, 134 III. 
App. 285, affirmed, 231 III. 290, 83 N. 
E. 184. 

$7,000. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. 
McLaughUn, 73 Kan. 248, 84 Pa«. 989. 

$7,000; reduced to $4,000. Geiger v. 
Worthen & A. Co., 66 N. J. L. 576, 49 
Atl. 918. 

$6,000; reduced to $2,000. Chicago, 
B. & Q. R. R. V. Weber, 121 III. App. 
455. 

$6,000; reduced to $3,000. Mexican 
Nat. R. R. V. Finch, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 
409, 27 S. W. 1028. 

$5,000; reduced to $1,500. Lind- 
strom V. International Nav. Co., 117 
Fed. 170. 

$5,000. Denver & R. G. R. R. ». 
Spencer, 27 Colo. 313, 61 Pac. 606, 51 
L. R. A. 121. 

$5,000. Leiter v. Kinnare, 68 111. 
App. 558. 

$5,000; reduced to $1,500. Faul- 
kenau v. Rowland, 70 111. App. 20. 

$5,000. Klemm v. New York C. & 
H. R. R. R., 78 Hun, 277, 28 N. Y. 
Supp. 861. 

$4,500; reduced to $2,500. Haekett 
V. Wisconsin Cent. Ry., 141 Wis. 464, 
124 N. W. 1018. 

$4,000; reduced to $1,000. Howey 
V. New England Nav. Co., 83 Conn. 
278, 76 Atl. 469. 

$4,000. Chicago & E. I. R. R. v. 
Vestor (Ind. App.), 93 N. E. 1039. 

$4,000. Memphis St. Ry. v. Berry, 
llSTenn. 581, 102 S. W. 85. 

$4,000. Rudiger v. Chicago, S. P. M. 
& O. Ry., 101 Wis. 292, 77 N. W. 169. 

$3,600 sufficient. Garbaccia v. Jer- 



of death of an adult woman,"* 

aey City H. & P. Ry. (N. J. L.), 53 Atl. 



707. 

$3,500; reduced to $2,500. Hirsch- 
kovitz V. Pennsylvania R. R., 138 Fed. 
438. 

$3,500; reduced to $2,000. Swanson 
V. Union Stock Yard Co. (Neb.), 131 
N. W. 594. 

$3,500; reduced to $1,500. Innes v. 
Milwaukee, 103 Wis. 582, 79 N. W. 783. 

$3,000. Wagner v. H. Clausen & 
Son B. Co. (App. Div.), 130 N. Y. 
Supp. 584. 

$2,500; reduced to $1,650. Louis- 
ville & N. R. R. V. Trammell, 93 Ala. 
350, 9 So. 870. 

$2,600. Bond Hill v. Atkmson, 16 
Ohio Cir. Ct. 470, 9 Oh. Cir. Dec. 
185. 

$2,000; reduced to $750. McKay v. 
New England Dredging Co., 92 Me. 
454, 43 Atl. 29. 

$1,750. Serenson v. Northern Pac. 
R. R., 45 Fed. 407, 

$1,600. Conley v. Maine Cent. R. 
R., 95 Me. 149, 49 Atl. 668. 

$1,500. Chicago Terminal Transfer 
R. R. V. Helberg, 99 111. App. 563. 

$1,500. Cherokee, etc., Coal, etc., 
Co. V. Limb, 47 Kan. 469, 29 Pac. 181. 

$1,500; reduced to $500. Interna- 
tional & G. N. Ry. V. Jones (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 60 S. W. 978. 

$1,500; reduced to $1,000. Hom- 
bough V. Balch, 27 Ont. App. 32, 44. 

$1,200; reduced (by plaintiff) to 
$1,000. Central R. R. v. Crosby, 74 
Ga. 737, 58 Am. Rep. 463. 

$500. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. 
Engelhorn (Tex. Civ. App.), 62 S. W. 
561. 

"" For the death of a woman the 
following verdicts have been upheld: 

$800, woman of sixty-eight, helped 
in household work, supported by chil- 
dren. Phalen v. Rochester Ry., 31 
App. Div. 448, 52 N. Y. Supp. 836. 

$1,000, feeble woman of seventy-one. 
Chicago V. Kimball, 18 111. App. 240. 



§1367 



1>aMa6es fOr blSATH 



2747 



of a girl between seven and twenty-one, ^^^ or of a boy of the 

$1,000, strong widow of seventy- 
three without dependent children. 
Wabash v. Carver, 129 Ind. 552, 29 
N. E. 25, 13 L. R. A. 851. 

$1,400, by surviving husband and 
children. Redfield v. Oakland Consol. 



St. R. R., 110 Cal. 277, 42 Pac. 822. 

$1,500, widow of seventy-two, living 
with children and working. Walls v. 
Rochester Ry., 92 Hun, 581, 36 N. Y. 
Supp. 1102. 

$2,500, woman of fifty-rune, partly 
supporting her husband. Chicago & 
A. Ry. V. Wilson, 128 111. App. 88, af- 
firmed 225 111. 50, 80 N. B. 56. 

$3,000, widow of forty-six, living 
with three adult sons. Chicago, etc., 
R. R. V. Ptacek, 62 111. App. 375. 

$3,000, widow of sixty, only support 
of plaintiff, her father, eighty-two 
years old. Purcell v. Lauer, 14 App. 
Div. 33, 43 N. Y. Supp. 988, 4 N. Y. 
Annot. Cas. 129. 

$3,500, married woman of thirty- 
eight, well educated, assisting husband. 
Fisher v. Waupaca E. L. & R. Co., 141 
Wis. 515, 124 N. W. 1005. 

$4,000, married woman of twenty- 
three, earning $400 per year. Denver 
& R. G. R. R. V. Gunning, 33 Colo. 280, 
80 Pac. 727. 

$4,000, daughter of thirty-six, con- 
tributing over $300 a year. Bowles v. 
Rome, W. & O. R. R., 46 Hun, 324. 

$4,500, mother of sixty-two, con- 
tributing to support of children. San 
Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. Long (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 26 S. W. 114. 

$5,000, woman of sixty-three, leaving 
husband and unmarried daughter. 
Lyons v. Second Ave. R. R., 89 Hun, 
374, 35 N. Y. Supp. 372, 2 N. Y. 
Annot. Cas. 402. 

$6,141, daughter, who partly sup- 
ported father. Savannah Electric Co. 
V. Bell, 124 Ga. 663, 53 S. E. 109. 

$10,000, married woman of thirty- 
one. Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Munsell, 109 
Va. 417, 64 S. E. 50. 



The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$10,000, woman of forty-nine, leav- 
ing husband and two sons, reduced to 
$7,000. Smith v. Lehigh V. R. R., 61 
App. Div. 46, 69 N. Y. Supp. 1112. 

$8,000, wife and infant, reduced to 
$5,000. Sherman v. Western Stage Co., 
24 la. 515. 

$7,500, woman of sixty-three. Med- 
inger v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 6 
App. Div. 42, 39 N. Y. Supp. 613. 

$7,000, wife of fifty-six, contributing 
to support of plaintiffs. Nelson v. Lake 
Shore & M. S. Ry., 104 Mich. 582, 62 
N. W. 993. 

$5,000, sister of forty-five, kept 
house for brother; reduced to $2,500, 
Rafferty v. Erie R. R., 66 N. J. L. 444, 
49 Atl. 456. 

$4,140, single woman of twenty- 
seven, gave parents $75 per year. 
Armour i;. Czischki, 59 111. App. 
17. 

$4,000, wife of twenty. Mitchell v. 
New York C. R. R., 2 Hun, 535. 

$3,500, widow of fifty, three adult 
children. Mclntyre v. New York C. 
R. R., 47 Barb. 515, 1 N. Y. 287. 

$2,750, married daughter contrib- 
uting $2.50 a week to plaintiff, her 
mother. Indianapolis Commercial 
Club V. Hilliker, 20 Ind. App. 239, 50 
N. E. 578. 

$1,000, woman of fifty-nine, no facts 
as to pecuniary loss shown. St. Louis 
& S. F. R. R. V. Blinn, 10 Kan. App. 
468, 62 Pac. 427. 

2'« For the desith of a girl from seven 
to twenty-one the following verdicts 
have been upheld: 

$2,000, sixteen year old girl, action 
by divorced mother. Wiltse v. Tilden, 
77 Wis. 152, 46 N. W. 234. 

$3,750, girl of fourteen. Werner v. 
Brooklyn E. R. R., 11 App. Div. 86, 42 
N. Y. Supp. 846. 

$5,000, bright girl of twelve, pro- 
ficient in music and needle work. Chi- 



2748 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



1367 



same age.^^' In the case of an infant another element of un- 



cago G. W. R. R. v. Root, 106 111. App. 
164. 

$12,500, girl fifteen and one-half 
years old, stenographer, had position 
for two months, earning twenty-five 
dollars a month and salary had been 
increased. Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. 
Ward (Ky.), 141 S. W. 72. 

The following verdicts have been 
held excessive: 

$9,500, girl of twenty, music teacher, 
helped parents; reduced to $5,000. 
Kellogg V. Albany & H. R. & P. Co., 
72 App. Div. 321, 76 N. Y. Supp. 85, 
11 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 50. 

$6,000, girl of nineteen; reduced to 
$4,000. Seeley v. New York Cent. & 
H. R. R. R., 8 App. Div. 402, 40 N. Y. 
Supp. 866. 

$5,000, girl of seventeen, earning 
money but not shown to be contribut- 
ing to family. Chicago, etc., R. R. v. 
Adamick, 33 111. App. 412. 

$4,000, girl sixteen years old, took 
care of her father's house, mother dead, 
father a laborer, fifty-five years of age; 
reduced to $2,500. Dinnihan v. Lake 
Ontario Beach Imp. Co., 8 App. Div. 
509, 40 N. Y. Supp. 764. 

$3,500, for girl of eight; reduced to 
$2,500. Wells V. New York C. & H. 
R. R. R., 78 App. Div. 1, 78 N. Y. 
Supp. 991. 

'" For the death of a boy between 
seven and twenty-one the following 
verdicts have been upheld: 

$250, boy of eleven. Snyder v. Lake 
Shore & M. S. Ry., 131 Mich. 418, 91 
N. W. 643. 

$500, bright boy of seven, St. Louis, 
etc., R. R. V. Dawson, 68 Ark. 1, 56 S. 
W. 46. 

$700, boy of nineteen. State v. Miller, 
180 Fed. 796. 

£150, boy of fourteen. Bourke v. 
Cork & M. Ry., 4 L. R. Ire. 682. 

$900, boy of fifteen. The Charlotte, 
124 Fed. 989. 

$1,000, boy of twelve. New York, 



etc., R. R. V. Mushbrush, 11 Ind. App. 
192, 37 N. E. 954. 

$1,000, boy of seven. Indianapolis 
T. & T. Co. V. Beckman, 40 Ind. App. 
100, 81 N. E. 82. 

$1,000, boy of seventeen. Young- 
quist V. Minneapolis St. Ry., 102 Minn. 
501, 114 N. W. 259. 

$1,100, boy of thirteen. Citizens' 
St. R. R. V. Lowe, 12 Ind. App. 47, 39 
N. E. 165. 

$1,525, boy of seven. Omaha v. 
Bowman, 63 Neb. 333, 88 N. W. 521. 

$1,600, boy of eighteen. The Char- 
lotte, 124 Fed. 989. 

$1,660, boy of eighteen and one-half. 
Dando v. Home Telephone Co., 140 
Mo. App. 511, 120 S. W. 644. 

$1,700, boy of sixteen. Thompson 
V. Johnston Bros. Co., 86 Wis. 576, 57 
N. W. 298, 26 L. R. A. 524. 

$1,846.46, boy of fifteen, earning four 
dollars a week. Franke v. St. Louis, 
110 Mo. 516, 19 S. W. 938. 

$2,400, boy of fourteen. Post i;. 
Ohnsted, 47 Neb. 893, 66 N. W. 
828. 

$2,500, boy of twenty, earmng 
money, had expressed intention to 
support mother. Memphis D. & G. 
Ry. V. Buckley (Ark.), 138 S. W. 
965. 

$2,500, boy of seventeen, earning 
$1.30 per day. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. 
Gilbert, 51 111. App. 404. 

$2,850, boy of ten. Omaha v. Rich- 
ards, 49 Neb. 244, 68 N. W. 521. 

$3,000, boy of nineteen, earning $2.50 
a day. Chicago & E. R. R. v. Branyan, 
10 Ind. App. 570, 586, 37 N. E. 190. 

$3,000 (reduced from $3,500), child 
of eight. Farrell v. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
R. R., 123 Iowa, 690, 99 N. W. 578. 

$3,000, boy of eleven. Union Pac. 
R. R. V. Dunden, 37 Kan. 1, 14 Pac. 
501. 

$3,100, boy of seven. Heinz v. Brook- 
lyn Heights R. R., 91 Hun, 640, 36 
N. Y. Supp. 675. 



§1367 



DAMAGES FOR DEATH 



2749 



certainty is furnished by the fact that the parent is obhged to 

$8,000, boy of eight. Vicksburg v. 



$3,500, boy of twelve, earning $20 a 
month. Lee v. Publishers: Knapp & 
Co., 155 Mo. 610, 56 S. W. 458. 

$3,500, boy of seven and one-half. 
St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. v. Bolen (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 129 S. W. 860. 

$3,500, boy of eighteen. Hayes v. 
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 131 Wis. 
399, 111 N. W. 471. 

$3,750, boy of seven. Taylor B. & 
H. R. R. V. Warner (Tex. Civ. App.), 
60 S. W. 442. 

$4,000, boy of seven. Golden v. Spo- 
kane & I. E. R. R. (Ida.), 118 Pac. 
1076. 

$4,000, boy of sixteen, expensively 
educated, law student. Atchison, T. & 
S. F. R. R. V. Fajardo, 74 Kan. 314, 86 
Pac. 301, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 681. 

$5,000, boy of sixteen, clerk in gro- 
cery store. Nelson v. Brandford Light- 
ing, etc., Co., 75 Conn. 548, 54 Atl. 
303. 

$5,000, boy of seven. Cicero & P. St. 
R. R. ti. Boyd, 95 111. App. 510. 

$5,000, boy of foiui;een. Illinois 
Cent. R. R. v. Johnson, 123 111. App. 
300. 

$5,000, boy of fifteen, earning $350 
to $500 a year, giving his earnings to 
his mother. Commerce C. O. Co. v. 
Camp (Tex. Civ. App.), 129 S. W. 
852. 

$7,500, boy of sixteen. Morris v. 
Metropolitan St. Ry., 63 App. Div. 78, 
71 N. Y. Supp. 321. 

$12,000, for two children of six and 
ten. Cherry v. Louisiana & A. Ry., 121 
La. 471, 46 So. 596, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
505. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$18,000, boy of nine. Illinois Cent. 
R. R. V. Watson, 117 Ky. 374, 78 S. W. 
175, 25 Ky! L. Rep. 1360. 

$12,000, boy of twelve; reduced to 
$7,500. McDonald v. Metropolitan St. 
R. R., 36 Misc. 703, 74 N. Y. Supp. 
367. 



McLain, 67 Miss. 4, 6 So. 774. 

$7,487, boy of fourteen; reduced to 
$2,500. McDonald v. Champion I. & 
S. Co., 140 Mich. 401, 103 N. W. 829. 

$6,000, boy of eight and one-half; re- 
duced to $3,000. Schaffer v. Baker 
Transfer Co., 29 App. Div. 459, 51 
N. Y. Supp. 1092. 

$5,126, boy of twelve; reduced to 
$2,000. Rowe v. New York & N. J. T. 
Co., 66 N. J. L. 19, 48 Atl. 523. 

$5,000, boy of ten. North Chicago 
St. R. R. V. Wrixon, 51 111. App. 
307. 

$5,000; reduced to $2,000. Jackson 
V. Consolidated Traction Co., 59 N. J. 
L. 25, 35 Atl. 754. 

$5,000, boy of seven; reduced to 
$3,000. Riley v. Salt Lake R. T. Co., 
10 Utah, 428, 37 Pac. 681. 

$4,500, boy of seventeen, contributed 
not more than $90 a year. Kerling v. 
G. W. Van Dusen & Co., 108 Minn. 51, 
124 N. W. 235. 

$3,000, boy of nineteen; reduced to 
$2,000. Barnes v. Columbia Lead Co., 
107 Mo. App. 608, 82 S. W. 203. 

$3,000, boy of sixteen, not likely to 
earn more than $20 a month during 
minority; reduced to $1,500. May v. 
West Jersey & S. R. R., 62 N. J. L. 67, 
42 Atl. 165. 

$2,500, boy of thirteen, plaintiff, 
father, had abandoned family, boy 
earned fifty cents a day. Cook v. 
American E. C. & S. G. Co., 70 N. J. L. 
65, 56 Atl. 114. 

$2,118, boy of nineteen; reduced to 
$1,500. Stumbo v. Duluth Zinc Co., 
100 Mo. App. 635, 75 S. W. 185. 

$1,050, boy of fourteen. Telfer v. 
Northern R. R., 1 Vr. (29 N. J. L.) 
188. 

$900, boy of ten, father had not been 
heard from for five years, no other rel- 
atives; reduced to $500. Grieve v. 
North Jersey St. Ry., 65 N. J. L. 409, 
47 Atl. 427. 



2750 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1367 



support the child during his minority, and the excess of the 
probable earning power of the child over the cost of his sup- 
port is problematical.^^" 



''* For the death of an infant under 
seven the following verdicts have been 
upheld: 

$299.71 each, children of one and 
three years. Chapman v. Pfarr, 145 la. 
196, 132 N. W. 957. 

$375, girl of three and one-half. 
Reger v. Rochester R. R., 2 App. Div. 
5, 37 N. Y. Supp. 520. 

$1,500, child of twenty-one months. 
Chicago & A. R. R. v. Logue, 58 111. 
App. 142. 

$1,578, child of six. Hoon v. Beaver 
Valley Traction Co., 204 Pa. 369, 54 
Atl. 270. 

$2,000, child under five. York v. 
Pacific & I. N. Ry., 8 Ida. 574, 69 Pac. 
1042. 

$2,000 (reduced from $3,750), child 
of three. Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Des 
Lauriers, 40 111. App. 654. 

$2,000, girl of five. Huerzeler v. 
Central C. T. R. R., 1 Misc. 136, 20 
N. Y. Supp. 676. 

$2,000, child of four. Moskovitz v. 
Lighte, 68 Hun, 102, 22 N. Y. Supp. 
732. 

$2,000, boy of eighteen months. 
Houston City St. Ry. v. Sciacca, 80 
Tex. 350, 16 S. W. 31. 

$2,300, boy of six. Strutzel v. St. 
Paul City Ry., 47 Minn. 543, 50 N. W. 
690. 

$2,750, child under six. Gray v. St. 
Paul City Ry., 87 Minn. 280, 91 N. W. 
1106. 

$3,500, boy of six, only child of 
widowed mother. San Antonio St. 
Ry. V. Watzlavzick (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 
S. W. 115. 

$4,800, boy over four. De Amado v. 
Friedman (Ari.), 89 Pac. 588. 

$5,000, boy of six. Chicago City Ry. 
V. Strong, 129 111. App. 511, afiirmed, 
230 111. 58, 82 N. E. 335. 

$5,500, child of two. Galveston, H. 



& N. Ry. V. Olds (Tex. Civ. App.), 112 

S. W. 787. 

$6,000, boy of two. Austin R. T. Ry. 
V. CuUen (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 
256. 

In Chicago City Ry. v. Strong, 129 
111. App. 511, the court used the fol- 
lowing language: "He was an American 
youth and every ambition of life was 
open to him, and fame and distinction 
and high place in this free republic 
were not barred to him. The country's 
history is replete with names which 
shine luminous upon the screen of 
fame, who climb into the giddy heights 
of prominence and usefulness as the 
labor of patriotic endeavor, from as 
humble a station in life as that to which 
the deceased was bom. What comfort 
and financial support he might have 
been to his next of kin, we can never 
know. What sorrow or charge upon 
them he might have come is equally 
denied." This line of thought seems to 
indicate that other considerations than 
those of mere pecuniary loss are allowed 
to govern the amount of recovery. 

The following verdicts were held ex- 
cessive: 

$20,000, child of two. Morgan v. 
Southern Pac. Co., 95 Cal. 510, 30 Pac. 
603, 29 Am. St. Rep. 143, 17 L. R. A. 
71. 

$10,500, child under four. Louisville 
& N. R. R. V. Creighton, 50 S. W. 227, 
20 Ky. L. Rep. 1691, 1898. 

$6,000, child of four and one-half. 
Fox V. Oakland Consol. St. R. R., 118 
Cal. 55, 50 Pac. 25, 62 Am. St. Rep. 
216. 

$5,000, boy of four. Graham v. Con- 
solidated Trac. Co., 64 N. 'j. L. 10, 44 
Atl. 964, 65 N. J. L. 539, 47 Atl. 453. 

$4,000, boy of four; reduced to 
$3,000. Hively v. Webster County, 117 
la. 672, 91 N. W. 1041. 



§1368 



INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



2751 



§ 1368. Inadequate damages. 

The forbearance of the court to interfere with the jury is so 
great that, in actions of tort, the general rule was once said to 
be, that a new trial will not be granted for smallness of dam- 
ages, ^i* And it is still true that a new trial will not ordinarily 
be granted for this reason, especially where there is no pe- 
cuniary standard for the estimate of damages, as where they 
are given for pain and suffering; ^2" because juries seldom un- 
derestimate the amount of damages.^^' So clearly is this felt 
to be the case, that courts are sometimes forbidden by statute 
to set aside verdicts in personal injury cases on the ground of 
inadequacy. ^^^ 

But while this is generally true, it is now well settled that if 
the jury so far disregard the justice of the case as to give no 
damages at all where some redress is clearly due, the court will 
interpose. ^^^ So where, in case for negligence, for defendant's 
servant driving against the plaintiff, it appeared that the 
plaintiff's thigh was broken, and considerable expense in- 
curred for surgical treatment; the plaintiff obtained a verdict. 



$3,500, girl under four. West Chi- 
cago St. R. R. V. Scanlan, 68 111. App. 
626. 

83,000 (reduced from $5,000) child 
of 6J^. Gunderaon v. Northwestern 
Elevator Co., 47 Minn. 161, 49 N. W. 
694. 

$2,000, girl of five; reduced to $1,000, 
Fleming v. Lobel (N. J. L.), 59 Atl. 27. 

$1,500, boy of four and one-half, 
Lehman v. Brooklyn, 29 Barb. 234. 

"' Lord Townsend v. Hughes, 2 Mod, 
150; Mauricet v. Brecknock, 2 Doug, 
509; Hayward v. Newton, 2 Strange, 
940; Barker v. Dixie, 2 Strange, 1051 
21 Yin. Abr. 486, Trial Y, g.; Lord 
Gower v. Heath, Barnes' Notes, 445 
Regina v. Justices of West Riding, 1 Q, 
B. 624, 631; Hayward v. Newton, 2 
Str. 940; Kelly v. Sherlock, L. R. 1 Q. B 
686; Howard v. Barnard, 11 C. B. 653 
(in which case the point was consid- 
ered that the jury had not been in- 
fluenced by improper motives); Apps 



V. Day, 14 C. B. 112; Bradlaugh v. Ed- 
wards, 11 C. B. (N. S.) 377; Kennedy v. 
Way, 7 West. L. J. 414. And this was 
held especially true when the judge at 
Nisi Prius was satisfied with the ver- 
dict. Gibbs V. Tunaley, 1 C. B. 
640, 

220Lufkin V. Hitchcock (Mass.), 80 
N. E. 456. 

"1 BoUes V. Bloomington & N. R. E. 
& H. Co., 130 111. App. 263. 

''' Kentucky (for pain) : Netter v. 
Louisville Ry., 134 Ky. 678, 121 S. W. 
636. 

Nebraska: O'Reilly v. Hoover, 70 
Neb. 357, 97 N. W. 470; Langdon v. 
Clarke, 73 Neb. 516, 103 N. W. 62. 

22» Connecticut: Nicholson v. N. Y. 
& N. H. R. R., 22 Conn. 74, 56 Am. 
Dec. 390. 

New York: Clapp v. Hudson River 
R. R., 19 Barb. 461 (semble). 

England: Rendall v. Hayward, 5 Bing. 
(N. S.) 424. 



2752 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES § 1368 

damages one farthing; a new trial was granted on payment of 
costs ; and Lord Denman said : " A new trial on a mere difference 
of opinion as to amount, may not be grantable; but here are 
no damages at all." ^^* And it is now settled that a verdict 
will be set aside as inadequate for the same reasons that justify 
setting a verdict aside if excessive. ^^^ 

If the entire injury is pecuniary, and the verdict is for less 
than the undisputed pecuniary loss, the verdict will be set 
aside as inadequate. So on a taking of land where damage 
was undisputed a verdict of six cents would be set aside as 
inadequate; ^^* and for breach of a contract to sell, a verdict 
for $100 was set aside where the undisputed evidence showed 
a much greater pecuniary damage. ^^^ So, in trespass, where 
the jury had not given the entire value of the property taken, 
the verdict was not allowed to stand.^^ And in an action 
brought by a seller against a purchaser, to recover damages 
for not accepting and paying for the goods sold, the judge set 
aside the verdict for the plaintiff, because, although a verdict 
for the defendants would not have been disturbed, the dam- 
ages found by the jury were less than any of the evidence in 
the case justified, if there were any recovery whatever. ^^' In 

*2* Armytage v. Halej', 4 Q. B. 917. New Jersey: Wilson v. Morgan, 58 

See, also, Cook v. Beal, 1 Ld. Raym. N. J. L. 426, 34 Atl. 762. 

176; s. c. 3 Salk. 115; Brown v. Sey- New York: Brown v. Foster, 1 App. 

mour, 1 Wils. 5; Austin v. Hilliers, Div. 578, 37 N. Y. Supp. 502. 

Hard, 408. Wisconsin: Robinson v. Waupaca, 77 

2" Florida: Duncan v. Jackson, 16 Wis. 544, 46 N. W. 809. 

Fla. 338. Ireland: Beattie v. Moore, L. R. 2 Ire. 

Georgia: Anglin v. Columbus, 128 28, 31. 

Ga. 469, 57 S. E. 780. ™ In re Brooklyn U. E. R. R., 95 

Illinois: Kilmer v. Parrish, 144 111. App. Div. 108, 88 N. Y. Supp. 426. 

App. 270. 2" Daniel v. Allen, 149 111. App. 351. 

Iowa: Tathweli v. Cedar Rapids, 122 "zs Porteous v. Hazel, Harp. (S. C.) 

la. 50, 97 N. W. 96. 332. So in caae of wrongful use of a 

Louisiana: Sullivan v. Vicksburg, S. horse and wagon, where only nominal 

& P. R. R., 39 La. Ann. 800, 4 Am. St. damages were given. Gardner v. Baer, 

Rep. 239, 2 So. 586; Caldwell v. Vicks- 26 Misc. 181, 56 N. Y. Supp. 1096. 

burg, S. & P. R. R., 41 La. Ann. 624, "» McDonald v. Walter, 40 N. Y. 

61 So. 217. 551. So in case of personal injury. 

Minnesota: Marsh v. Minneapolis B. Saperstone v. Rochester Ry., 25 App. 

Co., 92 Minn. 182, 99 N. W. 630. Div. 285, 49 N. Y. Supp. 486. So in 

Missouri: Watson v. Harmon, 85 case of injury to property. Kerr v. 

Mo. 443; Pritchard v. Hewitt, 91 Mo. Union Ry., 20 Misc. 171, 45 N. Y. 

647, 4 S. W. 437, 60 Am. Rep. 265. Supp. 819. 



§ 1369 FAILURE TO ALLOW DAMAGES 2753 

Wilson V. Hicks, ^•■"' an action on contract, this power was 
exercised conditionally upon the plaintiff's relinquishing the 
costs of the first trial. 

This right will be enforced, particularly in those cases in 
which the smallness of the verdict shows that the jury ha.ve 
made a compromise.^" In cases of insufficient damages, the 
verdict should not be annulled if the defendant will consent 
to an increase of the amount of damages, ^'^ and the court can 
sometimes indicate the sum by which the verdict should be 
increased. Thus in Alloway v. Nashville, ^^' where the jury 
erred in omitting interest, the interest was added by the court 
without ordering a new trial. In Howard v. Barnard ^'^ the 
court said, that if there is no reason to suppose that the jury 
was actuated by improper motives,, or if another verdict would 
probably be so small that a new trial would not be worth while 
in view of the additional costs, the verdict will be upheld. The 
most important case upon this subject is Phillips v. South West 
Railway. ^'^ The action was brought to recover damages for 
personal injuries sustained on the defendant's railway. The 
plaintiff was a physician, receiving an income of £5,000 a year 
from his practice. He was permanently disabled, mentally 
and physically, and had already been unable to exercise his 
profession for sixteen months. It was also shown that his life 
had undoubtedly been shortened. A verdict for £7,000 was set 
aside, and a new trial awarded, upon the ground that the dam- 
ages were inadequate. On a second trial the plaintiff recov- 
ered £16,000, and this was held not to be excessive.^'* 

§ 1369. Failure to allow damages where compensation should 
be given. 
Where the jury fail altogether to alow dlamages in cases 
where the plaintiff is by law entitled to compensation, the ver- 
dict will be set aside. Thus where an action is brought for 
serious personal injuries, a verdict for nominal damages will 

»» 26 L; J. Ex. 242. - ="' 88 Tenn. 510. 

»' FalVey ». Standford, L. R. 10 Q. =" 11 C. B. 65.-}. 

B. 54; although, in Richards v. Rose, 9 "* 5 q. b. D. 78. 

Ex. 218, this rule was doubted. ^™ Phillips v. London & S. W. Ry., 5 

"2 Richards v. Sandford, 2 E. D. C. P. D. 280. 
Smith, 349. 

173 



2754 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1370 



be set aside. ^^' A verdict which does no more than cover the 
necessary surgical expenses, will receive the same treatment; ^^^ 
a fortiori when it is even less than the actual expenses.^'' So 
in other actions, where the existence of some damage is suffi- 
ciently proved to justify recovery of a substantial amount, a 
verdict for nominal damages will be set aside as inadequate.^^" 

§ 1370. What damages are inadequate; torts in general. 

It remains to consider what verdicts have actually been 
passed upon by the courts and held inadequate and not inade- 
quate. It has already been pointed out that the court is much 
less free in holding a verdict inadequate than in holding it 
excessive, and the number of cases in which such verdicts have 
been considered by the courts is comparatively small; yet 
there are enough recent decisions to give a somewhat definite 
idea of the way in which courts act. Thus verdicts have been 
considered from the point of view of inadequacy in actions 
for false imprisonment,^" malicious prosecution,^*^ and slan- 



2" New York: Robbins v. Hudson 
River R. R., 7 Bosw. 1; Sloane v. Mc- 
Cauley, 33 Misc. 652, 68 N. Y. Supp. 
187; Lemer v. Cohen, 116 N. Y. Supp. 
567. 

Texas: Canthen i;. Breyer (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 131 S. W. 853. 

Ireland: Beattie v. Moore, L. R. 2 
Ire. 28. 

Of course, the evidence may justify a 
recovery of nominal damages only, by 
showing a mere technical wrong with 
no actual damages. Henderson v. Mc- 
Reynolds, 60 Hun, 579, 14 N. Y. Supp. 
351. 

"' New York: Katz v. Brooklyn 
Heights R. R., 35 Misc. 302, 71 N. Y. 
Supp. 744. 

Rhode Island: Hill v. Union Ry. 
(R. I.), 57Atl. 374. 

^'' Illinois: Kilmer v. Parrish, 144 111. 
App. 270. 

Maine: Leavitt v. Dow, 105 Me. 50, 
72 Atl. 735. 

Nebraska: Carpenter v. Red Cloud, 
64 Neb. 126, 89 N. W. 637. 



England: Tedd v. Douglas, 5 Jur. 
(N. S.) 1029. 

^"'Alabama: Hardeman v. Williams, 
157 Ala. 422, 48 So. 108 (trespass on 
property). 

South Carolina: English v. Clerry, 3 
Hill, 279 (cutting trees). 

Texas: Prewitt v. Southwestern T. & 
T. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. App. 123, 101 
S. W. 812 (failure to deliver telegram). 

"^ For false imprisonment the follow- 
ing damages have been held inade- 
quate: 

Six cents. Henderson v. McRey- 
nolds, 60 Hun, 579, 14 N. Y. Supp. 351. 

The following have been held ade- 
quate: 

$50. Taylor v. Davis (Tex.), 13 S. W. 
642. 

Six cents. Wegne v. Risch, 114 Wis. 
270, 90 N. W. 168. 

'" For malicious prosecution the fol- 
lowing damages have been held inade- 
quate: 

$450. Maille v. Lacassagne, 35 La. 
Ann. 594. 

$1, increased to $300. Mequet v. 



§1371 



PEESONAL INJURIES 



2755 



der,^*' in actions against a carrier for assault upon a passenger 
by its servant, ^^* and in actions for assault and battery. ^*^ 



§ 1371. Personal injuries. 

For personal injuries of various kinds a considerable num- 
ber of verdicts have been considered by the courts and their 
adequacy passed upon.^*^ 



Silverman, 52 La. Ann. 1369, 27 So. 
885. 

^" For slander the following dam- 
ages have been held inadequate: 

$25 increased to $500. Simpson v. 
Robinson, 104 La. 180, 28 So. 908. 

244 Pqp assault on a passenger by the 
conductor or motorman the following 
verdicts have been held inadequate: 

Eighty-five cents. Hanson v. Ur- 
bana & C. E. S. Ry., 75 111. App. 474. 

$5. Samuels v. New York City Ry., 
52 Misc. 137, 101 N. Y. Supp. 534. 

$200. Tourtelotte v. Westchester 
Electric Ry., 120 App. Div. 417, 105 
N. Y. Supp. 50. 

'^^ For assault and battery a verdict 
of |1 was held inadequate in Dunbar v. 
Cowger, 68 Ark. 444, 59 S. W. 951. 

^'^^ For personal injuries the following 
damages have been held inadequate: 

$5. Moseley v. Jamison, 68 Miss 
336, 8 So. 744. 

$15. Kelly v. Rochester, 15 N. Y. 
Supp. 29, 60 Hun, 582. 

$55. Saperstone v. Rochester Ry., 
25 App. Div. 285, 49 N. Y. Supp. 486. 

$100; increased to $600. Sullivan v. 
Vicksburg S. & P. R. R., 39 La. Ann. 
800, 2 So. 586, 4 Am. St. Rep. 239. 

$100. Ellsworth v. Fairbury, 41 
Neb. 881, 60 N. W. 336. 

1100. Maher v. Schulang, 117 N. Y. 
Supp. 928. 

$150. Fahlbusoh v. Brooklyn Heights 
R. R., 129 N. Y. Supp. 877. 

1250. Byrd v. Texas Midland R. R. 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 734. 

$300. Harris v. Scher, 63 Misc. 288, 
116 N. Y. Supp. 722. 

$400, loss of eye, actual expense and 



loss of time twice amount of verdict. 
De Freitas v. Nunes, 130 111. App. 
195. 

$500, loss of arm. Townsend v. 
Briggs, 88 Cal. 230, 26 Pac. 108. 

$500, permanent injuries, eight 
months' loss of time. Loyacano v. 
Jurgens, 50 La. Ann. 441, 23 So. 717. 

$500, mental anguish and terror. 
Warner v. Talbot, 112 La. 817, 36 So. 
743. 

$500, permanent stiffness of arm. 
Richardson v. Missouri P. B. Co., 122 
Mo. App. 529, 99 S. W- 778. 

$500, permanent injury, $400 ex- 
penses. Morrissey v. Westchester 
Electric Ry., 30 App. Div. 424, 51 
N. Y. Supp. 945. 

$1,000, loss of part of hand. Rossey 
V. Lawrence, 123 La. 1053, 49 So. 
704. 

$1,500, loss of right hand, value of 
time equal to amount. Abotin v. 
Heney, 62 Wash. 65, 113 Pac. 245. 

$2,000, loss of leg; increased to 
$5,000. Taylor v. Louisiana & N. W. 
R. R., 129 La. 000, 55 So. 732. 

$2,500, loss of leg. Danna v. Monroe, 
129 La. 000, 55 So. 741. 

$2,525, injury to eyesight and heart. 
Toledo R. & L. Co. v. Mason, 81 Oh. 
St. 463, 91 N. E. 292. 

$3,450, permanent crippling. Alton 
V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 107 Minn. 
457, 120 N. W. 749. 

$10,000, complete disability; in- 
creased to $15,000. Englert v. New 
Orleans R. & L. Co., 128 La. 473, 54 
So. 963. 

The following verdicts have been 
upheld; 



2756 



EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES 



§1372 



§ 1372. Death. 

In actions for death, as in other actions, the courts may set 
aside verdicts as inadequate; and the cases in which verdicts 
are considered for the death of a person whose life is of pe- 
cuniary value are governed by the same considerations as 
cases in which similar verdicts for personal injury are claimed 
to be excessive.^*' In the case of children too young to be of 
service, however, in order for their life to be of pecuniary value 
they must reach an age to be useful; and thereafter their earn- 
ings during minority should be sufficiently greater than the 
expense of maintenance to more than pay the whole cost of 
their previous maintenance, with interest; otherwise their 
death is not a pecuniary loss. Since this must in the nature of 
things be more or less uncertain, a verdict for the death of a 



$3,000. Hall V. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry., 
145 la. 291, 122 N. W. 894. 

$2,500. Sehmidt v. Chicago, M. & S. 
P. Ry., 108 Mina. 329, 122 N. W. 9. 

$2,000. Joiner v. Texas & P. Ry., 
128 La. 1050, 55 So. 670. 

$1,750. KiUen v. North Jersey St. 
Ry., 74 N. J. L. 286, 65 Atl. 836. 

$1,200. Allison v. Frederieksburg 
(Va.), 71 S. E. 525. 

$1,000. Boggess V. Metropolitan 
St. Ry., 118 Mo. 328, 23 S. W. 159, 24 
S. W. 210. 

$800. Lanpbier v. F. Johnson & Son 
Co., 117 La. 741, 42 So. 254. 

$750. Cleaver v. Louisville & N. R. 
R., 100 S. W. 223, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 
1059. 

$400. Marcus v. Omaha & C. B. R. 
& B. Co., 142 la. 84, 120 N. W. 469. 

$167. Robinson v. Waupaca, 77 
Wis. 544, 46 N. W. 809. 

$150. Kalembach v. Michigan Cent. 
R. R., 87 Mieh. 500, 49 N. W. 1082. 

$100. Dowd V. Westinghouse A. B. 
Co., 132 Mo. 579, 34 S. W. 493. 

"' For the death of an adult the fol- 
lowing verdicts have been held inade- 
quate: 

One cent. James ». Richmond & D. 
R. R., 92 Ala. 231, 9 So. 335, 



$1. Rawitzer v. St. Paul City Ry., 
94 Minn. 494, 103 N. W. 499. 

$150 ("a travesty of justice"). 
Meyer v. Hart, 23 App. Div. 131, 48 
N. Y. Supp. 904. 

$200 ("a mockery of justice"). 
Mariani v. Dougherty, 46 Cal. 26. 

$500. McCarty v. St. Louis Transit 
Co., 192 Mo. 396, 91 S. W. 132. 

$500. Burns ». Merchants' & P. O. 
Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 223, 63 S. W. 
1061. 

$3,250. Usher v. Scranton Ry., 13 
Fed. «5. 

£7,000. Phillips ». London & S. W. 
Ry., 5 Q. B. D. 78. 

The following verdicts have been 
held not inadequate: 

$3,500. Stewart v. Louisville & N. 
R. R., 125 S. W. 154 (Ky.). 

$1,000. Connor v. New York, 28 
App. Div. 186, 50 N. Y. Supp. 972. 

^Oa Metropolitan St. Ry. v. 
O'Neill, 68 Kan. 252, 74 Pac. 1105. 

$600. Swanton v. King, 72 App. 
Div. 578, 76 N. Y. Supp. 528. 

$189.75. De Luna i'. Union R. R., 
130 App. Div. 386, 114 N. Y. Supp. 
893. 

$55'. Leahy v. Davis, 121 Mo. 227, 
25 S, W. 941. 



§1372 



INADEQUATE DAMAGES FOR DEATH 



2757 



child will seldom be so clearly inadequate as to be set aside 
for that reason. 2^* 



2« por the death of a child too young 
for his labor to be of pecuniary value 
the following verdicts have been set 
aside as inadequate: 

$10. Draper v. Tucker, 69 Neb. 
434, 95 N. W. 1026. 

$300. Willsen v. Metropolitan St. 
Ry., 74 N. Y. Supp. 774. 

$1,500; increased to $3,000. Burvant 
V. Wolfe, 126 La. 787, 52 So. 1025. 

The following verdicts have been 
held not inadequate: 



$600. Terhune v. Joseph W. Cody 
Contmcting Co., 72 App. Div. 1, 76 
N. Y. Supp. 255. 

$375. Reger v. Rochester Ry., 2 
App. Div. 5, 37 N. Y. Supp. 520. 

$200. Gubbitosi ». Rothschild, 75 
App. Div. 477, 78 N. Y. Supp. 28G 
(reversing 74 N. Y. Supp. 775). 

Six cents. Silberstein v. Wm. Wicke 
Co., 29 Abb. N. C. 291, 22 N. Y. Supp. 
170. 



CHAPTER LIX 



THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 



1373. 


General principles. 


§ 1379. 


Presumption as to legal rate 


1374. 


Actions against telegraph 




of interest. 




companies. 


1380. 


Exemplary damages. 


1375. 


Action on a bill or note. 


1381. 


Liquidated damages. 


1376. 


Damages for death. 


1382. 


Medium of payment. 


1377. 


Rate of interest. 


1383. 


Matters of procedure. 


1378. 


Interest on judgments. 







§ 1373. General principles. 

The measure of damages is, as has been seen, a question of 
right rather than of remedy. The law, as a result of the breach 
of a contract or commission of a tort, creates a right to dam- 
ages which is equivalent to the right destroyed. Not merely 
the existence but the nature of this right, including its extent, 
is determined by the law that created it, as matters necessarily 
involved in the very creation of the right. "From all the facts 
attending the injury," said Pajntiter, J., in Louisville & Nash- 
ville Railroad v. Whitlow,^ "it must be determined whether 
the defendant has incurred a hability for damages and the 
extent of it. The law of Tennessee (the place of injury) must 
govern in fixing the liability and the quantum of recovery. It 
would be strange to apply the law of Tennessee in determining 
the question of liability, and take the law of the forum to fix 
the measure of recovery." In accordance with these principles, 
the measxire of damages is regulated by the law that creates the 
right of action, which is, in the case of a tort, the law of the 
place where the injury occurred,^ and in the case of breach of 
contract, the law of the place where the breach occurred, that 
is, the law of the place of performance.' 

' United States: Sandham v. Grounds, 
94 Fed. 83, 36 C. C. A. 103. 

Massachusetts: Meyer v. Estes, 164 
Mass. 457, 41 N. B. 683. 

Missouri: Matheny v. Stewart, 108 
Mo. 73, 78 S. W. 1014. 

In Atwood V. Walker, 179 Mass. 514, 



1 43 S. W. 711, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1931, 
41 L. R. A. 614; and see a learned note, 
reaching this conclusion, in 56 L. R. A. 
301. 

2 Louisville & N. R. R. v. Whitlow, 
43 S. W. 711, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1931, 41 
L. R. A. 614. 

2758 



§ 1374 ACTIONS AfiAlNST TELEGRAPS COMPANIES 27Sd 

Whether the damages shall be assessed in a single lump siim 
or in the form of a weekly or other occasional payment, like 
other questions connected with the measure of damages, should 
be determined by the law of the place of injury. So where, 
under Mexican law, damages arising out of an injury are not 
assessed in a single action, in which past and prospective dam- 
ages are included, but damages to the date of the trial only are 
given, a court in the United States, in which suit is brought 
for a personal injury in Mexico, will not carry the adjustment 
of compensation any fm-ther than the Mexican court would do/ 

§ 1374. Actions against telegraph companies. 

In actions against telegraph companies the cause of action 
may soimd in contract, for a non-feasance in failing to send or 
to dehver a telegram, or in tort for a misdelivery or other 
tortious violation of the pubhc duty. In the latter case the 
law of the place where the duty is violated alone should govern 
the measm-e of damages, according to the principles already 
discussed; in the former case it might be possible to allege a 
breach of contract either at the place where the delay occurred 
or at the place of deUvery, and the plaintiff might therefore 
claim the choice of the two laws. And it is so held ia some 
jurisdictions.* 

In several jurisdictions, however, the coini; determines the 
damages entirely in accordance with the law of the place from 
which the telegram was sent, i. e., the place where the contract 
was made.® 

61 N. E. 58 (where the place of making ' Alabama: Western U. T. Co. v. Hill, 

and of performance appear to have 163 Ala. 18, 50 So. 248, 23 L. R. A. 

been the same), the comi; intimated (N. S.) 648. 

that where they are different the Arkansas: Western U. T. Co. v. 

measm-e of damages, like the obligation Woodard, 84 Ark. 323, 105 S. W. 479; 

of the contract itself, is determined by Western U. T. Co. v. Crenshaw, 93 

the law of the place of making. This Ark. 415, 125 S. W. 420; Western U. 

notion seems to lose sight of the fact T. Co. v. Chilton (Ark.), 140 S. W. 

that the right to damages forms no 26. 

part of the original obligation, and is Kentucky: Western U. T. Co. v. 

created, not by the contract, but by Lacer, 122 Ky. 839, 93 S. W. 34, 5 L. 

the law upon breach of the contract. R. A. (N. S.) 751. 

*Evey V. Mexican Cent. Ry., 81 «i\rort/!CaroKrM: Hancock v. Western 

Fed. 294, 26 C. C. A. 407, 52 U. S. App. U. T. Co., 137 N. C. 497, 49 S. E. 952, 

118, 139, 38 L. R. A. 387. 69 L. R. A. 403; Johnson v. Western U. 



2760 



THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 



§§ 1375, 1376 



§ 1376. Action on a bill or note. 

When a bill of exchange is protested for non-aceeptance or 
non-payment, the drawer is Uable to damages according to the 
law of the place where it was drawn.' If suit is brought in a 
foreign State, and there is no proof offered of the law where the 
bill is drawn, the law merchant prevails, and re-exchange is 
recovered.* In an action against an indorser the measure of 
damages is governed by the law of the place where the indorse- 
ment was made.^ The allowance of interest is governed by the 
law of the place of payment.^" 

§ 1376. Damages for death. 

The measure of damages for the death of a human being, in 
a statutory action for the death, depends upon the law of the 
place where the injury was committed; " and the method in 
which the amount recovered is to be distributed is also de- 
termined by that law, which in effect gives a beneficial interest 
in the amount recovered to the distributees.^^ 



T. Co., 144 N. C. 410, 57 S. E. 122, 10 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 256. 

Texas: Western U. T. Co. v. Sloss, 45 
Tex. Civ. App. 153, 100 S. W. 354, and 
cases cited; Western U. T. Co. v. 
Young (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 
512. 

' United States: Bank of U. S. v. 
United States, 2 How. 711, 2 L. ed. 711. 

Alabama: Crawford v. Branch Bank 
at Mobile, 6 Ala. 12, 41 Am. Dec. 33. 

Connecticut: Roe v. Jerome, 18 Conn. 
138. 

Louisiana: Kuenzi v. Elvers, 14 La. 
Ann. 391. 

Missouri: Price v. Page, 24 Mo. 65. 

New York: Cowperthwaite v. Shef- 
field, 1 Sandf. 416. 

England: In re Commercial Bank of 
S. Australia, 36 Ch. D. 522. 

' United States: Ex parte Heidelback, 
2 Low. 526. 

Pennsylvania: Hazelhurst v. Kean, 4 
Yeates, 19; Lennig v. Ralston, 23 Pa. 
137. 

In Alabama it has been held that 
in the absence of proof of the foreign 



law no damages can be recovered. 
Dickinson v. Branch Bank of Mobile, 
12 Ala. 54. In Louisiana the foreign 
law is presumed, in the absence of proof 
to be the same as that of the forum: 
Kuenzi v. Elvers, 14 La. Ann. 391, 74 
Am. Dec. 434. 

' United States: Slacum v. Pomery, 6 
Cranch, 221, 3 L. ed. 205. 

Alabama: CuUum v. Casey, 9 Port. 
131, 33 Am. Dec. 304. 

1° Post, § 1377. 

" United States: Northern Pac. R. R. 
V. Babcock, 154 U. S. 190, 14 Sup. Ct. 
968, 38 L. ed. 958; Quinette v. Bisso, 
136 Fed. 825, 69 C. C. A. 503, 5 L. R. 
A. (N. S.) 303; The Saginaw, 139 Fed. 
906. 

Kentucky: Louisville & N. R. R. v. 
Graham, 98 Ky. 688, 34 S. W. 229; 
Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Whit- 
low, 43 S. W. 711, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1931, 
41 L. R. A. 614. 

^^ Kansas: Hartley v. Hartley, 71 
Kan. 691, 81 Pac. 505. 

New York: In re Degaramo's Estate, 
86 Hun, 390, 33 N. Y. Supp. 502. 



§ 1377 RATE OF INTEREST 2761 

Where a statute limits the amount that may be recovered 
in an action for death, it may be interpreted as forbidding the 
recovery of a greater amount in the courts of the State, no 
matter where the death was caused. In that case it becomes 
a matter of remedy, and the law of the forum will be applied.'' 
A more common interpretation, however, confines the provision 
to a limitation of the amount recoverable in actions based upon 
the local statute; and if such is the interpretation, it will not 
apply to actions within the State based upon a foreign stat- 
ute." 

§ 1377. Rate of interest. 

By the great weight of authority, and in accordance with 
the doctrines already discussed, it is held that the rate of in- 
terest allowed as damages for non-performance of a contract 
expressly performable in a certain place is regulated by the 
law of the place of performance.'^ So upon a bill of exchange 
or promissory note the rate allowed as damages for non- 
payment at maturity is the rate prevailing at the place of 
payment; '^ and the sAme rate is allowed upon the non-payment 

"Wooden v. Western N. Y. & P. Barb. 118 (debt); Cartwrightu. Greene, 

R. R., 126 N. Y. 10, 26 N. E. 1050, 13 47 Barb. 9 (price of goods sold). 

L. R. A. 458, 22 Am. St. Rep. 803. Pennsylvania: Archer v. Dunn, 2 

'* Northern Pac. R. R. v. Babcock, Watts & S. 327 (money had and re- 

154 U. S. 190, 14 Sup. Ct. 968, 38 L. ed. ceived). 

958. South Carolina: Stepp v. National 

" United States: Pana v. Bowler, 107 Life Ins. Assoc, 37 S. C. 417, 16 S. E. 

U. S. 529, 27 L. ed. 424, 2 Sup. Ct. 134 (insurance policy). See Porter v. 

704; Goodwin v. Fox, 129 U. S. 601, 9 Price, 80 Fed. 655, 26 C. C. A. 70. 

Sup. Ct. 367, 32 L. ed. 805 (account); For the peculiar doctrines of the law 

In re Kirzinger, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7, of Missouri see: Hall v. Woodson, 13 

862 (debt); Ex parte Heidelback, 2 Mo. 462; Carson v. Smith, 133 Mo. 

Low. 526 (debt). 606, 34 S. W. 855; Baltzer v. Kansas 

Louisiana: Lesesne v. Cook, 16 La. Pac. R. R., 3 Mo. App. 574. 

58 (account); Ballister v. Hamilton, 3 " United States: Bank of U. S. v. 

La. Ann. 401 (price of goods sold). Daniel, 12 Pet. 32, 54, 9 L. ed. 989; 

, Mississippi: Grangers L. Ins. Co. v. Scudder v. Union Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 

Brown, 57 Miss. 308, 34 Am. Rep. 446 23 L. ed. 336 (semble); Bank of 111. v. 

(insurance policy). Brady, 3 McLean, 268, Fed. Cas. No. 

Nevada: Sutro Tunnel Co. v. Segre- 888; Price v. Teal, 4 McLean, 201. 

gated B. M. Co., 19 Nev. 121. Alabama; Hanrick v. Andrews, 9 

New York: Fanning v. Consequa, 17 Port. 9; Dunn v. Clement, 2 Ala. 392; 

Johns. 511, 8 Am. Dec. 442 (price of Dickinson v. Mobile Branch Bank, 12 

goods sold); Pomeroyw. Ainsworth, 22 Ala. 54; Hunt v. Hall, 37 Ala. 702; 



276^ 



*HB CdNfLlC* 6r LAWS 



§137? 



of bonds or coupons." Where a bill, note, or other contract 
does not expressly name a place of payment it is ordinarily to 
be regarded as payable where made, and the interest is there- 
fore regulated by the law of the place of making; ^* and it is 



Cubbedge v. Napier, 62 Ala. 518; 
Hayes v. Southern H. B. & L. Ass'n., 
124 Ala. 663, 26 So. 527. 

Arkansas: Clark v. Taylor, 69 Ark. 
612, 65 S. W. 110, 86 Am. St. Rep. 
215. 

Indiana: Lefler v. Dermotte, 18 Ind. 
246. 

Iowa: Butters v. Olds, 11 la. 1. 

Kentucky: Holley v. HoUey, Litt. 
Sel. Cas. 505, 12 Am. Dec. 342. 

Louisiana: Bapice v. Smith, 13 La. 
91, 33 Am. Dec. 555; Bent v. Lauve, 3 
La. Ann. 88; BaUister v. Hamilton, 3 
La. Ann. 401; Hawley v. Sloo, 12 La. 
Ann. 815. 

Mississippi: Chambliss v. Robertson, 
23 Miss. 302. 

New Jersey: Healy v. Gorman, 15 
N. J. L. 328. 

New York: Foden v. Sharp, 4 Johns. 
183; Scofield v. Day, 20 Johns. 102, 11 
Am. Dec. 249; U. S. Bank v. Chapin, 
9 Wend. 471; Simpson v. Hefter, 42 
Misc. 482, 87 N. Y. Supp. 243. 

North Carolina: Roberts v. McNeely, 
52 N. C. 506, 78 Am. Dec. 261. 

Pennsylvania: Mullen v. Morris, 2 
Pa. 85; Wood v. Kelso, 27 Pa. 241; 
Mills V. Wilson, 88 Pa. 118. 

South Carolina: Bain v. Ackworth, 
1 Mill, 107; McCandlish v. Cruger, 2 
Bay, 377. 

Tennessee: Frierson v. Galbraith, 12 
Lea, 129; Cooper v. Sandford, 4 Yerg. 
452. 

Texas: Wheeler v. Pope, 5 Tex. 262; 
Andrews v. Hoxey, 5 Tex. 171; Sum- 
mers V. Mills, 21 Tex. 77. 

Vermont: Peck v. Mayo, 14 Vt. 33, 
39 Am. Dec. 205; Austin v. Imus, 23 
Vt. 286. 

England: Gibbs v. Fremont, 9 Ex. 
25; Champant v. Ranelagh, Prec. Ch. 
128; Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077; 



Cooper t). Waldegrave, 2 Beav. 282, 
17 Eng. Ch. 282. 

" United States: Scotland County 
V. Hill, 132 U. S. 107, 10 Sup. Ct. 26, 
33 L. ed. 261; Coghlan v. South Caro- 
lina R. R., 142 U. S. 101, 12 Sup. Ct. 
150, 35 L. ed. 951; Columbus S. & H. 
R. R. Appeals, 48 Fed. 275, 48 C. C. 
A. 275 (but see Fauntleroy v. Han- 
nibal, 5 Dill. 219). 

Indiana: Gray v. State, 72 Ind. 567. 

But on the bonds of a state, which 
is liable for interest only by its own 
consent {ante, § 338), no interest is 
allowed except it is given by the laws 
of the state in question, no matter 
where the bonds are for convenience 
made payable. U. S. o. N. Carolina, 
136 U. S. 211, 34 L. ed. 336, 10 Sup. 
Ct. 920. 

" Bilh and notes: 

United States: Courtois v. Carpentier, 
6 Fed. Cas. No. 3, 286, 1 Wash. 376, 
494; Cowqua v. Lauderbrun, 6 Fed. 
Cas. No. 3,299, 1 Wash. 521. 

Kentucky: Templeton v. Sharp, 9 
S. W. 507, 696, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 499. 

Louisiana: Hawley v. Sloo, 12 La. 
Ann. 815. 

New York: Foden v. Sharp, 4 Johns. 
183. 

Pennsylvania: Clark v. Searight, 135 
Pa. 173, 19 Atl. 941, 20 Am. St. Rep. 
868. 

Bonds: 

Pennsylvania: Irvine v. Barrett, 2 
Grant, 73. 

Rhode Island: Kavanaugh v. Day, 10 
R. I. 393, 14 Am. Rep. 691. 

England: Connor v. Bellamont, 2 
Atk. 382. 

Contracts for payment of money: 

United States: Wittkowski v. Harris, 
64 Fed. 712 (account); Evans v. White, 
Hempst. 296. 



§13^7 



BATE OF INTEREST 



2763 



sometimes said generally that interest is regulated by the law 
of the place where the obligation is made." In accordance 
with these principles, a consignor is entitled to interest accord- 
ing to the law of the place to which the goods were consigned 
for sale.^" Where the plaintiff performed services at Val- 
paraiso, the defendant hved in Boston, and the action was 
brought in New York, interest has been allowed from the 
commencement of the suit at the rate of the lex fori, the court 
saying, "especially as no rate is fixed by the contract, and no 
place designated for its performance." ^^ 

Where property is converted or destroyed by a tort, it has 
been held that interest on the value should be allowed at the 
rate of the place where the cause of action accrued; ^^ and the 
same is true in actions for the death of a human being. ^' 

In Massachusetts, however, a different view is taken, and 
it is held that the rate of interest is regulated by the law of 
the forum. ^* 



Colorado: Beckwith v. Talbot, 2 
Colo. 639 (price of goods sold). 

Maryland: Costigan v. Sewall, 6 Gill, 
232 (debt). 

New York: Stewart v. Ellice, 2 
Paige, 604 (debt). 

Souih Carolina: Quince v. Callender, 
1 Desaus. 160 (marriage settlement). 

" United States: Slacum v. Pomery, 
6 Cranch, 221, 3 L. ed. 206; Courtois 
V. Carpentier, 1 Wash. C. C. 376; Jaf- 
fray v. Dennis, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7, 171. 

Alabama: Evans v. Clark, 1 Port. 
388. 

Kentucky: Russell v. Shepherd, Har- 
din, 44; Cocke v. Conigmaker, 1 A. K. 
Marsh. 254; Ingraham v. Arnold, 1 J. 
J. Marsh. 406; Pawling v. Sartain, 4 
J. J. Marsh. 238. 

Louisiana: Nalle f . Ventress, 19 La. 
Ann. 373. 

Maine: Stickney v. Jordan, 58 Me. 
106, 4 Am. Rep. 251. 

New Jersey: Hoppins v. Miller, 17 
N. J. L. 185. 

North 'Carolina: Davis v. Coleman, 
33 N. C. 303. 



Pennsylvania: Mullen v. Morris, 2 
Pa. 85. 

South Carolina: Winthrop v. Pepoon, 
1 Bay, 468; Gaillard v. Ball, 1 N. & 
McC. 67. 

Texas: Cooke v. Crawford, 1 Tex. 9, 
46 Am. Dec. 93; Burton v. Anderson, 
1 Tex. 93; Able v. McMurray, 10 Tex. 
350; Ingram v. Drinkard, 14 Tex. 351; 
Bailey v. Heald, 17 Tex. 102; Pauska 
V. Daus, 31 Tex. 67. 

Vermont: Porter v. Munger, 22 Vt. 
191. 

2" Fanning v. Consequa, 17 Johns. 
511, 8 Am. Dec. 442. 

" Goddard v. Foster, 17 Wall. 123, 
21 L. ed. 589. 

22 Louisiana: Holmes v. Barclay, 4 
La. Ann. 64. 

England: Ekins v. East India Co., 1 
P. Wms. 395. 

"Kiefer v. Grand Trunk Ry., 12 
App. Div. 28, 42 N. Y. Supp. 171, 26 
N. Y. Civ. Proc. 147; Frounfelker v. 
Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 73 App. Div. 
350, 76 N. Y. Supp. 745. 

" Grimshaw v. Bender, 6 Mass. 157; 



2764 



THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 



§1378 



§ 1378. Interest on judgments. 

A foreign judgment, by the prevailing view, bears interest 
according to the law of the place where it was rendered; ^^ and 
this is in accordance with the general principles already dis- 
cussed. So in Virginia, in an action on a foreign judgment, 
after the defendant's demurrer overruled, the court awarded 
a writ of inquiry to assess damages; which would be necessary 
only if interest were to be awarded at the foreign rate.^" And 
in California it has been held that in the absence of evidence a 
foreign judgment wiU be presumed not to bear interest." In 
a few jurisdictions, however, it has been held that on a foreign 
judgment interest is recoverable at the rate of the forum, 
though it does not appear whether the judgment bore interest 
by the law of the country where it was rendered. ^^ 

It has been intimated that the foreign law as to interest 
must be carried out in order to give "full effect and credit" to 
the judgment of another State. ^' But in Massachusetts, with 
more reason, it has been held that the rate of interest is not 
part of the judgment, and no effect need constitutionally be 



Ayer v. Tilden, 15 Gray, 178, 77 Am. 
Dec. 355; Ives v. Farmers' Bank, 2 
Allen, 236. (See French v. French, 126 
Mass. 360.) 

In Indiana, Kopelke v. Kopeike, 112 
Ind. 435, 13 N. E. 695, it was held that 
where a promissory note is not payable 
in any particular place, the rate of 
interest is governed by the law of the 
forum. 

'' United States: Whitman v. Citizens' 
Bank, 110 Fed. 503, 49 C. C. A. 122. 

Alabama: Hunt v. Mayfield, 2 Stew. 
124; Murray v. Cone, 8 Port. 250; Har- 
rison V. Harrison, 20 Ala. 629, 56 Am. 
Dec. 227. 

California: Thompson v. Monrow, 2 
Cal. 99, 56 Am. Dec. 318; Stewart v. 
Spaulding, 72 Cal. 264, 13 Pac. 661. 

Michigan: Schroeder v. Boyce, 127 
Mich. 33, 86 N. W. 387. 

Ohio: Neil v. Bank, 50 Oh. St. 193, 33 
N. E. 720. 

Pennsylvania: Ralph v. Brown, 3 W. 
& S. 395. 



South Carolina: Lambkin v. Nance, 

2 Brev. 99. 

2= Clarke v. Day, 2 Leigh, 172. 

" Cavender v. Guild, 4 Cal. 250. It 
will be noted that interest in California 
is allowed on judgments only by 
statute, not by the common law. 

^ Illinois: Prince v. Lamb, Breese, 
378. 

Massachusetts: Parker v. Thompson, 

3 Pick. 429; Barringer v. King, 5 Gray, 
9; Hopkins v. Shepard, 129 Mass. 600. 

Missouri: Shickle v. Watts, 94 Mo. 
410, 7 S. W. 274. 

New York: Wells, Fargo & Co. v. 
Davis, 105 N. Y. 670, 12 N. E. 42. 

South Carolina: Nelson v. Felder, 7 
Rich. Eq. 395. 

Washington: Olson v. Veazie, 9 Wash. 
481, 37 Pac. 677, 43 Am. St. Rep. 855. 

^' United States: Whitman v. Citizens' 
Bank, 110 Fed. 503. 

Pennsylvania: Schell i'. Stetson, 12 
Phila. 187. 



§§ 1379, 1380 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 2765 

given to it; even when the judgment by its terms bears inter- 
est, this is not an integral part of the judgment, and interest is 
allowed at the domestic rate.'" 

§ 1379. Presumption as to legal rate of interest. 

In most jurisdictions it is said that if the foreign rate is not 
proved it will be presimied to be the same as the domestic rate." 
It is sometimes said, however, that where interest is to be 
recovered at a foreign rate, and no evidence is offered of such a 
rate, there can be no recovery of interest.'^ 

§ 1380. Exemplary damages. 

Whether exemplary damages shall be allowed or not de- 
pends upon the law of the place where the cause of action 
arose.'* But it would seem that if such damages are not al- 
lowed by the law of the forum they cannot be recovered there. 
The damages would be regarded, at least by the court of the 
forum, as punitive, and therefore not to be enforced in a foreign 
court. In Higgins v. Central New England & Western Rail- 
road '* it is assumed that exemplary damages, though allowed 
in the State where the tort was committed, cannot be recov- 
ered in Massachusetts, where such damages are not allowed. 
In an action for personal injury suffered in Mexico, but tried in 
Texas, it appeared that by Mexican law, the court could 
award an indemnity at its discretion, considering the social 
position of the party injured, etc. This was objected to as 
contrary to natural justice and the policy of our law, but the 

" Clark V. Child, 136 Mass. 344. 472, 59 N. W. 838; Hallam v. Telleren, 

" Illinois: Warren v. McCarty, 25 65 Neb. 255, 75 N. W. 560. 

111. 95; Deem v. Crume, 46 111. 69; Hall New Hampshire: Lougee v. Wash- 

V. Kimball, 58 111. 58. burn, 16 N. H. 134. 

Kentucky: Thomas v. Beckman, 1 Texas: Pauska v. Daus, 31 Tex. 67. 

B. Mon. 29; Reynolds v. Powers, 96 Vermont: Porter v. Hunger, 22 Vt. 

Ky. 481, 29 S. W. 299, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 191. 

1059. " Kermott v. Ayer, 11 Mich. 181. 

Minnesota: Desnoyer v. McDonald, " Kentucky: Louisville & N. R. R. 

4 Minn. 515. v. Smith, 135 Ky. 462, 122 S. W. 806; 

Missouri: Crone v. Dawson, 19 Mo. Louisville & N. R. R. v. Lynch, 126 S. 

App. 214. W. 362, 137 Ky. 696. 

Nebraska: Fitzgerald v. Rtzgerald & Mississippi: Pullman P. C. Co. v. 

Mallory Construction Co., 41 Neb. 374, Lawrence, 74 Miss. 782, 22 So. 53. 

" 155 Mass. 176, 29 N. E. 634. 



2766 THE CONFLICT OF LAWS §§ 1381-1383 

question did not really arise as the plaintiff only claimed 
compensation.'^ 

§ 1381. Liquidated damages. 

The allowance of stipulated damages involves a question of 
pubUc policy, which, as always, is for the law of the forum. 
Thus an agreement in a promissory note for the recovery of a 
certain amount as attorney's fee, for costs of collection, is an 
agreement for liquidated damages. If such damages are not 
allowed, it is because the collection of them is regarded as the 
exaction of a penalty contrary to public policy; and the public 
policy enforced by a court is that of the forum. If, therefore, 
by the law of the forum the recovery of such stipulated dam- 
ages is not permitted, it will be refused upon a foreign claim 
as well as upon a domestic one.'* 

§ 1382. Medium of pajmient. 

The question, in what currency an obligation must be paid, 
also depends upon the law of the place of payment.''' So 
where an invoice of goods was shipped from England to New 
York and there sold, the balance was payable in United States 
legal tender, and not in gold, the currency of England.'^ 

§ 1383. Matters of procedure. 

On all matters of procedure in the matter of damages the 
law of the forum governs. So on the question of the method 
of reducing expected future damages to a present cash amount, 
the method of the forum will be adopted.'^ And so costs are 
to be allowed in accordance with the practice of the forum.^" 
The administration among claimants of a fund in court is a 
matter of procedure, not of right, since all the claimants have 
a right, and the question at issue is how to satisfy the claims, 

56 Evey V. Mexican Cent. Ry., 81 Michigan: Comstock v. Smith, 20 

Fed. 294, 26 C. C. A. 407, 52 U. S. Mich. 338. 

App. 118, 141, 38 L. R. A. 387. =» Benners v. Clemens, 58 Pa. 24. 

'^ Nebraska: Security Co. v. Eyer, 36 " Georgia F. & A. Ry. v. Sasser, 4 

Neb. 507, 64 N. W. 838. Ga. App. 276, 61 S. E. 505. 

Oregon: Commercial Nat. Bank v. *> Higgins v. Central N. E. & W. R. 

Davidson, 18 Ore. 57, 22 Pac. 517. R., 155 Mass. 176, 29 N. E. 534 

" California: Grunwald v. Freese, (semhle). So of expenses of distribu- 

34 Pac. 73, tion; In re Adlum's Estate, 22 Pa. 514, 



§ 1383 MATTERS OF PROCEDURE 2767 

SO far as is possible, out of the fund — a matter of procedure. 
So the allowance of preferences in the administration of a fund 
is for the law of the forum.^^ For this reason the allowance of 
general average is adjusted according to the law of the forum; ^^ 
for this is not a question of the nature of rights, but of the 
method by which existing rights shall be satisfied out of a fund 
in court, which is not a matter of right but of remedy. 

*i United States: Smith v. Bank, 5 " Massachusetts: Loring v. Neptune 

Pet. 518, 8 L. ed. 212. Ins. Co., 20 Pick. 548. 

England: Pardo v. Bingham, L. R. England: Simonds v. White, 2 B. & 

6 Eq. 485; In re Kloebe, 28 Ch. D. 175. C. 805. 



TABLE OF CASES 



[References are to sections] 



A 



A. Cohen & Co. v. Rittiman, 948 
A. Cusimano & Co. v. Olive Oil Im- 
porting Co., 1246c 
A. Denicke, The, 156 
A. J. Anderson Electric Co. v. Cle- 
burne, W. I. & L. Co., 156, 618 
A. L. Clark Lumber Co. v. Johns, 180a, 

1347 
A. P. Brantley Co. v. Johnson, 1053 
Aaron v. Moore, 673/ 

V. Second Ave. R. R., 484 

ii. Southern Ry., 357 

V. Ward, 8736 
Abbey v. Mace, 607 
Abbott V. Allen, 973 

V. Detroit, 482, 485 

V. Gatch, 186, 645, 1067 

V. Gillespy, 649 

V. Hapgood, 742, 742o 

V. Inskip, 673a 

V. Land & Water Co., 3836 

V. Light, etc., Co., 1148 

V. McCadden, 578 

V. Milwaukee L. H. & T. Co., 
1149a, llS2a 

*. Sebor, 711 

V. Southern Pac. R. R., 1162 

V. Stewartstown, 1160a 

V. Stinchfield, 311c 

V. Tolliver, 488 

V. Wyse, 750 
Abby M. Deering, The, 589 
Abel V. Minneapolis, 1112a 
Abeles v. Western Union Tel. Co., 107a 
AbeU V. Munson, 1295 

i;. Penn M. L. I. Co., 730 
Abendroth v. Manhattan Railway, 
1194 

V. N. Y. Elevated R. R., 1194 
Aber v. Bratton, 183, 196, 536, 537 

174 



Aberdeen v. Blackmar, 793 

V. Bradford, 924 

V. Honey, 676 
Aberdeen Coal & Mining Co. v. Evans- 

ville, 999/ 
Abemathy v. Black, 673/ 
Abilene v. Wright, 483 
Abom V. Mason, 499 
Abotin V. Heney, 1371 
Abrahams v. Cooper, 457, 458 
Abrahamson v Cummings, 762 

V. Lamberson, 102a, 3016 
Abrams v. Ervin, 929a 

V. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry., 851 

V. Watson, 9996 
Abshire v. Cline, 452 
Accessory T. Co. v. McCerren, 682a 
Accumulator Co. v. Dubuque St. R. R., 

767 
Acers v. Curtis, 807a 
Achey v. Hall, 933 
Acker ». Knoxville, 1172a 
Ackerman v. Emott, 344 

V. King, 536a 

V. Rubens, 755 

». True, 947 
Ackerson v. Erie Ry., 380, 481 
Acme Cycle Co. v. Clarke, 153, 199 
Acme Food Co. v. Older, 753 
Acre V. Bufford, 534 
Acrea v. Brayton, 936, 943 
Acton V. Pierce, 675c 
Adair v. Bogle, 984, 984o 
Adam v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry., 937, 
937a 

V. Gomila, 237, 682a 
Adamant P. M. Co. v. Nat. Bank of 

Commerce, 655 
Adams v. Adams, 55 N. J. Eq. 42; 301c, 
302a 

V. Adams, 10 Leigh, 527; 345 

V. Barber, 1027 

2769 



2770 



TABLE OF CASES 
[Referencea are to sections] 



Adams v. Barry, 1265 

V. Bement, 3115 

V. Blankenstein, 853 

V. Blodgett, 317, 934, 943 

V. Burton, 1027 

V. Byerly, 636(i 

V. Conover, 975 

V. Cordis, 229, 275 

V. Cox, 667 

V. Dunham & N. R..R., 932 

V. Fitzpatrick, 664 

V. Fort Plain Bank, 308a, 314 

V. Gardner, 1268 

V. Gillam, 565a 

V. Haught, 841 

V. H. & D. R. R., 95 

V. Keystone Mfg. Co., 1230a 

V. Lambard, 311c 

V. Lawson, 445 

V. Lorraine Mfg. Co., 363 

V. McMillan, 1023 

V. Midland R. R., 1325 

V. Mo. Pac. Ry., 1348 

V. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 873 

V. Nichols, 655c 

V. O'Connor, 76 

V. Oklahoma City, 1152a 

V. Pahner, 298 

V. Peterman Mfg. Co., 1357 

V. Pugh, 665 

V. Rivers, 365 

V. St. Johnsbury & L. C. R. R., 
1148 

V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 361 

V. Salina, 361, 3806 

V. Smith, 47, 451 

V. Turrentine, 554 

V. Way, 325 

V. Woonsocket Co., 649 

V. Wright, 537, 540 

V. WyUe, 1052 
Adams & F. Harvester Co. v. Tomhn- 

son, 789 
Adams Express Co. v. Egbert, 200 

V. Hoeing, 844, 851 

V. Milton, 314 
Adamson v. Adamson, 650 

». Jarvis, 834 

V. Petersen, 81 

V. Raymer, 448a 



Adamson v. Reid, 311c 

V. Rose, 982, 1006 
Adcock V. Marsh, 445 

V. Oregon R. & N. Co., 1270 
Addams v. Heffeman, 345 

V. Tutton, 613 
Adden v. White Mt. R. R., 1148, 1166 
Adderley v. Dixon, 636ot 
Addis V. Gramophone Co., 665, 675 
Addison F. M. Co. v. Lake S. & M. S. 

Ry., 95, 924 
Adkins v. Hudson, 909a 

V. Kendrick, 47 

V. Tomlison, 966, 975 

V. Waite, 3146 
Adlard v. Muldoon, 656 
Adler v. Newcomb, 676 
Adoue V. Wettermark, 565d 
Advance E. & W. Co. v. Eddy, 70 
Advertiser Co. v. Jones, 452 
Ady V. Freeman, 685A;, 6852 
Mtna. Indemnity Co. v. George A. 

Fuller Co., 648a 
.S;tna Ins. Co. v. Glasgow E. L. Co., 
726 

V. Johnson, 722 

V. Tyler, 725 
Mtaa, Life Ins. Co. v. Nexsen, 666, 834e 

V. Paul, 730 
.Sltna S. & I. Works v. Kossuth County, 

657 
Agate V. Lowenbein, 932, 999g 
Agius V. Great Western ColUery Co., 

742 
Agnew V. Johnson, 1261 
Agra & Ehzabeth Jenkins, The, 587 
Agricultural & M. Assoc, v. State, 

573a, 575, 576 
Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Yates, 725 
Ahein v. O'Brien, 762 
Ahem v. Connell, 564 
AM V. Ahl, 676 
Ahrens v. Fenton, 364, 1344 
Aiken v. Bloodgood, 655 

V. Leathers, 237 

V. McDonald, 976, 978 

V. Peay, 304 

V. W. U. Tel. Co., 878 
Ainsa v. Moses, 44a, 564 
Ainsley v. Jordan, 302 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2771 



Ainslie v. Wilson, 796, 800 
Ainsworth v. Backus, 623 

V. Partillo, 822 

V. Ritt, 999e 
Airey v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 864 
Aitchison v. Lohre, 715 
Aitkin v. Emsthausen, 858 
Akard v. Western U. T. Co., 894(i 
Aken v. Clark, 627a 
Akerley v. Haines, 473, 476 
Akersloot v. Second Ave. Ry., 1356, 

1365 
Akron v. M'Comb, 1157 
Alabama v. Lett, 301 
Alabama, The, 4 Woods, 48; 587 
Alabama, The, 92 U. S. 695; 599 
Alabama & F. R. R. v. Burkett, 42 
Ala. 83; 1133 

V. Burkett, 46 Ala. 669; 1165 
Alabama & Gamecock, The, 588 
Alabama & Great Southern R. R. v. 

Little, 851 
Alabama & V. Ry. v. Gibbs, 1328 

V. Bloom, 1123 

V. Hanes, 868 
Alabama Cent. R. R. v. Musgrove, 1164 
Alabama C. C. & I. Co. v. Vines, 947 
Alabama C. G. & A. Ry.j). Appleton, 
486o 

V. Brady, 856a 
Alabama Chemical Co. v. Geiss, 734, 

740 
Alabama Co. v. Slaton, 122 
Alabama G. L. I. Co. v. Garmany, 

730 
Alabama G. S. R. R. v. Arnold, 368, 
1263 

V. Arrington, 387 

V. Bailey, 484 

V. Burgess, 1347, 1365 

V. Carroll, 490 

V. Frazier, 380 

V. Heddleston, 868 

V. Hill, 41a, 170a, 368 

V. McAlpine, 318 

V. Sellers, 361, 372 

V. Siniard, 483 

V. Tapia, 45a 

V. Yarbrough, 180, 485a 
Alabama I. W. v. Hurley, 197 



Alabama Mineral R. R. v. Jones, 114 
Ala. 519; 674a 
V. Jones, 121 Ala. 113; 101 
Alabama State Land Co. v. Reed, 682 
Alabama, S. & W. Co. v. Griffin, 680a 

V. Tallant, 482 
Alair v. Northern Pac. R. R., 851 
Alamo D. B. Co. v. Yeargan, 1361 
Alamo Mills Co. v. Hercules Iron 

Works, 742a 
Alaska, The, 689, 592, 597a 
Alaska Imp. Co. v. Hirsch, 685fc 
Alaska S. S. Co. v. Colhns, 1326 
Albany v. Trowbridge, 1046 
Albany & N. Ry. v. Wheeler, 318 
Albany & Sus. Railroad v. Dayton, 

1185 
Albany Dutch Church v. Vedder, 1276 
Albany Northern R. R. v. Lansing, 

1115, 1146, 1185 
Albany Phosphate Co. v. Hugger Bros., 

645 
Albany Street, Matter of, 1128, 1158, 

1187 
Albee v. Harris, 959 
Albert v. Bleecker St. R. R., 436 

V. Lindan, 78, 82 
Albert Gas Fixture Co. v. Kabat, 734 
Alberts v. Husenetter, 933 

V. Steams, 674 
Albertson v. Philadelphia, 1163, 1165a 
Albertson Co. v. Chicago, 1295 
Albertype Co. v. Gust Feist Co., 610 
Albertz v. Albertz, 640a, 641, 6416 
Albey v. Weingart, 984, 984a 
Albion Lead Works v. Citizens' Ins. 

Co., 341 
Albion R. R. v. Hesser, 1175 
Albrecht v. Walker, 1254 
Albright v. Pickle, 307 
Alcorn v. Mitchell, 490, 1328, 1345 
Alden v. Wright, 778 
Alder v. Keighley, 606, 628 
Alderman v. French, 452 

V. Roesel, 676 
Alderson v. Gulf; C. & S. F. Ry., 366, 

860 
Aldis V. Stewart, 638 
Aldrich v. Aldrich, 807 

V. Cheshire R. R., 1110, 1164 



2772 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Aldrich V. Dunham, 294 

V. Higgins, 497/ 

V. Island E. T. & T. Co., 459 

V. Jackson, 775 

V. Palmer, 481 

V. Reynolds, 685ft, 685j 

V. Sharp, 334 

V. Wetmore, 946 

V. Wilmarth, 657 
Aldrick v. Sager, 1250 
Aldridge v. Board of Education, 1174 

V. McClelland, 311c 
Aldworth v. Lynn, 91, 110 
Aleppo, The, 596, 597a 
Alexander ». Bishop, 185, 984, 987 

V. Blodgett, 42 

V. Bridgford, 975, 979 

V. Colcord, 253, 685o 

V. Helber, 58 

V. Herr, 907, 920 

». Herring, 755 

V. Humber, 47, 866 

V. Jacoby, 127, 182, 237, 467, 682, 
682a, 1296 

V. Macauley, 548 

V. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. 
of Texas, 43i 

V. Staley, 983 

V. Thomas, 1326 

». Troutman, 411 

V. United States, 1112a 
' t). Western U. T. Co., 882 
Alexandria, The, 597o 
Alexandria, etc., Co. v. Faunce, 1157 
Alexian Bros. v. Oshkosh, 253, 1171 
Alfaro V. Davidson, 834c, 1329 
Alfred v. Fitzjames, 673d 
Alger V. Farley, 505 
Alie V. Nadeau, 90 

Alkahest Lyceum System v. Curry, 170 
Alkire v. Myers Lumber Co., 1352 
Alkire Grocer Co. v. Tagart, 85o 
AUaback v. Utt, 373 
Allaire v. Hartshome, 703 

V. Ouland, 834 

V. Whitney, 1 N. Y. 305; 990c 

V. Whitney, 1 HiU, 484; 101, 1056 
Allaire Works v. Guion, 674, 1065 
AUamon v. Albany, 642 
Allan «. Everoth, 676 



Alle V. Woodruff, 3406 
AUegaert v. Smart, 999& 
Allegany County v. Van Campen, 692 
Allegheny v. Black, 1142 

V. Campbell, 317 
Allegheny Iron Co. v. Teaford, 752a 
Allegheny V. R. R. v. Colwell, 1175 
Allen V. Ames College Co., 1353 

V. Anderson, 3 Humph. 581; 762 

V. Anderson, 2 Bibb, 415; 1010 

V. Atkinson, 1007, 1018 

V. Baker, 45, 637, 638 

V. Barrett, 67a 

V. Besecker, 480a 

V. Blunt, 235, 983 

V. Boston, 137 Mass. 319; 1158 

V. Boston, 159 Mass. 324; 948 

V. Brazier, 419, 423 

«;. Brown, 51 Barb. 68; 819 

V. Brown, 5 Laos. 511; 237, 685Ji; 

V. Butman, 81 

V. Camden & P. Steamboat Ferry 
Co., 865 

V. Cameron, 1038 

V. Carty, 667 

V. Champion, 929a 

V. Charlestown, 1147 

V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 245 

e. Clark, 831 

V. Craig, 388, 1326 

V. Curies, 659 

V. Doyle, 548, 5o 

V. Durham Traction Co., 226/ 

V. Eneroth, 6796 

V. Fairbanks, 304 

V. Field, 636d, 636/ 

V. Fox, 537 

V. Harris, 236 

V. Hooker, 1067 

V. Jarvis, 753 

». Jones, 6S5g 

V. Kelley, 692ft 

V. Kennedy, 964 

V. Kinyon, 493 

V. Leflore County, 685/ 

V. McConihe, 828 

V. McCoushe, 824 

V. McKibbin, 657, 662 

V. McNew, 656, 1039 

V. Macon D. & S. R. R., 932 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2773 



Allen V. Manhattan Ry., 1365 

V. Maronne, 667 

V. Merchants' Bank, 819 

V. Miller, 959, 979 

V. Missouri, K. & T. Ry., 1143 

V. Mohn, 1023 

V. Murray, 316, 608, 615 

V. Ormond, 946 

V. Smith, 307 

V. South Boston R. R., 439A, 736 

V. Suydam, 813, 814 

V. Thrall, 615 

V. Todd, 768 

V. Truesdell, 116, 441 

V. United States, 1031 

». Voje, 1352 

V. Watson, 687 

». Whitlark, 667 

». Woonsocket Co., 310o 
Allender v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 

214a, 221, 491 
Allendorph v. Banks, 993 
AUentown v. Kramer, 1110 
AUentown Turnpike Co. v. Lehigh V. 

T. Co., 1173 
AUgeyer v. Rutherford, 667 
Alliance R. P. Co. v. Valentine, 445 
Alliance Trust Co. v. Stewart, 685A 
Allinder v. Bessemer C. I. & L. Co., 959 
Ailing V. Boston & A. R. R., 873 
Allis V. McLean, 186, 190, 646 

V. Nanson, 1263 

V. Nininger, 238, 982 
Allison V. Chanler, 127a, 170a, 182, 189, 
363, 383c, 990& 

V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 1215 

V. Cocke, 106 Ky. 763; 1025, 1026 
. ». Cocke, 112 Ky. 212; 1023 

V. Fredericksburg, 1371 

V. Hobbs, 36o 

V. Juniata County, 337 

V. McCune, 29 

V. Montgomery, 959 

V. Pilkins, 964 

V. People, 692i 

V. Tennessee, C. I. & R. R. Co., 
162 
Allmon V. Chicago, P. & M. R. R., 1138 
Alloway ». Nashville, 331a, 1171e, 1368 
AUphin V. Working, 614 



Allport V. Kelby, 685fe 
AUred v. Bray, 127a 
Allsop V. AUsop, 443 
Almy V. Probate Court, 3116 

V. Simonson, 755 
Alna V. Plummer, 1024 
Alpha Checkrower Co. v. Bradley, 762 
Alpha P. C. Co. V. Oliver, 763 
Alpin V. Morton, 445 
Alsager v. Close, 256 
Alsop V. Commercial Ins. Co., 713 

V. Peck, 910 
Alt V. Weidenberg, 76 
Althorf V. WoKe, 67a 
Althouse V. Alvord, 750 

V. Rice, 930 
Alton V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 1371 
Alton & Sangamon R. R. v. Carpenter, 

1138 
Altoona E. E. & S. Co. v. Kittanning & 

F. C. St. Ry., 615 
Aluminum Co. v. Ramsey, 1356 
Alvis V. Oglesby, 311/ 
Alvord V. United States, 692e 
Am Ende v. Seabury, 1245 
Amann v. Chicago C. T. Co., 243 111. 
263; 172, 2261, 372 
V. Chicago C. T. Co., 148 111. App. 
151; 180 
Ambs V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 

458, 459 
Amee v. Wilson, 308a 
Amer v. Longstreth, 383, 387 
America, The, 92 U. S. 432; 587 
America, The, 4 Fed. 337; 593 
American B. & C. Co. v. BuUen B. Co., 

617 
American B. N. Co. v. New York E. 

R. R., 1191, 1256/ 
American B. W. Co. v. Thomson, 1220 
American Bible Society v. Wells, 339 
American Book Co. v. Wells, 676 
American Bridge Co. v. American Dist. 
Steam Co., 160 
V. Camden Interstate Ry., 647o 
V. Glenmore Distilleries Co., 165 
American C. C. Co. v. Seitz, 975 
American C. D. Co. v. Boyd, 666 
American Central Ins. Co. v. Burkert, 

818o 



2774 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



American Central Ins. Co. v. McLana- 

han, 723 
American Canning Co. v. Flat Top 

Grocery Co., 753, 755 
American Contract Co. v. Cross, 873 
American Cotton Co. v. Herring, 741 
American Express Co. v. Dunlevy, 819 
V. Jennings, 152, 856 
V. Parsons, 256 
American E. & C. Co. v. Crawford, 

1359 
American F. & F. Co. v. Settergren, 

754 
American F. L. M. Co. v. Brown, 1335 
American-Hawaiian S. S. Co. v. Morse 

D. D. & R. Co., 593 
American-Hungarian Pub. Co. v. Miles 

Bros., 169a 
American Ice Co. v. Pocono S. W. I. 
Co., 165 Fed. 714; 988 
i;. Pocono S. W. I. Co., 183 Fed. 
193; 959 
American Ins. Co. v. Bryan, 718 
V. Center, 711 
V. Griswold, 712, 714 
V. Ogden, 711 
American L. & H. I. Co. v. Robertshaw, 

729 
American L. I. Co. v. McAden, 730 
American L. I. & T. Co. v. Shultz, 730 
American Lead Pencil Co. v. Davis, 368 
American Locomotive Co. v. Hoffman, 

95 
American Mfg. Co. v. Klarquist, 6226 
American Nat. Bank v. Hammond, 439/ 

V. Morey, 45, 153o 
American Publishing & Engraving Co. 

V. Walker, 636c, 752 
American Pure Food Co. v. G. W. El- 

Uott & Co., 127a 
American S. P. Co. v. De Grasse Paper 

Co., 1224 
American S. S. Co. v. Rush, 610 
American Strawboard Co. v. Foust, 484 
American Surety Co. v. Lyons, 644 
V. Woods, 105 Fed. 41; 618, 647e 
V. Woods, 106 Fed. 263; 643 
American T. & T. Co. v. Pearce, 1152a 
American Trust & Banking Co. v. 
Boon, 303 



American U. T. Co. v. Daughtery, 876, 

879, 883 
Americus v. Tower, 1295 
Americus Grocery Co. v. Brackett, 762 
Amerman v. Deane, 87 
Ames V. Chirurg, 682, 682o 

V. Hilton, 363, 373 

V. Norwich Light Co., 762 

V. Schuesler, 999e 

V. Scudder, 311c 

V. Wilhams, 692fc 
Amherst Bank v. Root, 694 
Amiable Nancy, The, 175, 352, 378, 

596, 5996 
Amis V. Smith, 334 
Ammons v. People, 692c 
Amoretty v. City of Melbourne Bank, 

516c 
Amory v. Amory, 12866 

t). Brodrick, 1261 

V. Hamilton, 820 

V. M'Gregor, 295, 844 

V. Vreeland, 364 
Amos V. Cosby, 979 

V. Delaware R. F. Co., 483 

V. Oakley, 90, 636?, 636i 
Amoskeag Manuf. Co. v. Goodale, 99, 
101 

V. Manchester, 303 

V. Worcester, 1171, 1171a 
Amperse v. Winslow, 547 
Amsden v. Atwood, 199, 988, 988o 

V. Dubuque & S. C. R. R., 620 
Amy V. Dubuque, 346 
Ancrum v. Slone, 316 
Anders v. Ellis, 98 
Anderson v. Aupperle, 376 

V. Beard, 755 

V. Buckton, 929 

V. CarUn, 1268 

V. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R., 573o, 
579 

V. DufBeld, 760 

V. The Edam, 599c 

V. Ewing, 281, 424a 

V. First Nat. Bk., 492 

V. Great No. Ry., 577 

V. Hilker, 615 

V. International Harvester Co., 
363 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2775 



Anderson v. Issaquena County, 337 

V. Knox, 980 

V. Lewis, 834a 

V. Nordstrom, 618 

V. Northeastern Ry., 152 

V. Pacific Bank, 302a 

V. Philadelphia P. L. Co., 685fc 

V. Pittsburg Coal Co., 1354 

V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 191 

V. Savoy, 137 Wis. 44; 171 

V. Savoy, 142 Wis. 127; 205 

V. Shockley, 1263 

V. Sloane, 435, 437, 494 

V. Smith, 108 Mich. 69; 341 

V. Smith, 104 Minn. 40; 1361 

V. Snyder, 1028 

V. Sparks, 1347 

V. State, 311/ 

V. Thompson, 692a 

V. Truitt, 1023 

V. Western U. T. Co., 387 
Anderson, Succession of, 339 
Anderson County v. Hays, 692e 
Anderson Electric Co. v. Cleburne 

Water Co., 740 
Anderson, L. & St. L. R. R. «. Kemodle, 

95 
Anderton v. Arrowsmith, 340 

V. Milwaukee, 1112a 
Andes Ins. Co. v. Fish, 725 
Andre v. Morrow, 1061 
Andrews v. Appel, 979 

V. Askey, 471 

V. Bartholomew, 449 

V. Booth, 60 

V. Chicago, etc., R. R., 574a 

V. Clark, 303, 313a, 316, 519 

V. Costican, 317 

V. Davison, 968, 974 

V. Durant, 296, 317, 493 

V. Glenville Woolen Co., 237, 685, 
685i 

V. Hammond, 1272 

V. Hoover, 753, 755 

V. Huckabee, 311c 

V. Keeler, 325 

V. McCoy, 973 

V. Minter, 984a 

V. Singer Mfg. Co., 363, 363o 

V. Stone. 1263 



Andrews v. Winter, 984 

Andrus ». Bradley, 302a 

Anerly, The, 587 

Angel V. Miller, 345 

Angell V. Hartford F. I. Co.. 727 

V. Hopkins, 1296 

V. Pruyn, 768 
Angier v. Taunton Paper Manufactur- 
ing Co., 80a 
Angle V. Hanna, 673/ 
Anglin v. Columbus, 1368 
Anglo-American Packing & P. Co. v. 

Baier, 1357 
Angus V. Scully, 655c 
Ankeny v. Clark, 733a 
Anketel v. Converse, 345 
Ann Caroline, The, 594, 598 
Annapolis & B. S. L. R. R. v. Ross, 655 
Anna Maria, The, 175 
Annas v. Milwaukee & N. R. R., 580 
Annis v. Upton, 1258 
Anony., 108 N. Y. 660; 1208 
Anony., 94 U. S. 695; 1230 
Anony., 66 Barb. 466; 1185 
Anony., Y. B. 6 Edw. 4, 7, 18; 118 
Anony., Y. B. Lib. Assis. 287, 17; 118 
Anon., 19 H. 6; 44, 96a 
Anon., 2 Ld. Raym. 938; 955, 97 
Anon., 6 Mod. 11; 676c 
Anon., 1 Strange, 407; 733a 
Anon., Minor (Ala.), 52, 12 Am. Dec. 

31; 50 
Anon. V. Moor, 451 
Ant, The, 10 Fed. 294; 687 
Ant, The, 13 Fed. 91; 595 
Anthony v. Gilbert, 76, 365 

V. Moore & Munger Co., 312 

V. New York & P. B. R. R., 1295 

V. PercifuU, 791 

V. Slaid, 120 

V. Stephens, 461 
Anthony Ittner Brick Co. v. Ashby, 577 
Antle V. Sexton, 1028 
Antoine Co. v. Ridge Co., 935 
Anvil Min. Co. v. Humble, 192, 193 
Apalachicola v. Apalachicola Land Co., 

908 
Apgar V. Hiler, 803 
ApoUinaris Co. v. Venable, 685 
ApoUon, The, 235 



2776 



TABLE OP CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Appleby v. Myers, 655c 

V. State, 692A 
Applegate v. Hogan, 755 

V. Jacoby, 418 
Appletbn v. Marx, 999A 
Application for Drainage, Matter of, 

1148 
AppsD. Day, 1368 
Arbush v. Oakdale, 1148 
Areata & Mad. R. Ry. v. Murphy, 252 
Arasmith v. Temple, 385 
Arcambel v. Wiseman, 235 
Archbold v. Building, etc., Assoc, 324a 
Archer v. Milwaukee, A. E. & S. Co., 619 

V. Williams, 608, 527 
Archibald v. Davis, 86a 
Arctic Bird, The, 844 
Arden v. Goodacre, 552, 553 
Area v. Milliken, 817 
Arents v. Com., 346 
Arentsen v. Moreland, 1010 
Argentine, The, 589 
Argentino, The, 196, 593 
Argotsinger v. Vines, 933, 1295 
Aries, The, 587 
Arimond v. Green Bay & Miss. C. Co., 

1116 
Arkansas & L. Ry. v. Stroude, 77 Ark. 

109, 91 S. W. 18; 368 
Arkansas & L. Ry. v. Stroude,. 82 Ark. 

117; 894, 1341 
Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Wallace, 1355 
Arkansas M. Ry. v. Robinson, 44 
Arkansas River Packet Co, v. Hobbs, 

2215 
Arkansas V. & W. R. R. v. Witt, 1123 
Arkansas V. L. & C. Co. v. Mann, 182a, 

498 
Arkansas V. T. &. L. Co. v. Lincoln, 

182, 607 
Arlington, Lord v. Merricke, 692(i 
Arm£igost ti. Rising, 1261 
Armentrout v. St. Louis, K. E. & N. 

R. R., 119 
Armfield v. Marsh, 203 
Armonia, The, 593 
Armory v. Delamirie, 76, 170o, 1300 
Armour v. Czischki, 1367 

V. Gundersheimer, 2126 
Armour & Co. v. Kollmeyer, 43i, 1216 



Armour Packing Co. v. Orrick, 684a 
Armstrong v. American Exch. Nat. 
Bank, 301, 311/ 

V. Auburn, 1355 

V. Jackson, 481 

V. Maybee, 999^ 

t>. Percy, 774 

V. Pierson, 233, 451 

V. Rhoades, 487a, 489 
Armytage !). Haley, 1368 
Am V. Mathews, 933 
Amd V. Amling, 76 
Arndt v. Keller, 656 
Arnold v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 222 

V. Blabon, 734, 1296 

I). Commonwealth, 692t 

V. Rhode Island Co., 1342 

V. Savings Co.,- 364 

V. State, 692/ 

V. Suffolk Bank, 747 

V. Woodward, 905 
Amott V. Redfem, 285, 287 

V. Spokane, 153a, 308, 6226 

V. Standard Assoc, 448(i 
Aronson v. H. B. Claflin Co., 741 
Arpin ti. Burch, 317 
Arrigoni v. Johnson, 979 
Arrington V. Wilmington & W. R. R., 

519, 524, 853 
Arris v. Stukely, 569 
Arrowsmith v. Gordon, 497, 606, 1261 
Artherholt v. Erie E. M. Co., 380 
Arthur v. The Cassius, 844 

V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 318 

V. Moss, 774 

V. Wheeler & W. M. Co., 303, 316 
Arzaga v. Villalba, 375 
Asfar V. Blumdell, 710 
Ash V. Beck, 762 
Ash V. Brewton, 301 
Ashbumer v. Balchen, 211, 858 
Ashby V. Bates, 1286 

V. Sharp, 688 

V. White, 29, 32, 97 
Ashcom V. Smith, 1023 
Ashcraft v. Allen, 636 

V. Chapman, 482 
Ashdown v. Ely, 992 

V. Ingamells, 628 
Ashe V. De Rossett, 151 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2777 



Ashe V. Harris County, 337 
Asheboro W. & M. Co. v. Southern Ry., 

152 
Asher v. Louisville & Nashville R. R., 
1138a 

V. Stacey, 199 
Ashford v. Thornton, 15 
Ashhurst v. Field, 306 
Ashkanazy v. Sachs, 614 
Ashland L. S. & C. Co. v. Shores, 618, 

620, 657 
Ashley v. Aberdeen, 1350 

V. Rocky M. B. T. Co.. 222, 897a 

V. Root, 810 

V. Warner, 87 
Ashmead v. Wilson, 906, 910 
Ashmore v. Cox, 737 
Ashton V. Margolies, 614 
Ashuelot R. R. v. Elliot, 304, 325, 346 
Ashworth v. Wells, 768 
Aslin V. Parkin, 911, 920 
Asmossen v. Swift & Co., 1363 
Aspinwall v. Blake, 345 
Asprey v. Levy, 705 
Assignment of Murdoch, In re, 311/ 
Astley V. Weldon, 395, 398 
Astrachan, The, 2436 
Aswell V. Scranton, 1142 
Atchison V. The Doctor Franklin, 592 

V. Lyon, 1161 

V. Rose, 1303 
Atchison & N. R. R. v. Garside, 1110 

V. Gough, 1164, 1167 
Atchison County Bank v. Byers, 777 
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. Armstrong, 
1108 

V. Arthurs, 937o 

V. Ayers, 316 

V. Bivins, 844 

V. Blackshire, 1148 

V. Boerner, 1123 

0. Bourdett, 854 

V. Briggs, 932 

V. Brown, 575 

V. Chamberlain, 368 

V. Chance, 43flf 

V. Chicago, etc., R. R., 1021, 336o 

V. Click, 1354 

V. Cross, 575 

V. Cuniffe, 1342 



Atchison v. Fajardo, 1367 

V. Gabbert, 293 

V. Geiser, 933 

». Grant, 852 

V. Hamilton, 933 

V. Hastiags, 1348 

V. Hogue, 363, 1342 

V. Hughes, 1367 

V. Huitt, 932 

V. Lawler, 844 

V. Lee, 1353 

V. Luening, 1112 

V. McGinnis, 43/ 

V. Moore, 1326 

V. Osage County, 1174 

V. Palmore, 1309 

V. Rice, 1270 

V. Richards, 1331 

V. Ringle, 368 

V. Ryan, 574 

V. Seeger, 1355 

V. Schneider, 1157, 1169 

V. Sledge, 1357 

ti. Smythe, 852 

9. Stewart, 1353 

». Thul, 1309 

V. Townsend, 584 

». Van Belle, 580a, 1367 

V. Weber, 579 

V. Wilson, 573a, 580 
Atherton v. Cochran, 310o 

V. Fowler, 334 

V. Williams, 806 
Athletic Baseball Assoc, v. St. Louis 

S. P. Assoc, 607 
Athlone Rifle Range, In re, 1105 
Atkin V. Acton, 674 
Atkins V. Baily, 681a 

V. Barnstable, 657 

V. Cobb, 755, 762, 1060 

V. Gladwish, 233 

V. Hosley, 774 

«. Moore, 76, 77, 6916 

V. Van Buren School Twp., 1076 
Atkinson v. Atlantic & P. R. R., 293 

V. Beard, 71, 74, 999A 

V. Burton, 824 

V. Coatsworth, 789 

V. Hewett, 73 

V. Morse, 614 



2778 

[References 

Atkinson v. Newcastle & G. W. W. 
Co., 164 
V. Richardson, 302 
Atkisson v. The Castle Garden, 844 
Atkyns v. Kinnier, 418 
Atlanta v. Central R. R., 1137 
V. Green, 1123, 1137 
V. Word, 11540, 1160a 
Atlanta & B. A. L. Ry. v. Brown, 125a, 
937 
V. Wood, 947 
Atlanta & L. G. R. R. v. Hodnett, 613 
Atlanta & W. P. R. R. v. Haralson, 
171a 
V. Hudson, 435a, 438 
V. Johnson, 41, 86c, 1306 
V. Newton, 580a 
V. Potts, 366 
V. Smith, 4866 
V. Texas Grate Co., 854 
V. Venable, 577 
Atlanta Elevator Co. v. Fulton Bag & 

Cotton Mills, 84, 85a 
Atlanta I. & C. Co. v. Mixon, 438 
Atlanta Ins. Co. v. Manning, 722 
Atlanta Nat. Bank v. Davis, 171a, 

1310a 
Atlanta S. A. B. Ry. v. Thomas, 630 
Atlanta S. C. O. Mills v. Coffey, 226d 
Atlanta St. R. R. v. Jacobs, 41a 
Atlanta Terra Cotta Co. v. Ga. R. & 

E. Co., 1166c 
Atlantic & B. Ry. ». Howard Supply 

Co., 844 
Atlantic & C. A. L. Ry. v. Victor Mfg. 

Co., 1256c 
Atlantic & D. Ry. v. Delaware Con- 
struction Co., 189, 6476, 647c 
Atlantic & D. R. R. v. Peake, 1110 
Atlantic & G. C. C. C. Co. v. Mary- 
land Coal Co., 363a, 368, 935 
Atlantic & G. W. R. R. v. Campbell, 
1293 
V. Dmm, 360, 380 
V. Koblentz, 331a 
Atlantic & N. C. R. R. v. Atlantic & 

N. C. Co., 803 
Atlantic & P. Co. v. Barnes, 681a 
Atlantic & W. P. Ry. v. Newton, 574a 
Atlantic C. L. R. R. v. Davis, 926 



TABLE OF CASES 



are to sections] 

Atlantic C. L. R. R. v. Goodwin, 851 

V. Moore, 171a 

V. Powell, 1271o 

V. Turner, 1326 
Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Dees, 1216 
Atlantic Consolidated St. Ry. v. Keeny, 

365 
Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Bird, 841 
Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Davis, 1310a 

V. Harris, 303 
Atlantic Phosphate Co. v. GrafHin, 308 
Atlas, The, 30, 588, 690, 591, 592, 599 
Atlas Bank v. Doyle, 703 
Atlas P. C. Co. V. Hopper, 742a 
Atlas S. S. Co. V. The Colon, 596 
Atlee V. Packet Co., 599 
Atrops V. Costello, 377a, 575 
Attack V. Bramwell, 943, 990a 
AttersoU v. Stevens, 69, 71, 950, 999a 
Attorney General v. Cape Fear Nav. 
Co., 338 

V. Guardian M. L. I. Co., 730 

V. Metropolitan Ry., 1098 
Attoway v. Still, 685? 
Attrill V. Patterson, 1258, 1259 
Attwood V. Bangor, 95, 924 

V. Fricot, 932 
Atwater v. Trustees, 1111 

V. Whiteman, 778, 1030 
Atwood V. Fagan, 414, 426 

V. Forwarding, etc., Co., 438 

V. Lucas, 755 

V. Union M. F. I. Co., 726 
Auburn v. Berthiaume, 453 
Auchmuty v. Ham, 352 
Auer V. Pennsylvania, 999/ 
Auger V. Cook, 121d, 199 

V. Smith, 1027 
August V. Finnerty, 1345 
Augusta V. Marks, 1137 

V. Owens, 171a 

V. Schraneck, 1163 

V. Tharpe, 1353 
Augusta Factory v. Barnes, 376 

V. Davis, 573, 575 
Augusta Nat. Bank v. Hewins, 330 
Augusta R. R. v. Glover, 571c 
Augusta Steam Laundry Co. v. Debow, 

426 
Aulger V. Clay, 3406 



Aulick V. Adams, 1285 
AuUs V. Young, 734 
Ault V. Dustin, 636c 
Aultman v. Case, 767 

V. Daggs, 756 

V. Mason, 767 

V. Shelton, 762 

V. Stichler, 635 

V. Stout, 762 
Aultman & Co. v. Ginn, 762 
Aultman & T. Co. v. Hetherington, 

762 
Aultman Co. v. McDonough, 1060 
Aumann v. Philadelphia & R. R. R., 

1161 
Aune V. Austin-Williams Timber Co., 

2146 
Aurentz v. Porter, 269 
Aurora v. West, 346 
Aurora, The, 1367 

Aurora Hill C. M. Co. v. 85 M. Co., 935 
Austin V. Crawford, 822 
Austin V. Austin, 661 

V. Bacon, 444a, 445 

V. Bartlett, 41a 

V. Drewe, 723a 

V. Field, 999e 

V. Hilliers, 1368 

V. Huntsville C. & M. Co., 935 

V. Langlois, 519 

V. Miller, 56 

V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 1353 

V. Townes, 678 

V. Walsh, 1171 

V. Wilson, 386 
Austin's Will, In re, 301c 
Austin R. T. Ry. v. CuUen, 1367 
Australian Smelting Co. v. British 

Broken Hill Proprietary Co., 742a 
Austrian, see Leo Austrian. 
Autenrieth v. St. Louis, etc., R. R., 

932, 1140 
Auzerais v. Naglee, 311 
Avakian v. Noble, 380a 
Avant V. Watson, 753 
Avary v. Searcy, 938 
Aven ti. Frey, 185 
Avenell v. Croker, 100 
Avent V. Hurd, 914 
Avera v. WiUiams, 363a 



TABLE OP CASES 2779 

IReferences are to sections] 

Averett v. Brady, 908, 909, 909a, 915, 



916 
Averill C. & O. Co. v. Verner, 343 
Averitt v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1360 
Avery v. Brown, 9996, 1047 

V. Catlin, 506 

V. Dickson, 533 

V. Dougherty, 9996 

!;. Fitch, 85a 

V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 
1295 

V. Segura Sugar Co., 617 

V. Van Dusen, 1147 
Avindino v. Beck, 565, 566a 
Avon M. I. Co. V. Bateaux, 717 
Axle Co. V. Michigan Buggy Co., 742a 
Ayer v. Ayer, 301c 

V. Spring, 921 

V. Tilden, 326 

V. Western U. T. Co., 885' 
Ayers v. Bartlett, 81 

V. Macoughtry, 483 

V. Mahuka, 638a, 6386 

V. Metcalf, 298 
Aylesbury Mercantile Co. v. Fitch, 55a, 

494a 
Aylet V. Dodd, 395 
Ayliff V. Hardy, 1328 
Ayling v. London & India Docks Com- 
mittee, 674 
Ayres v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 854 

V. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 86c, 
172o 

V. Hayes, 302 

V. Hubbard, 503, 934 

V. Pease, 400 

V. Richards, 1178 

B 

B. V. I., 451 

V. Rome, W. & O. R. R., 1367 
B. & C, The, 587 

B. A. Stevens Co. v. Whalen, 762, 764 
B. B. Ford & Co. v. Lawson, 246, 636a 
B. C. Evans Co. v. Reeves, 317 
B. L. Blair Co. v. Rose, 492a 
B. Roth Tool Co. V. Champ Spring 

Co., 995 
B. Shoninger Co. v. Mann, 1354 



2780 TABLE 

[References 

Babbet v. Belding, 679o 

Babcock v. Appleton Manuf . Co., 667 

V. Coldwell, 492a 

V. Reeves, 685m 

V. Trice, 1049 
Babcock, Matter of, 3115 
Babcock-Comish Co. v. Urquhart, 1006 
Bach V. Levy, 762 

V. Miller, 316 
Bachert v. Lehigh C. & N. Co., 948 
Bacigalupi v. Phoenix B. & C. Co., 419 
Backenstoss v. Stabler, 493a, 1042 
Backes v. Black, 753 
Backus V. Cayne, 808 

V. Chapman, 906 

V. McCoy, 959, 966 

V. Richardson, 1276 
Bacon v. Bacon, 1336 

V. Callender, 962 

V. Charlton, 1289, 1307 

V. Cropsey, 557 

V. Pullman Co., 873a 

V. Thornton, 917 

V. Towne, 460 
Bader v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry., 

572 
Badders v. Davis, 655 
Baden v. McKenney, 921, 922 
Bader v. Southern Pac. R. R., 872 
Badger v. Titcomb, 85a, 636j 
Badgett v. Broughton, 316, 760 

V. Jordan, 325 
Badgley v. Decker, 474 
Badostain v. Grazide, 384 
Baetjer v. Bors, 793a 
Bagby v. Harris, 98 
Baggett V. Beard, 237 
Bagley v. Bates, 664 

V. Cleveland R. M. Co., 223, 766 

V. Findlay, 755 

V. Peddle, 404 

V. Smith, 193 

V. Stern, 312 
Bagnal v. Sacheverel, 1260 
Bagot V. Williams, 84 
Bahia & S. F. Ry., In re, 508 
Bahr v. Manke, 120a 

V. N. Pac. Ry., 43s 
Bailey v. Agawam Bank, 970 

V. American D. & L. Co., 623 



OF CASES 
are to sections] 

Bailey v. Bailey, 445, 4806 

V. Buchanan County, 346 

V. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 933 

V. Clay, 1024 

V. Damon, 211, 588 

V. Fairplay, 911 

V. Godfrey, 82 

V. Grimes, 83 

V. Hastings, 915 

V. Hyde, 452 

V. Isle of Thanet L. Railwajrs, 
1081 

f . James, 678 

V. Kalamazoo Pub. Co., 4486 

V. Kling, 1335 

V. Krupp, 984 

V. Rome, W. & O. R. R., 1356 

V. Scott, 979 

V. Shaw, 844, 1300 

V. Walton, 365 

V. Warner, 462, 464 

V. Wobum, 1161 

V. Woods, 655 
BaiUie v. Bryson, 355 
Bailho V. Bumey, 63 
Baily v. Carnduff, 834 
Bain v. Fothergill, L. R. 7 H. L. 158; 
603 

V. Fothergill, L. R. 6 Ex. 59; 1104, 
1007 

V. Peters, 340a 
Bainbridge v. Nielson, 711 

V. Wilcocks, 310, 311, 341 
Baine Lumber Co. v. U. S., 1172o 
Bains v. Perry, 908 
Bair v. Sleicher, 643 
Baird v. Hall, 278 

V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
R., 1354 

V. Schuylkill R. E. S. R. R., 1164 

V. ToUiver, 408, 424 

V. U. S., 84 
Baker v. Ashe, 439e 

V. Baker, 339o, 636? 

V. Best, 1347 

V. Bolton, 570 

V. Boston, 35 

V. Boston El. R. R., 1165o 

V. Bower, 549 

V. Corbett, 979 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2781 



Baker o. Cornelius, 70 

V. Cummings, 310a 

V. Dewey, 964 

V. Drake, 53 N. Y. 211; 30, 214, 
228e, 429, 510, 828 

V. Drake, 66 N. Y. 518; 510, 521 

V. Freeman, 214, 565o 

V. Garratt, 555, 805 

V. Hagey, 483 

V. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 
1354 

V. Hart, 76, 935 

I). Holtpzaffell, 999c 

V. Manh. Ry., 180 

I). Martin, 705, 803 

V. Meisch, 534, 935 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1348 

V. Mims, 435, 937(i, 938 

V. Morris, 678 

V. North East Borough, 43h 

V. Philadelphia & R. Ry., 1367 

V. Public Service Ry., 1356 

V. Railsback, 1053 

V. Seavey, 1298 

V. Secor, 464 

V. Shoals, 1108 

». State, 614 

V. Western U. T. Co., 881 

V. Wheeler, 317, 429, 499, 934 

V. WiUiams Banking Co., 302a 
Baker's Appeal, 271 
Baker Transfer Co. v. Merchants' R. 

& I. M. Co., 608, 614 
Balderston ». Western U. Tel. Co., 

371a 
Baldridge v. Dawson, 536, 537 
Baldwin v. Bennett, 612, 834ff 

V. Blanchard, 151 

V. Bohl, 908 

V. Boulware, 44Sd 

V. Bradley, 79, 80 

V. Central Sav. Bk., 613 

V. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 932 

V. Cole, 55 

V. Collin, 851 

V. Fries, 386 

«. G. M. Davidson & Co., 494 

V. Greenwoods Turnpike Co., 124 

V. Lessner, 606a 

V. Lincoln County, 2216 



Baldwin v. Munn, 959, 1010, 1012 

V. Newark, 1148 

V. People's Ry., 120a, 575 

V. Porter, 58 

V. San Antonio, 331a 

V. Sullivan Timber Co., 857 

■;. United States Tel. Co., 146, 
160, 169, 212a, 879 

V. Walker, 682a, 683 

V. Western R. R., 1261, 1270 

V. Zadik, 333 
Baldwin's Appeal, 1308 
Baldwin Coal Co. v. Davis, 308a 
Baldwin S. C. Co. v. Quinn, 685fc 
Baldy v. Stratton, 637a, 639, 639a 
Bale V. Mudd, 311 
Bales V. Wingfield, 547 
Ball V. Britton, 193, 603, 616 

V. Bruce, 474 

V. Coggs, 636to 

V. Horrigan, 462 

V. Keokuk & N. W. Ry., 1295, 
1308, 1334 

V. Levin, 373 

V. Liney, 60 

V. Nye, 33 

V. Peterman Mfg. Co., 1357 
Ballard v. Shutt, 3016 
Ballentine v. N. Mo. R. R., 856 

V. Robinson, 751, 752 
Ballet V. BaUet, 963 
Ballingalls v. Gloster, 700 
Ballou V. Earle, 851 

V. Farnum, 46, 47, 485o 
Balsley v. Hoffman, 678 
Baltimore v. Black, 1151 

V. Merryman, 95, 1116 

V. Rice, 1156 
Baltimore, The, 30, 235, 589, 592 
Baltimore & I. R. R. v. Springer, 1154 
Baltimore & L. T. Co. v. Cassell, 1216 
Baltimore & O. R. R. v. Barger, 384 

V. Blocher, 380 

V. Boyd, 63 Md. 325; 367, 1159 

V. Boyd, 67 Md. 32; 931, 932 

V. Camp, 490 

V. Carr, 42, 862 

V. Dougherty, 844 

V. Golway, 577 

V. Henthorne, 485 



2782 TABLE 

[References 

B. & O. R. R. V. Lafferty, 656, 660 
V. Lansing, 1157 
V. Noell, 573a 
V. O'Donnell, 492b 
V. PoUy, 655/ 
V. Pumphrey, 152, 583 
V. Ragesdale, 851 
V. Springer, 1154 
V. Stanley, 577 

V. State, 24 Md. 271; 574, 578 
V. State, 33 Md. 542; 574 
V. State, 60 Md. 449; 574 
V. State, 63 Md. 135; 573o, 577 
V. State, 81 Md. 371; 578, 580a 
V. Stewart, 615 
V. Strube, 380, 384 
V. Thompson, 125 
V. Weedon, 559a 

V. Wightman, 67a, 573o, 574a, 577 
Baltimore & O. S. W. R. R. v. Davis, 
380 
V. Higgins, 75 
V. Stewart, 191 
V. Then, 170a, 575 
V. Quillen, 932 
Baltimore & P. R. R. v. Fifth Baptist 
Church, 42, 1089, 1111, 1188, 
1210 
V. Reany, 1116 
Baltimore & R. T. v. State, 573a, 574a, 

577, 578 
Baltimore & S. P. R. R. v. Hackett, 203, 

225 
Baltimore & Yorktown Turnpike v. 

Boone, 360, 366, 372, 380 
Baltimore Base Ball Club Co.w. Pickett, 

667 
Baltimore Belt R. R. v. McColgan, 932, 
1116 
V. Sattler, 947 
Baltimore C. & A. Ry. v. Kirby, 363a, 

380 
Baltimore City Pass. Ry. v. Baer, 67o 
V. Kemp, 1216, 150, 868 
V. Sewell, 35 Md. 238; 519, 736 
V. Sewell, 37 Md. 443; 335 
Baltimore F. Ins. Co. v. Loney, 301, 

724 
Baltimore Marine Ins. Co. v. Dal- 
rymple, 80, 519 



OF CASES 

are to sections] 

Baltimore P. B. & L. Society v. Smith, 

1010 
Baltimore Smelting Co. v. Ammonia 

Co., 755 
Baltzell V. Moritz, 620, 1039 
Baltzer v. Chicago, M. & N. R. R., 1357 
Bamberger v. Kahn, 686a 
Bamford v. Harris, 1038 
Bancroft v. Boston, 1147 
V. Cambridge, 1151 
V. Parker, 567 
V. Scribner, 822 
Bancroft- Whitney Co. v. The Queen, 

852 
Banderob v. Wisconsin Cent. Ry., 1355 
Bane v. Gridley, 423 
Banewur v. Levenson, 622 
Banfield v. Marks, 789 
Bange v. FUnt, 695 
Bangor & P. R. R. v. McComb, Sdla, 

1166 
Bangor Bank v. Hook, 705 
Bangor Furnace Co. v. Magill, 858 
Bangs V. Bailey, 301 

V. Mcintosh, 301 
Bank v. Bowdre, 452 
V. Johnson, 979 
V. Miller, 917 
V. Ward, 120 
Bank of Bisbee v. Graf, 834 
Bank of Brighton v. Smith, 678, 694 
Bank of CaUfomia v. Western Union 

Telegraph Co., 878 
Bank of Commerce v. Goos, 131 
Bank of LeRoy v. Harding, 490 
Bank of Mobile v. Huggins, 812, 814, 
819 
V. Marston, 563o 
Bank of Montgomery v. Reese, 514, 745 
Bank of New Orleans v. Western U. T. 

Co., 881 
Bank of New South Wales v. Milvain, 

153a 
Bank of North ColUns v. Gary Safe Co., 

762 
Bank of Orange v. Brown, 811 
Bank of Owensboro v. Western Bank, 

8186 
Bank of Palo Alio v. Pacific P. T. C. 
Co., 380, 506a 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2783 



Bank of Rome v. Curtiss, 549 

V. Mott, 5656 
Bank of U. S. v. Dunseth, 921 

V. Magill, 677, 678 
Bank of Upper Canada v. Widmer, 260 
Bank of Victoria v. Synnot, 991 
Banks of Comrs. v. La Fayette Bank, 
302a 

V. Security Trust Co., 302a 
Banks v. Braman, 1306 

V. McClellan, 345 

V. McDowel, 692y 

V. Macher, 311c 
Bann v. Dalzell, 287 
Bannatyne v. Florence Milling & Min- 
ing Co., 170 
Bannister v. Roberts, 345 
Bannon ti. Baltimore & O. R. R., 368, 
481 

V. Frank, 956 

V. Murphy, 748 

V. Rohmeiser, 932 
Banta v. Banta, 666 
Bantel v. Amer. Mach. Co., 149 
Barbee v. Reese, 121 
Barber v. Backhouse, 1050 

V. Barber, 445 

V. Dewes, 435 

V. Ellingwood, 512, 531, 82] 

V. Hathaway, 497c 

V. Rose, 1046 
Barber A. P. Co. v. Wabash, 419 
Barbour v. Flick, 1030, 1071 

V. Nichols, 1007, 1012 

V. Stephenson, 47, 473 
Barbour Co. v. Horn, 86c, 490 
Barclay v. Copeland, 385 

V. Gooch, 797 

V. Kennedy, 311, 344 

V. Puget S. L. Co., 1357 

V. Russ, 278 

V. Stirlmg, 1034 
Barclay R. R. v. Ingham, 1172a 
Barcus v. Hannibal R. C. & P. P. R., 

660, 662 
Barden v. Portage, 932, 1177 
Bardwell v. Jamaica, 214a 
Bare v. Hoffman, 93, 319, 320, 941 
Barelli v. Brown, 310 
Barg V. Bousfield, 1357 



Barham v. Massey, 531a 
Baiholt V. Wright, 487 
Barhyte v. Hughes, 1042 
Barkalow v. Pfeiffer, 656, 657 
Barker v. Anderson, 222 

V. Bates, 943 

V. Borzone, 858 

V. Chase, 76 

V. Cory, 492 

V. Dixie, 1368 

V. Green, 98, 547 

V. Jefferson, 1353 

V. Knickerbocker Ins. Co., 667 

V. Lewis Storage & Transfer Co., 
251, 251a, 315 

V. Mann, 741, 762 

V. Prizer, 446 

D. Taunton, 1147 

V. Troy & Rutland R. R., 656 

V. Western U. T. Co., 170, 888 

V. Westover, 431 
Barley v. Chicago & A. R. R., 575, 580 

V. Mill Creek C. Co., 924a 
Barlow w. Lowder, 98, 364, 365, 372 

V. United States, 614 
Barnard v. Bartholomew, 308o, 310, 
314 

V. Conger, 734 

V. National F. I. Co., 722a 

V. Poor, 193, 233, 358 
Bamed v. Hamilton, 745 
Barnes v. Bartlett, 540 

V. Berendes, 182 

V. Bluthenthal, 755 

V. Brown, 107d, 619, 735o 

V. Campbell, 47 

V. Clement, 412 

V. Coal Co., 89 

V. Columbia Lead Co., 575, 1367 

V. Cushing, 681a 

V. Jones, 930a 

V. Keene, 486c 

V. Martin, 50, 486 

V. Michigan Air Line Ry., 1109 

V. Seligman, 735a 

I). Squier, 1031 

w. Viall, 466 

V. Western U. T. Co., 45a, 226;, 
894 

V. Willett, 553, 554 



2784 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Barnes' Estate, In re, 301c 
Barnett v. Chicago & A. R. R., 862 

V. Elwood Grain Co., 208a, 734, 
741 

V. Hughey, 964 

V. Lucas, 85c 

V. Luther, 108, 599o 

V. Montgomery, 982 

V. Thompson, 517a 
Bamette v. Hicks, 1325 
Bamette S. M. Co. v. Fort Harrison 

L. Co., 614 
Barney v. Dewey, 32 

V. Douglass, 537, 540 

V. Dudley, 259, 730 

V. Saunders, 311e 

V. Spangler, 667, 673c, &7Zd 
Bamhart v. Edwards^ 336 

D. Hughes, 968 
Bamingham v. Smith, 636& 
Bams V. Learned, 964, 975 
Bamum v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 
584a 

V. TumbuU, 339a 

V. Vandusen, 125, 927 
Barnwell v. Mitchell, 705 
Baron v. Abeel, 920 
Barr v. City of Kansas, 1363 

V. Hack, 451 

V. Haseldon, 304 

V. Henderson, 618 

V. Kimball, 990c 

V. Logan, 753, 755 

V. Moore, 377, 386 

V. Omaha, 1130 

V. Stevens, 35 

V. Van Duyn, 660, 670 
Barrall v. Quick, 1155 
Barrante v. Garratt, 493 
Barre Water Co. v. Cames, 685i 
Barree v. Cape Girardeau, 1355 
Barrelett v. Bellgard, 55 
Barrere v. Somps, 302a 
Barrett v. Bowers, 685J; 

V. Grand Rapids Veneer Works, 
Igg, 614 

V. Kelly, 915 

V. Mobile, 383c 

V. Porter, 969 

V. Raleigh, C. & C. Co., 613 



Barrett v. Verdery, 753 

Barretts P. & H. D. E. Co. v. Wharton, 

620 
Barrick v. Schifterdecker, 48 Hun, 355; 
93 

V. Schifferdecker, 123 N. Y. 52; 
932 
Barrie v. Quimby, 737 
Barrington v. Washington Bank, 694 
Barron v. Morrison, 334 

V. Mullin, 258, 758 

V. The Mayor of Baltimore, 1107 
Barrow v. Amaud, 563 

V. HiU, 1286b 

V. Reab, 312, 313o 

V. Window, 1060 
Barrows v. Fox, 942 
Barruso ». Madan, 1261 
Barry v. Bennett, 81 

V. Cavanagh, 753 

V. Chicago I. & S. L. S. L. Ry., 925 

V. Harris, 418 

V. Kurshan, 1347 

V. Mandell, 793 
Barstow v. Robinson, 308a 
Bartells v. Redfield, 340 
Bartelt v. Braunsdorf, 975 
Bartenbach, In re, 302 
Barth v. Burt, 1073 

V. Kansas City El. Ry., 573o, 574 

V. Merritt, 1326 

V. Union Nat. Bank, 257 

V. Ward, 980 
Barthgate v. Haskin, 343 
Bartholomew v. Bentley, 32 

V. Jackson, 673d 
Bartlett v. Bangor, 1160a 

V. Blanchard, 734 

V. Blanton, 334 

V. Brickett, 537 

V. Farrington, 1058 

V. Hohnes, 1043 

V. Kidder, 78, 83 

V. Marshall, 302a 

V. Odd Fellows' S. Bank, 834? 

V. Slater, 301c 

V. Smith, 1007 

V. Western U. T. Co., 874, 876 

V. Wheeler, 681a 
Bartlett, In re, 301c 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2786 



Bartley v. Richtmyer, 474 

V. TrorUcht, 1262 
Barton v. Bruley, 488 

». Fisk, 685i 

V. Glover, 418 

V. ShuU, 691a 
Barton-Child Co> v^ Scarborough, 734 
Barton Coal Co. v. Cox,, 836, 363a, 935 
Bartram v. Hering, 984, 1009 
Bartsh v. Afewaiter, 267 
Bascom v. Manning, 1072 
Bash V. Bash, 1020 
Basham v. Hammond Packing Co., 

1216 
Baster v. Nichols, 89 
Bass V. C. & N. W. Ry., 36 Wisi 450; 
357, 380 

V. Chicago & N, W. R. R.,, 39 Wis. 
636; 1328 

V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 42 Wis. 
654; 379 

V. Postal T. C. Co., 885 

D. West, 70, 127a, 988 
Bassett v. Bassett, 1012a 

V. Fairohild, 673e 

V. French, 666 

V. Kinney, 3116 

V. Salisbury Manuf. Co., 33, 99 

V. Sanboim, 301, 657, 824a 
Bastable v. Denegal, 819 
Bastard v. Bastard, 841 
Basten v. Butter, 1036, 1037 
Baaye w. Ambrose, 408> 413 
Batchelder v. Bartholomew, 1275 

V. Sturgis, 156, 60S, 967, 975, 976, 
979, 980a 
Bate V. Burr, 308 

V. Philadelphia, etc., R. R., 1160 
Bateman v. Goodyear, 930o 

V. Ryder, 2&1 
Bateman, Ex parte, 623, 817 
Batemann ». Cook, 367 
Bates V. Callender, 360, 373a 

V. Clark, 55, 494, 5636 

V. Courtwright, 60 

V. Fisk Brothers' Wagon Co., 764 

V. Hamilton, 305 

V. Hudson, 673/ 

V. Loomis, 107a 

V. Ray, 942 

175 



Bates V. St. Johnsbuty & L. C. R. R., 
323, 1221, 1244 

V. Stansell, 519 

V. Starr, 310 

V. Warrick, 76 N. J>. L. 108.; 932 

V. Warrick, 77 N. J. L. 387; 182a 

V. Wilson, 334 

V. Wynn, 3016 
Bates Mach. Co. v. Norton Iron Works, 

165, 742a 
Bathke v. Krassin, 1338 
Bathrick v. Coffin, 193 
Batson v. Higginbothem, 99, 347 
Battell V. Wallace, 449 
Batten v. Transit Co., 485a 
Batterman U: Pierce, 1046, 1047, 1D53 
Batterson v. Chicago & G. T. Ry., 47, 

865 
Battey v. Holbrook, 675e, 676 
Battis V. Hamlin, 531a 
Battishill v. Reed, 74 
Battle V. Rochester City Bank, 1012a 

V. Western U. T. Cov, 894 
Battler, The, 598 
Battley «. Faulkner, 84, 773 
Baudin v. Pollock, 334 
Bauer v. Gottmanhausen, 384a 

V. OUendorf, 1347 

V. Richter, 574, 574a 

V. Roth, 789 
Bauer Grocer Co. v. Zelle,. 324a 
Baughan v. Brown, 633o 
Baum V. Reed, 334 
Bauman v. Lamont, 1336 

V. New Castle, 1151 
Baumgartenv. Alliance j^ssur. Coi, 370 
Baumier v. Antiau, 930 
Bautel V. American Mach. Co., 980a 
Baxendale v. l,ondon, C. & D. Ry., 236, 

240, 241, 850 
Baxley v. Tallassee & M. R. R., 843, 

843a 
Baxter v. Bradbury, 977' 

V. Camjjbeir, 363, 387 

V. Dominion Tel. Co., 876 

V. Gilson Collins Co., 740 

V. Magill, 365 

V. Ryerss, 956, 982 

V. State, 988a 

V. Taylor, 74 



2786 



TABLE OF CASES 
[Eeferences are to sections] 



Baxter v. Waite, 310 

V. Wales, 606c 

V. Winooski Turnpike Co., 35, 946 
Bay Shore R. R. v. Harris, 86c 
Bayard v. Inglis, 905 
Baychester Ave., In re, 1172o 
Bayle v. Norris, 934 
Bayles v. Savery Hotel Co., 1363 
Bayley v. Bates, 544, 557 
Baylis v. Scudder, 685m 
Bayliss v. Fisher, 55, 435 

V. Pearson, 339(t 
Bayly v. Lawrence, 999d 
Baynard v. Harity, 148 
Bazemore v. Bynum, 676 
Bazin v. Steamship Co., 317, 844 
Beach v. CoUes, 310a 

V. Grain, 89, 636fe, 999ft 

V. Hancock, 42, 481 

V. Mullin, 674 

V. Nordman, 982 

V. Stouffer, 673d 
Beakes v. Holman, 991 
Beal V. Finch, 431, 1279 
Beale v. Boston, 243c, 252, 1178 

V. Hayes, 413, 679 

V. Seiveley, 973 

V. Thompson, 983 
Beall V. Beall, 336 
. V. Pearre, 1072 

V. Silver, 334 
Beals V. Guernsey, 295, 317 

». Supervisors, 337 

V. Terry, 734 
Beam v. Beatty, 678, 679a 
Beaman v. Martha Washington Min. 
Co., 575 

V. Stewart, 565 
Bean v. Carleton, 197, 618 

V. Chapman, 340c 

V. Green, 1254 

V. Harrington, 973 

V. Mayo, 973 

V. Travelers' Ins. Co., 731 

V. Wells, 439/ 
Bear ». Harriss, 121o 
Bearce v. Jackson, 956 
Beard v. Delany, 408, 1008 
Bearden v. Smith, 408 
Beardmore v. Barton, 1342 



Beardmore v. Carrington, 350 
Beardslee v. Horton, 305 
Beardsley v. Bridgman, 448(2 

V. Davis, 817 

V. Lehigh V. Ry., 1164 

V. Root, 797 

V. Swann, 41, 226/, 483 

V. Webber, 302a 
Beare v. Wright, 777 
Bearse v. Pigs of Copper, 599c 
Bearss v. Preston, 82 
Beasley v. Meigs, 447 

V. Philips, 961, 976, 979 

V. Swinton, 1027 

V. Western U. T. Co., 45a, 894 
Beath v. Rapid Ry., 47, 1270, 1270a 
Beatrice Gas Co. v. Thomas, 924, 948 
Seattle v. Detroit, 226/ 

V. Moore, 1368, 1369 

V. New York & L. I. C. Co., 612 

V. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., 
610 
Beatty v. How Lumber Co., 655o 

V. Oille, 109 
Beauchamp v. Damory, 963, 975 

V. Taylor, 91 
Beaudrot v. Southern Ry., 363, 387 
Beauerle v. Michigan C. Ry., 1216 
Beaulieu v. Great Northern Ry., 45, 
856a 

V. Parsons, 1326 
Beaumont v. Greathead, 105 
Beaumont Lumber Co. v. Ballard, 69 
Beaupland v. McKeen, 975, 977 
Beaupre v. Pacific & Atlantic Telegraph 

Co., 879 
Beave v. St. Louis Transit Co., 1363 
Beaver County v. Armstrong, 346 
Beavers v. Bowen, 481 
Beck «. Devereaux, 89 

„. Dowell, 111 Mo. 506; 385 

V. Dowell, 40 Mo. App. 71; 490, 
1271a 

V. Indianapolis L. & P. Co., 423 

V. Pennsylvania R. R., 1142 

V. Thompson, 108 Ga. 242; 665 

V. Thompson, 31 W. Va. 459; 359, 
481 

V. Staats, 962, 1012 

V. West, 834c 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2787 



Becker v. Albany Ry., 1347, 1360 

V. Bailies, 81 

V. Dunham, 82, 565 

V. Dupree, 363, 364, 366, 378 

V. Feizenbaum, 4926 

V. Lincoln R. E. & B. Co., 486 

V. Met. EI. R. R., 1208 

V. People, 688 

V. Philadelphia & R. T. R. R., 331o, 
1169 

V. Staab, 533 
Beckerle v. Brandon, 1254 
Beckett v. Grand T. Ry., 67a 

V. Midland Ry., 1092, 1093, 1097 
Beckford v. Hood, 543 

V. Montague, 557 
Beckham v. Collins, 361 

V. Drake, 399, 413 
Beckley v. Munson, 806 
Beckman v. Fulton Counties Farmers' 
Mut. F. Ins. Assoc, 725 

V. Lincohi & N. W. R. R., 1165c 

V. Skaggs, 234 
Beckwith v. Hartford & N. H. R. R., 325 

V. Nott, 636g 

V. Talbot, 625 
Bedell v. Powell, 1266 

V. Shaw, 916 
Bedford v. Bedford, 921 

V. Dawson, 1096 

V. Hoi-Tan Co., 760 
BediQgfield v. Onslow, 931 
Bedtkey v. Bedtkey, 443 
Bee Printing Co. v. Hichbom, 650, 656, 

1289 
Bee Pub. Co. v. World Pub. Co., 358 
Beebe v. Newark, 331a 
Beeoher v. Baldwin, 969, 979, 1041 

V. Denniston, 493 

V. Derby Bridge Co., 234, 359 

V. Long Island R. R., 1367 
Beecker v. Vrooman, 1060 
Beede v. Lamprey, 499, 502 
Beekman v. Van Dolsen, 803 
Beekman L. Co. v. Kittrell, 614 
Beeler v. Butte & L. C. D. Co., 4106 
Beeman v. Banta, 620, 766 
Beers v. Board of Health, 224 

V. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 
131, 441 



Beers v. Reynolds, 308 

V. Walhizer, 1255 
Beeson v. Green Mountain G. M. Co., 

573a 
Beeston v. CoUyer, 664 
Beetz V. Brookljm, 126(i 
Beetem v. Follmer, 1012 
Befoy V. Wilson, 934a 
Beggarly v. Craft, 4486 
Begole V. McKenzie, 660 
Begue V. Herbert, 337 
Behm v. Damm, 1298 

V. W. U. Tel. Co., 890 
Behrens v. McKenzie, 6856 
Beidler v. Fish, 134 

V. Sanitary District, 1138 
Beir v. Cooke, 924, 1208 
Beiser v. Grever & Twaite Co., 36a 
Beisiegel v. New York C. R. R., 1303 
Belair v. Chicago & N. W. R. R., 1328 
Belch V. Big Store Co., 625 
Belck V. Belck, 364 
Belden v. Nicolay, 734, 747 

V. Perkins, 79, 80 

V. Seymour, 965 
Belding v. Black Hills & Ft. P. R. R., 
5706 

V. Blum, 996 

V. Johnson, 1255 
Belfast & B. Ry. v. Keys, 873 
Belford, Clark & Co. v. Scribner, 12466 
Belfour v. Raney, 107a 
Belgenland, The, 589, 593, 594 
Belknap v. Boston & M. R. R., 380, 
385, 1330 

V. Godfrey, 1074 
Bell, The, 595, 596 
Bell V. Amdt, 3116 

V. Atlantic C. R. R., 1337 

V. Bamet, 909a 

V. Bell, 20 Ga. 250; 1256h 

V. Bell, 25 S. C. 149; 325 

V. Boston, 1154c 

V. Boyd, 797 

V. Camm, 12866 

V. Campbell, 537, 538 

V. Cunmngham, 156, 428, 825 

V. Daniels, 1220, 1226 

V. Famsworth, 451 

V. G. Ober & Sons Co., 497d 



2788 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Bell V. Giberson, 638a, 639 

V. Globe Lumber Co., 1356 

V. Great N. Ry., 43fe, 861 

V. Gulf & C. R. R., 481 

V. Hatfield, 753 

V. Hayden,, 999A 

V. Jordan, 734 

V. Keays, 606a 

V. Logan, 295 

V. McCUntock, 940 

V. Medford, 913 

V. Mendenhall, 310 

». Midland Ry., 360 

V. Mills, 768 

V. Morrison, 490,, 1279, 1328 

V. Morse, 1337 

V. Mut. Maeh. Co., 121d 

V. Norris, 1263 

V. Park, 451 

V. Paul, 679a 

V. Reynolds, 191, 734 

V. Rice, 304 

V. Teague, 656 

V. Truit, 424 

V. U. S. Stamping Co., 1225, 1231 

V. Walker, 606a, 620 

u. Ward, 1031 
Bellamy v. Ragsdale, 1017 
Seller v. Levy,. 1347, 1355 
Bellinger v. New York Central R. R., 

1112, 1182 
Bellingham, The, 587 
Bellingham Bay, etc., R. R. v. Straad,, 

331a, 1171, 1174 
Belloc V. Davis, 269 
Belloni v. Freeborn, 789 
Bellows V. Litchfield, 959 
Belmont Mining & Milling Co. v. 

Costigan, 73, 685;i 
Belt V. Lawes, 1330 

V. Washington W. P. Co., 630 

V. Worthington, 78, 529 
Belting v. Hobbett, 684 
Belton V. Lockett, 490 

V. London County Council, 1084 
Belvidere City Ry. v. Bute, 1364 
Belyea v. Minneapolis, 226/, 486 
Bement v. Smith, 751 
Bemis v. Gannett, 685 
Bemmerly v. Woodward, 311a 



Bench v. Potts, 741 

V. Sheldon, 439a 
Bender v. Bender, 651 

V. Brooks, 935 

V. Fromberger, 38, 959, 960 
Bender Lumber Co. v. Wilmington 

Iron Works, 742o 
Bendemagle v. Cocks, 636?, 636/i 
Bendich v. Scobel, 226c, 386, 932 
Benedict v. Goit, 1108 

V. Guardian Trust Co., 777 
Benesch v. WeU, 531 
Benham v. Dunbar, 1295 
Benjamin v. Benjamin, 936 

V. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry., 948 

V. Hillard, 764 

V. Stremple, 78 
Benjamin F. Hunt, Jr., The, 589 
Benkard v. Babcock, 340B, 991 
Benner v. Phoenix Towing & Transp. 

Co., 610 
Benners v. Clemens, 274 
Bennet v. Jenkins, 3016 

V. Johnson, 310 
Bennett v. Alcot, 929, 1326 

V. Bartlett, 774 

V. Beam, 53, 638, 638o, 639, 641c 

V. Bennett, 448d 

V. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 1254, 
1358 

V. Brown, 680 

V. Buchan, 30, 376, 634 

V. Buchanan, 799 

V. Byram, 841 

V. ClMnence, 935a 

V. Cook, 343 

V. DowUng, 803 

V. Drew, 844 

V. Dyer, 163 

V. Gibbons, 234, 359 

V. Jenkins, 959, 981 

V. Lambert, 685Z 

V. Latham, 303 

V. Levi, 1249, 1366 

V. Lockwood, 226c, 437, 540 

V. Marion, 102 la. 425; 380b 

V. Marion, 106 la. 628; 1110, 1148 

V. Matthews, 447 

V. Morton, 667 

V. New Orleans, 1112 



TABLiE OF CASES 



2789 



(References 

Bennett v. Phelps, 6556 

V. Salisbury, 378 

V. Smith, 21 Barb. 439; 480 

V. Smith, 23 Hmi 50; 383a 

V. Telegraph Co., 8946 

V. Thompson, 502, 933, 934 

V. Woody, 1140 
Bennett Water Co. v. Millvale, 632 
Bennum v. Coursey, 96, 98 
Bensel v. Lynch, 554 
Bensinger v. Erhardt, 1023 
Benson v. Altoona & L. V. E. iRy., 
1306 

V. Atwood, 219 

V. Central P. R. R., 119 

V. Chicago & A. R. R., 91, 924 

V. Connor, 1266, 435, 435o 

V. Gibson, 395 

V. Maiden & M. G. L. Co., 236d 

V. New Jersey JR. R. «fe T. Co., 856 

V. Port Huron Co., 762 

V. Waukesha, 107c, 109 

V. Wilmington, 948 
Benson Mining & S. Co. v. Alta Min- 
ing & S. Co., 935 
Bentley v. Atlanta, 1110 

V. Fischer L. & M. Co., 121<i, 128, 
233, 363o, 1344 

V. We^, 310 
Benton v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 575 

V. Craig, 303 

V. Fay, 153, 190, 195, 208a, 74Q, 
742 
Benton Comity v. Rutherford, 978 
Bentonville R. R. v. Baker, 1156 
Bentz V. Northwestern Aid Assoc, 732 
Benziger v. Miller, 149, 607 
Bercich v. Marye, 539 
Beresford v. McCune, 762 
Berg V. Great Northern Ry., 226; 

V. Parsons, 932 

V. R. R., 366, 380 

V. U. S. Leather Co., 226/ 
Berger v. Commercial Bank, 301a 

V. St. Paul City Ry., 1360 
Bergeron v. Miles, 439i 

V. Peyton, 465 
Bergheim v. Blaenavon, 419 
Bergmann v. Jones, 360, 364, 377 
Bergundthal v. Bailey, 310 



.are to sections] 

Bering Mfg. Co. v. Peterson, 4866 
Beringer v. Dubuque St. R. R., 1348 
Berkey & G. Furniture Co. v. HascaU, 

742 
Berkner v. Danneberg, 487a 
Berley v. Seaboard A. L. Ry., 862 
Berlin v. Thompson, 264 
Bernard v. Duncan, 1023 
Berner v. Bagnall, 314 
Barney v. Dinsmore, 1296 
Bernhard v. Curtis, 984, 984a 

D. Rochester G. I. Co., 314o, 315 
Bemheimer v. Becker, 363 
Bernier v. St. Paul Gas%bt Co., 1357 
Bernina, The, 588 
Bernstein v. Meech, 607 
Beronio v. Southern Pacific R. R., .95, 

1154 
Berrian v. Olmstead, 993 
Berrinkott v. Trophagen, 416 
Berry v. Bakeman, '641 

V. Central Ry., 1326 

V. Colling 664a 

V. DaCosta, 639, 639o 

V. Diamond, 1063 

V. Dwinel, 246, 739 

ti. Fletcher, 363a, 364, 365, 366 

V. Folkes, 310o 

V. Greenville, 2215 

V. Harris, .633a 

t>. Ingalls, 226c 

V. Kelly, 83 

V. St. Louis, M. & S. E. R. R., 
1355 

V. San Francisco & N. P. R. R., 
214c 

V. Shannon, 762, 762a 

V. Vantries, 374, 540 

V. Van Winkle, 997 

V. Vreeland, 428, 1325 

V. Wasserman, 684 

V. Wisdom, 413 
Berryman v. Cox, 490 
Berthold v. Fox, 538 

V. Reybum, 3406 
Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 1250 
Bertrand v. Byrd, 656, 657 
Bertsoh v. Metropolitan St. Ry , 1355 
Berwald v. Ray, 682o 
Besch V. Western C. M. Co., 673d 



2790 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Bessemer, L. & I. Co. v. Campbell, 579 

V. Jenkins, 43a, 929, 1343 
Bessent v. Harris, 821 
Bessinger v. Dickerson, 692c 
Besso V. Southworth, 948 
Best V. Allen, 930 

V. Hill, 1031 
Besuden v. Hamilton County, 107a 
Batcher v. Hodgman, 339a 
Bethea v. McLennon, 527 
Bethel v. Salem Imp. Co., 6226 
Bethlehem South G. & W. Co. v. 

Yoder, 1159 
Bethune v. McCrary, 704 
Betteley v. Stainsby, 817 
Bettes V. Farewell, 339a 
Betting v. Hobbett, 1249 
Betts V. Gibbins, 834 

V. WilUamsburgh, 1128 
Beverage v. Lewis, 1135 

V. Park Comm'rs, 331a 

v. Rockport, 1350 

V. Welch, 363, 545, 565 

V. West Side Const. Co., 414 
Beverly v. Burke, 916 
Bevier v. Delaware & H. C. Co., 214 
Bevin v. Connecticut M. L. I. Co., 729 
Bevis V. Vanceburg Tel. Co., 363 
Beyersdorf v. Sump, 60 
Beymer v. McBride, 205, 222, 667 
Bezzell v. White, 808a 
Bibb V. Allen, 834 

V. Freeman, 966 
Bibb B. C. Co. V. Atchison, T. & S. F. 

Ry., 119 
Bibend v. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co., 334 
Bick V. Lang, 682 
Bickell V. Colton, 313a, 516 
Bickford v. Hyde Park, 1119 

V. Page, 966 

V. Rich, 341 
Bicknell v. Buck, 756 

V. Waterman, 2796, 313a 
Bicknese v. Brandl, 1345 
Biddeford Savings Bank v. Dwelling 

House Ins. Co., 725 
Biddle v. Hussman, 999d 
Bideford Urban Council v. Bideford 

Ry., 932 
Bidwell V. Madison, 833 



Bien v. Hess, 991 

Bierbach v. Goodyear R. Co., 181 

Bierbauer v. New York C. & H. R. R. 

R., 1326 
Bierer v. Fretz, 1012, 1018, 1020 
Bierhaus v. Western U. T. Co., 886, 887 
Biering v. First Nat. Bank of Galves- 
ton, 359, 565 
Bierne v. Brown, 278 
Big Hill Coal Co. v. Abney, 574a 
Big Sandy & C. R. R. v. Blankenship, 

1363 
Big Sandy Ry. v. Dils, 1162 
Bigaouette v. Paulet, 48 
Bigelow V. American F. P. Mfg. Co., 
222, 667 

V. Bridge, 6926 

V. Chicago, B. & N. Ry., 842 

t). Doolittle, 317, 538 

V. Hartford Bridge Co., 35 

V. Jones, 962 

V. Legg, 755 

V. Walker, 822 

V. West Wisconsin R. R., 454 
Bigelow Co. V. Heintze, 492a, 494a 
Bigg V. London, 1097, 1169 
Biggie V. Chicago, B. & O. R. R., 1355 
Biggins V. Goode, 61, 990a 
Biggs V. McCurley, 209, 991, 992 
Bigham v. Wabash-Pittsburg T. Ry., 

619 
Bigler v. Morgan, 1017 

V. Waller, 340c 
Bignall v. Gould, 408, 410 
Bigony v. Tyson, 408 
Billingfelt v. Adamstown, 1142, 1168 
Billings V. Snohomish, 1346 

V. Vanderbeck, 734, 753 
Billingsbley v. Billingsbley, 334 

V. Maas, 1337 
Billmeyer v. Wagner, 149, 734 
Bilz V. Powell, 407 
Binford v. Grimes, 685^ 

V. Johnston, 126d, 570a 

V. Young, 360, 377 
Bingham v. Evans, 1020 

V. Gaynor, 364 

V. Lipman, 379 

V. Richardson, 416 

V, Vanbuskirk, 688o 



TABLE OF CASES 



[References 

Bingham v. Walla Walla, 183 

V. Weiderwax, 964 
Binicker v. Hannibal & S. J. R. R., 856 
Binns v. McCorkle, 448(i 

V. Vitagraph Co., 47 
Binsse v. Wood, 302 
Birch V. Clofford, 991 

V. Joy, 1025 

V. Lake Roland E. Ry., 1157 

V. Wood, 984 
Birchard v. Booth, 86c, 385, 1261 
Bird V. Clark, 226c 

V. Kleiner, 1028 

V. Lobdell, 339a 

V. Randall, 678, 679 

V. Thompson, 639 

V. W. & M. R. R., 371o 

V. Womack, 59 
Birdsall v. Carter, 762 

». CooUdge, 1219, 1220, 1221, 
1230a, 1234, 1241 

V. Twenty-third St. Ry., 416 
Birdsall Co. v. Palmer, 762a 
Birdsell v. Shaliol, 1219 
Birdsell Manufacturing Co. v. Brown, 

823 
3irdsong v. Ellis, 667 
Birkel v. Chandler, 486c 
Birket v. Williams, 933 
Birkett v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 575 

V. Western U. T. Co., 876 
Birmingham D. G. Co. v. Finley, 682 
Birmingham F. Ins. Co. v. Pulver, 722 
Birmingham M. R. R. v. Tennessee 

C. I. & R. R., 934 
Birmingham Nat. Bank v. Newport 

Nat. Bank, 241 
Birmingham R. & E. Co. v. Baird, 
1342 

V. Ward, 47 
Birmingham R. L. & P. Co. v. Ander- 
son, 227 

V. Camp, 171 

V. Chastain, 1365 

V. Humphries, 486a 

V. Lavender, 1365 

V. Lee, 366 

V. Moore, 1352 

V. Nolan, 1342 

V. Turner, 1342 



2791 

are to sections] 

Birmingham R. L. & P. Co. v. Wise, 368 

V. Wright, 482, 484, 485 
Birmingham S. Ry. v. Lintner, 85c 
Birmingham W. W. Co. v. Ferguson, 
1216 

V. Vinter, 45a 
Bimey v. New York & W. P. T. Co., 

875 
Bisbey v. Shaw, 452 
Bischof V. Lucas, 1074 
Bischoff V. New York El. R. R., 1191, 

1201 
Bischoffsheim v. Baltzer, 303 
Biscoe V. Great Eastern Ry., 1089 
Bishop V. Autographic R. Co., 752, 
1330 

V. Church, 675c 

V. Hendrick, 233 

V. Journal Newspaper Co., 450 

V. Price, 657 

V. St. Paul aty Ry., 1354 

V. Sniffen, 340 

V. Williamson, 5636 
Bishop Hill Colony v. Edgerton, 301 
Bispham v. Pollock, 298 
Bissell V. Dickerson, 695 

V. Erwin, 962 

V. Hopkins, 295, 336 
Bisson V. Joyce, 55a 
BistUne v. Ney, 1255 
Bitner v. Brough, 1009 

V. Utah Cent. Ry., 1363 
Bitting V. United States, 642 
Bixby V. Dunlap, 358, 376 

V. Parsons, 674, 1066 
Bixby-Theison L. Co. v. Evans, 622 
Bizer v. Ottumwa Hydraulic P. Co., 

95 
Black V. Atlantic C. L. R. R., 363 

V. Baxendale, 856 

V. Black, 497a 

V. Camden & A. R. R. & T. Co., 
316, 852 

V. CarroUton R. R., iSg, 336, 376, 
1330 

V. Charlestown & W. C. Ry., 371a 

V. Coan, 968 

V. DeCamp, 734, 742 

V. Gamer, 909a, 915 

V. Goodman, 305 



2792 

[RefereDces 

Black V. Goodrich Transportation Co., 
851 

V. Highland S. S. Co., 937o 

V. Hilliker, 540 

V. Minneapolis & S. L. R. R., 937o 

V. Munson, 1222, 1232a 

V. Queen, 677 

V. R. R., 316 

I). Reybold, 295, 308a 

V. Robinson, 317 

V. Thome, 1233, 1234 

V. Woodrow, 615, 6556 
Black Prince, The, 592, 593 
Black River & M. R. R. v. Barnard, 

1146, 1150, 1171, 1185 
Black River L. Co. v. Warner, 608, 751, 

752, 753, 765 
Blackburn v. Kentucky Cent. R. R., 
883 

V. Mann, 640a 
Blacker v. Slown, 762 
Blackettt). Royal Exch. Assur. Co., 716 
Blackfeather v. United States, 310 
Blackie v. Cooney, 317, 538 
Blackman v. Clements, 549 

V. Gardiner & P. Bridge, 481, 485 
Blackmer & P. P. Co. v. Mobile & O. 

R. R., 852 
Blackshear M. F. G. Co. v. Stone, 

1031 
Blackstone v, Alemannia F. I. Co., 728 
Blackwell v. Hill, 486c 

V. Justices, 960 

V. Lawrence Co., 959, 1012 

t;. McBride, 959, 964, 976, 982 
Blackwood v. Brennan, 755 

V Leman, 308 

V. Tanner, 944 
Blades I). Des Moines City Ry., 1356 
Blaechinska v. Howard Mission, etc., 

486 
Blaen Avon Coal Co. v. McCuUoh, 502, 

935 
Slagen v. Thompson, 620, 631 
Blagg V. The Bicknell, 599c 
Blair v. Bloomingtoc & N. R. E. & H. 
Co., 486o 

V. Charleston, 1123, 1144 

V. Claxton, 999d 

V. Laflin, 834<i 



TABLE OF CASES 



are to sections] 

Blair v. Milwaukee & P. du C. R. R., 
1290 

V. Reading, 237 

V. Sioux C. & P. R'y., 857a 
Blair Iron & Goal Co. v. Lloyd, 363, 

364, 366, 387, 935 
Blake v. Bumham, 966, 981 

V. Ferris, 810 

V. Greenwood Cemetery, 1219, 
1232a 

V. Krom, 3146 

V. Lord, 1216 

V. Midland Ry., 67o, 573, S73o 

V. Quash, 340c 

V. Robertson, 1215, 1232a, 1234 
Blakeley v. Bogard, 682, 682a 

V. Jacobson, 308, 310 

V. Duncan, 531 

V. R. R., 1141 
Blak-eman v. Sherwood, 692A 
Blakeney v. Ferguson, 685 
Blakeslee v. Holt, 656 
Blanchard v. Baker, 99 

V. Blanchard, 976 

V. Ely, 190, 6076, 762, 992, 999^8 

V. Hoxie, 964, 975 

V. Morris, 1326 

V. New Jersey S. B. Co., 594, 595, 
1298 
Blanchard's G. S. T. Factory v. Warner, 

235, 1246 
Bland v. Hixenbaugh, 1131 
Blanden v. H. Dodge, 1110 
Blaney v. Hendricks, 287, 311 
Blasdale v. Babcock, 774 
Blass V. Lee, 565, 565o 
Blate V. Third Ave. R. R., 172 
Blatz V. Rohrbach, 1255 
Blaul V. Tharp, 682 
Blazek v. McCartin, 459 
Bleaden v. Charles, 705 
Bleakley v. Sheridan, 312 
Bledsoe v. Nixon, 345 
Bleecher v. Colorado & S. Ry., 45o 
Blesch V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 924o 
Blessing v. Beatty, 1016 
Blevins v. Smith, 973, 976 
Blewett V. Front St. C. R. R., 410, 676 

V. Miller, 494c, 565o, 692i 
Blight V. Ewing. 913 



TABLE OF CASES 
[Kef erences are to sections] 



2793 



BUncoe v. Choctaw, 0. & W. R. R., 

1123, 1169 
Bliss V. Ball, Q2Qa, 933 

V. Buffalo Tin Can Co., 734 

V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 85c 
Blitch V. Edwards, 1012 
Blizzard v. Applegate, 1271a 
Block V. Ebner, 991 

V. Estes, 808a 

V. Haseltine, 36o 

V. Milwaukee St. Ry., 172 
Block-Pollak Iron Co. v. Cincinnati 

C. I. Co., 646a 
Blocker v. Schoff, 448fe 
Blodget V. Columbia Live Stack Co., 
416 

V. Brattleboro, 363, 545, 551 

V. Converse, 303 

V. Hitt, 909a, 914 

V. Stone, 101 
Blofield V. Payne, 100 
Blogg V. Johnson, 301c, 3116 
Blood V. Herring, 614, 615 

V. Wilkins, 829, 968, 972 
Bloodgood V. Ingolsby, 1067 
Blood worth v. Stevens, 1057 
Bloom V. Manhattan El. Ry., 1270 

V. National U. B. Savings & Loan 
Co., 170, 830 
Bloomfield v. Finn, 1335 
Bloomfield, etc., Natural Gas Light Co. 

V. Calkins, 1172a 
Bloomington v. Brokaw, 1110 

V. Chamberlain, 180 

V. Miller, 1138 

V. Pollock, 1138 
Bloomquist v. Minneapolis F. Co., 121b 
Bloss V. Johnson, 311a 
Blossom V. Knox, 966 
Blossom, The, 589, 592 
Blot V. Boiceau, 170a, 812, 822 
Blount V. Western U. T. Co., 45a, 894a 
Blownt V. Windley, 1032 
Blow V. Maynard, 801 
Blue Earth Co. v. St. Paul & S. C. R. 

R., 253, 1148 
Bluefields Banana Co. v. Wollfe, 667 
Bluemner v. Garvin, 650 
Blum V. Gaines, 691(i 

V. Higgins, 1326 



Blum V. Merchant, 198 

V. Southern P. P. C. Co., 873a 
Blumantle n. Fitchburg R. R., 873 
Blume V. Scheer, 1326, 1332 
Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 317, 844 

V. Bridges, 834d 

V. Prescott, 992 
Blumhardit v. Rohr, 47, 443 
Blun V. Holitzer, 665 
Blunck V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 937 
Blunk V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 

458, 459 
Blunt V. Aikin, 949 

V. Little, 1330 

•V. McCormick, 93, 924 
Bly V. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co., 
926 

V. U. S., 502 
Blydenburgh v. Welsh, 245, 734 
Blymer Ice Mach. Co. v. McDonald, 

312 
Blythe v. Tompkins, 241, 463 
Board v. Moore, 691o 
Board of Commissioners v. Geer, 337 

V. Security Bank, 692/ 

V. Trees, 654 

V. Wolff, 647 
Board of Directors v. Roach, 6226 
Board of Education v. Jewell, 692/ 

V. Kanawha & M. R. R., 1144 

V. Robinson, 692e 
Board of Justices v. Fennimore, 305, 

692/ 
Board of Park Comrs. v. Donahue, 95 
Board of Public Improvements, In re, 

1113 
Board of Rapid Transit Comrs., In re, 

1151 
Board of Trade Tel. Co. v. Darst, 1149, 

1149a 
Boardman v. Goldsmith, 387 

V. Keeler, 1014 

V. Marshalltown Grocery Co., 101, 
109, 361 

V. Paige, 807 

V. Ward, 671 
Boarman v. Patterson, 334 
Boatwright v. Stewart, 467, 682, 682a 
Bocard v. State, 692/ 
Bochat V. Knisley, 1361 



2794 



TABLE Of CASES 



[References 

Bockenstedt v. Perkins, 692/ 

Bockes V. A. Mafee & Son Co., 933 

Bockoven v. Lincoln, 1167 

Boddam v. Riley, 284 

Boddy V. Henry, 777 

Boden v. Demwolf, 1367 

Bodger v. Hills, 762 

Bodine v. Wayne Title & Trust Co., 

831 
Bodkin v. Arnold, 908, 910, 915 
Bodley v. Reynolds, 505 
Bodwell V. Osgood, 445 

V. Swan, 451 
Boecker v. Naperville, 1154o 
Boehm v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 865 
Boesch V. Graff, 1220, 1240 
Boetcher v. Staples, 386 
Boetzkes v. Manhattan R. R., 1208 
Bogacki v. Welch, 685 
Bogard v. Jones, 78 
Bogel V. Bell, 545 
Bogert V. Burkhalter, 1265 
Boggan V. Bennett, 383a, 1271 
Boggess V. Goff, 343 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1371 
Boggs V. Martin, 1068 
Bogudsky v. Backes, 372 
Bohemian-American W. G. Assoc, v. 

Northern Bank, 622 
Bohlcke v. Buchanan, 972 
Bohm V. Dunphy, 360, 990a 

t). Metropolitan El. Ry., 1113, 
1190, 1198a 
Bohn V. Cleaver, 196, 842 
Bohrer v. Dienhart Harness Co., 93a 

V. Otterback, 301c 
Bohun V. Taylor, 929a, 1279 
Boies V. Vincent, 734, 762 
Boiles V. Beach, 964 
Boing V. Raleigh & G. R. R., 435 
Boise V. C. Co. v. Kroeger, 1149, 1172 
Boland v. Glendale Quarry Co., 666 
Bolden v. Jensen, 1345 
Bolen Coal Co. v. Whittaker Brick Co., 

85 
Boley V. Griswold, 689 
Bolinger v. Brake, 976, 981 

V. St. Paul & D. R. R., 1367 
Bolivar Manuf. Co, v. Neponset 
Manuf. Co., 99 



are to sections] 

Boiles V. Bloomington & N. R. E. & 
H. Co., 1368 

V. Kansas City Southern Ry., 365 

V. Sachs, 668 
Boiling V. Lersner, 186, 307, 908, 919, 
988, 1021a 

V. Tate, 237, 685^, 685n 
Bollinger v. McMinn, 363a 
BoUon V. Vellines, 1336 
Bolster v. Post, 410 
Bolt V. Friederick, 1045 
Bolte V. Third Ave. R. R., 1270a 
Bolton V. Miller, 476 

V. Vellines, 461, 462, 463 

V. Western U. T. Co., 371a 
Bonafous v. Rybot, 675c 

V. Walker, 552 
Bond V. Bond, 687 

V. Chapin, 839 

V. Dolby, 334 

V. Greenwald, 271 

V. Griffin, 934 

V. Hilton, 98 

V. Quattlebaum, 959 

V. United Railroads, 673a, 575 
Bond Hill v. Atkinson, 1367 
Bondurant v. Lane, 549 
Bondy v. N. Y. City Ry., 243& 
Bone V. Torry, 797 
Bonelli v. Brown, 1266, 357, 363a 
Bonesteel v. Bonesteel, 236, 241, 383b, 
463 

V. Orvis, 531 
Bonham v. Bonham, 301c 
Bonifay v. Hassell, 614 
Bonneau v. North Shore R. R., 482, 

485a, 1303 
Bonnell v. Jacobs, 1060 
Bonner v. Blum, 813 

V. Charlton, 1281 

V. Copley, 335, 1293 

V. Peterson, 921 

V. Wiggins, 910 
Bonner Brick Co. v. M. M. Canada Co., 

339 
Bonnet v. Galveston, H. & 8. A. Ry., 

574 
Bonneval v. Am. Coffee Co., 47 
Bonney v. Blaisdell, 753 

V. Seely, 800 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2795 



Bonnin v. Elliott, 449 

Bonnot Co. v. Newman, 533, 538 

Bonsall v. McKay, 930 

V. Taylor, 678 
Booher v. Goldsborough, 767 
Book Co. V. Maybell, 776 
Booker v. Bell, 978 

V. Southwest Mo. R. R., 1354 

V. Venice, etc., R. R., 1157 
Bookman v. New York Elevated Rail- 
road, 1198a 
Bookwalter v. Clark, 752 
Boom Co. V. Patterson, see Mississippi 

& R. R. B. Co. V. Patterson 
Boomer v. Flagler, 735c 
Boon V. McHenry, 973, 977 
Boone v. Eyrie, 636re 
Boorman v. Am. Exp. Co., 851 

V. Nash, 758 
Booth V. Ableman, 334 

V. Bierce, 750 

V. Booth, 737 

V. Milliken, 1023 

V. Milhis, 1286 

V. Powers, 256 

V. Rome, W. & 0. R. R., 1111 

V. Saffold, 973 

V. Spuyten Duyvel R. M. Co., 146 

V. Starr, 956 

V. Tyson, 661 
Boothby v. Grand Trunk Ry., 868 

V. Railroad, 1108 
Boothe V. Feist, 1256A 
Boott Cotton Mills v. Lowell, 302o 
Booz V. W. U. Tel. Co., 890 
Borchardt v. Wausau Boom Co., 139 
Borden v. Bradshaw, 678 
Borden Mining Co. v. Barry, 219 
Bordentown & S. A. T. Co. v. Camden 

& A. R. R., 1108, 1115 
Border City Ice & Coal Co. v. Adams, 

182, 182a, 734 
Borders v. Barber, 326 
Bordes v. Hallet, 711 
Bordley v. Eden, 340c 
Borgasen v. Eklund, 1250 
Bork V. Nortin, 841 
Borkenstein v. Shrack, 386 
Borland v. Barrett, 360, 366, 372, 388, 
1345 



Bormann v. Thiele, 667 

Bomeman v. Chicago, S. P., M. & O. 

Ry., 1326 
Bomgesser v. Harrison, 85 
Borough V. Abele, 340 
Borradaile v. Bruntor, 135, 766, 768 
Borrekins v. Bevan, 761 
Borries v. Hutchinson, 161, 2265, 740, 

742 
Borst V. Lynch, 824a 
Borup V. Nininger, 814, 819 
Bosch V. Biu-lington & M. R. R. R., 
135 
V. Miller, 387 
Bosley v. Smith, 692a 

V. Taylor, 808 
Boston V. Allen, 1215 

V. Moore, 692a 
Boston & A. R. R. v. Cambridge, 1152a, 
1165 
V. Greenbush, 1152a 
V. O'Reilly, 183 
V. Richardson, 439^ 
Boston, H. T. & W. Ry., Re, 1171 
Boston, H. T. & W. R. R., Matter of, 

1165 
Boston & M. R. R. v. Middlesex, 1147 

V. State, 303 
Boston & R. M. D. Corporation v. 

Newman, 1108 
Boston & S. Glass Co. ti. Boston, 303 
Boston & W. R. R. v. Old Colony R. 

R., 1119, 1165a, 1167, 11716 
Boston Belting Co. v. Boston, 152 
Mass. 307; 1119 
V. Boston, 183 Mass. 254; 1169 
Boston Ice Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 725 
Boston Loan Co. v. Myers, 537 
Boston Manuf. Co. v. Fiske, 235, 352 
Boston Mills v. EuU, 1033 
Boston Towboat Co. v. Pettie, 587, 

589 
Boston W. H. & R. Co. v. Kendall, 

767 
Boston W. P. Co. V. Boston & Wor- 
cester R. R., 1108 
Boston Water Power Co. v, Boston," 

303 
Bostwick V. Beach, 3016 
V. Lewis, 1279 



2796 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Bostwick V. Losey, 189, 991 

V. Williams, 976 
Boswell V. Barnhart, 580a 

V. Kilbom, 753 
Botelar v. Bell, 449 
Botkin V. Kleinschmidt, 681a 
Bottorff V. Wise, 910 
Boucher v. Shewan, 265 

V. Trembley, 915 
Bouillon V. Laclede G. L. Co., 43i 
Boulard v. Calhoun, 378 
Boulden v. Pennsylvania R. R., 67o 
Boulter v. Hamilton, 977 

V. Webster, 573 
Boulware v. Crohn, 413 

V. Robinson, 799 
Bounds V. Hickerson, 6466 
Bourdette v. Sieward, 610 
Bourg t). Brownell-Drews Lumber Co., 

573o, 575 
Bourgeois v. Mills, 1143 
Bourke v. Butte Electric & P. Co., 485 

V. Cork & M. Ry., 573, 1367 

V. Whiting, 133 
Bourland v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. R., 
159 

V. Kdison, 449, 452 
Bourne v. Ashley, 596 

V. Mayor of Liverpool, 1085 
Boutell V. Warne, 80 
Boutin V. EtseU, 807a 

V. Rudd, 151 
Bouton V. Reed, 252 
Boutwell V. Marr, 382 

V. Parker, 515 
Bovee v. Barrett, 633a 

V. DanvUle, 44, 47, 1266 
Bowas V. Pioneer Tow Line, 1216, 481 
Bowden v. Bailes, 360, 364, 365, 377, 
385 

V. Johnson, 301a 
Bowditch V. Boston, 1162 
Bowe V. Minn. Milk Co., 90 
Bowen v. Clark, 269 

V. Clarke, 999/ 

V. Darby, 271 

». H^ll,451 

V. Harris, 216 

V. Huntington, 553, 554 

V. King, 528 



Bowen v. Lake Erie Telegraph Co., 875 

V. Seaboard A. L. Ry., 1307 

V. Stoddard, 700 
Bower v. Hill, 100, 940 
Bowers v. Graves, 989 

V. Thomas, 278 
Bowersock v. Adams, 536 
Bowersox v. Bowersox, 4806 
Bowes V. Press, 674 
Bowker v. Hoyt, 1060 
Bowler v. Lane, 368, 380, 584 
Bowley v. Goddard, 599c 

■V. Holway, 973, 1053 
Bowling G. G. Co. v. Dean, 1353 
Bowling Green Stone Co. v. Capshaw, 

1355 
Bowman v. Clemmer, 777 

V. Cornell, 550 

V. Davis, 81 

V. Neely, 343 

V. Teall, 55, 849 

V. Wilson, 341 
Bowne v. Wolcott, 961, 966, 973 
Bowser v. Cessna, 1009, 1023 
Bowsher v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R., 

171a 
Boyce v. Bayliffe, 126a, 22QI 

V. California Stage Co., 1328 

V. Gingrich, 439d, 1027 

V. Grundy, 336, 12866 

V. New York C. Ry., 1367 

». Pritchett, 3016 

V. Watson, 418 
Boyd V. Blue Ridge Ry., 368 

V. Boyd, 678 

V. Brown, 175, 1329 

t). Chambers, 685fc 

V. De Lancy, 1007, 1018 

V. Desmond, 556 

V. Fitt, 127a, 707 

V. Gilchrist, 292 

V. Gunnison, 738, 1297 

V. Huffaker, 691a 

V. Knox, 685 

V. L. H. Quinn Co., 737, 738 

V. Lincobi & N. W. R. R., 937 

V. Meighan, 613, 614 

V. Randolph, 333 

V. Royal Ins. Co., 722 

V. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 368 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2797 



Boyd V. Vanderkemp, 1017 

V. Watt, 1251 
Boydan v. Haberstumpf, 358, 1254 
Boyden v. Hill, 1012, 1022 

V. Moore, 80 

V. United States, 692/ 
Boydatoa v. Morris, 79, 82 
Boyer v. Amet, 959, 979 

V. Barr, 358 

V. Cox, 734 

V. Coxen, 378 
Boyers v. Pra*t, 1326 
Boykin ». Ancrum, 306 
Boylan v. Huguet, 519 
Boyle V. Boyle,. 793o 

V. Case, 41, 47 

tt. Edwards, 962, 976 

V. Ptoker, 673 

V. Reeder, 646 

V. Saginaw, 226/, 1347 
Boylston Ins; Co. v. Da\dst 496, 536 
Boynton v. Kellogg, 641 
Boynton Strong Co. ». Williams, 6869: 
Boys V. Ancell, 399,, 413 
Boys' Home «. Lewis,. 3716 
Bozarth v. Dudley,. 656, 657, 659i 1039, 

1042 
Bozeman v. Rose, 734 
Braas v. Springville,, 308a 
Braasch v. Michigan Stove Co., 4866 
Braccoo. Merchants! Despatch Transp. 

Co., 152 
Brace v. Calder, 667 
Bracegirdle v. Orfbrd, 929 
Bracey ». Carter, 1038 
Bracket v. M'Nair, 844 
Brackett v. Morse, 661 
Bradbum v. Great Western Ry.,, 67jt,. 

860 
Bradbury v. Benton, 1262 

V. Chiteago, R. I. & P. Ry., 1357 
Braddy v. Elliott,. 621 
Braden v. Walker, 447 
Bradford v. Boley, 1255 

V. Edwards, 453 

V. Manly, 762 

V. Montgomery F. Co., 632 
Bradford E. & C. R. R. v. New York, 

L. E. & W. R. R., 622 
Bradford Oil Co. v. Blair, 619, 999fc 



Bradlaugh v. Edwards, 241, 463, 1368 
Bradley v. Andrews, 486c 

V. Borin, 248a, 565c 

V. Brown, 908 

«. Burkett, 78, 497d 

V. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 159, 
856 

V. Cramer, V72a 

V. Denton, 221a, 858 

V. Flewitt, 101 

V. Gammelle, 262, 531 

V. Geiselman, 317 

V. Gibson, 451 

V. McHale, 734 

». Morris, 372 

V. Ohio River R. R., 57T 

V. Rea, 125, 650, 762o, 769, 1060 

». Reynolds, 689a, 691a 

V. Sattler, 584a 
Bradley Land & Lumber Co. v. Eastern 

Mfg. Co., 80 
Bradlie v. Marylaad Ins. Co., 711, 718 
Bradner v. Faulkner, SOlc, 1271a 
Bradshaw v. Buchanan, 387 

V. Craycraft, 417 

V. Crosby, 980a 

V. Prazier, 126e 

V. Lancashire & Y. Ry., 570a 

V. Rome, W. & O. R. R., 1295 

V. South Boston R. R., 865 
Bradstreet v. Baker, 411 
Bradstreet, Ex parte, 1285 
Bradstreet Co. v. Oswald, 170 
Bradt w. Holden, 556 

V. New Nonpareil Co., 43g 

V. Tbwsliey, 443 
Brady v. Atlantic Works, 1243, 1244 

V. Beadl'eton, 528a 

V. Cassidy, 1266 

V. Daly, 12466 

V. Fall River, 1012a 

V. Kansas City Cable R. R., 1152a 

V. Kansas, Qty, St. L. & C. R. R., 
1356 

V. McGhee, 973 

V. Mayor, 339 

V. North Western Ins. Co., 723a 

V. Spurck, 973, 979 

V. Weeks, 949 

V. Whitney, lQ7d 



2798 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Brady v. Wilcoxson, 295, 3146 
Bragan v. Birmingham R. L. & P. Co., 

1133 
Bragg !). Laraway, 363a 
Brahan v. Clarksville First Nat. Bank, 

695c 
Braiden v. Mercer, 681a 
Brailsbery, The, 592 
Brainard v. Jones, 678 

V. Missisquoi R. R., 1109 
Brainerd v. Champlain Transp. Co., 

306 
Braithwaite v. Hall, 1216 

V. Power, 841 
Brake v. Corning, 1031 

V. Kansas City, 171a 
Brake Co. v. Sire, 607 
Braman v. Bingham, 979 

V. Hess, 704 

V. Perry, 688a 
Brame v. Clark, 48, 373 
Branch v. Chappell, 674 

V. Davis, 692? 

V. Doane, 931, 940 

V. Riley, 1031 

V. Wilson, 1039 
Brand v. Illinois C. R. R., 169a 
Brandamour v. Trant, 685A 
Brandon v. Allen, 565d 
Brandt v. Bowlby, 844 

V. Foster, 956, 959, 975, 979, 980, 
1053 
Brangwin ;;. Perrot, 678 
Brannenburg v. Indianapolis, P. & 

C. R. R., 856 
Brannin v. Johnson, 317, 434, 436 
Brannon v. Hursell, 326 
Bransoombe v. Scarborough, 678 
Brant v. Gallup, 205, 623 
Brantigan v. While, 1256 
Brantingham v. Fay, 109 
Brantley v. Johnson, 970 
Brashear v. Phila. Tr. Co., 123 
Brasher v. Davidson, 516c, 745 

V. Holtz, 565 
Brasington v. South Bound R. R., 368 
Brass v. Vandecar, 976, 984 

V. Worth, 509 
Braswell v. American L. I. Co., 730 
Bratt V. Ellis, 838 



Bratt V. Swift, 4706 
Bratten v. Catawissa R. R., 627a 
Bratton v. Allison, 339a 
Brauer v. Portland, 334 
Braun v. Craven, 436 

V. Hess, 301 

V. MetropoUtan W. S. E. R. R., 
1169 

V. Webb, 873a, 1342 
Brauns v. Green Bay, 664a 
Braunsdorf v. Fellner, 682 
Bray v. Latham, 1216, 481 

V. Poillon, 685a 
Brayton v. Chase, \2\d 
Brazell v. Cohn, 222, 617 

V. Seattle, 35 
Breck v. Ringler, 418 
Breckeniidge v. Brooks, 343, 919 

V. Hoke, 3016 

V. Taylor, 304 
Bredeson v. C. A. Smith Lumber Co., 

1365 
Bredin v. National M. W. S. Co., 1240 
Bredow v. Mutual S. I., 256 
Breed v. Eastern R. R., 1154o 
Breen v. Cooper, 675 

V. Hyde, 927 
Breese v. McCann, 1044, 1057 

V. U. S. T. Co., 875 
Breeze, The, 587 
Brem v. Covington, 311 
Bremier v. Carter, 310a 
Breneman v. Frank, 3116 
Brennan v. Clark, 419 

V. Dowagiac Mfg. Co., 1237 

V. Quinn, 688 

V. Servis, 959, 983 
Brennen v. Chicago & Carterville Coal 

Co., 5716 
Brenner v. Carter, 310a 

V. Jonesboro L. C. & E. R. R., 222 
Brennert v. Farrier, 332 
Brent v. Kimball, 107a 

V. Parker, 607 

V. Richards, 734 

V. Thornton, 317, 319, 322 
Brentner v. Chicago, M. & 8. P. Ry., 

333 
Breon v. Hankie, 47, 50 
Bressler v. Harris, 326 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2799 



Bretz V. Fawcett, 1060 

Brewer v. American Ins. Co., 714 

V. Chase, 451 

V. Dew, 373 

V. Ernest, Slid 

V. Hastie, 340c 

V. Tyringham, 308a 
Brewster v. Buckholz, 912 

V. Edgerly, 413 

V. Silliman, 533 

I). Van Liew, 519, 523 

V. Wakefield, 22 How. 118; 327 

V. Wakefield, 1 Minn. 352; 325 

V. Warner, 76 

V. Western U. T. Co., 882, 893 
Breyfogle v. Beckley, 302o 
Brian v. Oregon S. L. R. R., 1342 
Brick Co. V. Moore, 426 
Brickell V. Camp Mfg. Co., 933 

V. Frisby, 587 
Bricker v. Conemaugh Stone Co., 932 
Brickett v. Davis, 452 
Brickill v. Baltimore, 1226 

0. New York, 1232a 
Bridge V. Mason, 547 

V. Oshkosh, 1327 

V. Wain, 771 
Bridge Co. v. La Mantia, 580o, 584a 
Bridgeford v. Meagher, 666 
Bridgeman v. Hardwick, 331a, 1171 
Bridger v. Asheville & S. R. R., 180 
Bridgers v. Dill, 125o 

V. PurceU, 1153 
Bridges V. Holt, 122 

V. Hyatt, 419 

V. Lanham, 190, 646, 647c 

V. Maxwell, 692i 

u. Mills Mfg. Co., 366 

V. Pafford, 1027 

V. Reynolds, 271 

V. Southern Ry., 1154c 

V. Stickney, 157 
Bridgford v. Crocker, 753 
Bridgman v. Emily, The, 842 

V. Hopkins, 451 
Brier v. Mankey, 777 
Brierly v. Kendall, 82 
Brigg V. Hilton, 762 
Briggs V. B. & L. R. R., 80 

V. Boyd, 808 



Briggs V. Brushaber, 316, 439e 

V. Cook, 109 

V. Davis, 842 

V. Gleason, 545 

V. Hall, 999c 

V. Labette County, 1168 

V. Life Ins. Co., 439c 

V. McDonald, 684o 

V. Milbum, 58, 373 

V. Morse, 973 

V. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 67a 

V. New York Cent. R. R., 854, 856 

V. Stone, 1140 

V. Winsmith, 325 

V. Wiswell, 532 
Brigham v. Carlisle, 176, 834c 

V. Evans, 1012, 1295 

V. Hawley, 613, 655, 1065 

V. Vanbuskirk, 334 
Bright V. Bamett & Record Co., 680a, 
1367 

V. Bell, 363o 

V. Boyd, 916 

V. Lennon, 692c, 808 

V. Furrier, 700 

V. Rowland, 413 
Brightman v. Bristol, 928 

V. Reeves, 256 
Brighton V. Auston, 606a 

«. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry., 666 
Brighton F. C. S. Bank v. Sawyer, 1042 
Brightwell V. Hoover, 278 
Brignoli V. Chicago & G. E. Ry., 41, 

47, 180, 226/, 481 
Brigs' Case, 1001 
Brill V. Flagler, 1303 
Brincefield v. Allen, 989 
Brinckerhoff v. Phelps, 1007, 1011 

t). Wemple, 1154a 
Brine v. Great Western Ry., 1089 
Bringard v. Stellwagen, 53, 59 
Brininstool v. Michigan United Rys., 

170 
Brink v. Freoff, 1268 

V. Kansas City, etc., R. R., 316 

V. Mitchell, 1012 

V. Wabash Ry., 120 
Brinker v. Leinkauff, 237 
Brinkerhoff v. Olp, 416 
Brinkley v. Swicegood, 665 



2800 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Brinkley v. Willis, 3116 
Brinkman v. Gottenstroeter, 580 

V. St. Landry C. O. Co., 486c 
Brinkmann v. Taylor, 451 
Brinkmeyer v. Bethea, 935, 939 
Brinley v. National Ins. Co., 715, 721 
Brinton, The, 214 
Brinton v. Paxton, 1232a 
Brion v. Kennedy, 302a 
Brisbane v. Pomeroy, 960, 976, 1027 
Brisbine v. St. Paul, etc., R. R., 1154a 
Briscoe V. Kinealy, 326 

V. Litt, 668 

V. McElween, 373a, 432a 

V. Metropolitan' St. Ry., 1346 
Brisendine v. Martin, 797 
Bristol Mfg. Co. V. Gridley, 1261 
Brison v. Dougherty, 1279 
Bristowe v. Fairclough, 636ft 
British Columbia Saw Mill Co. v. 

Nettleship, 65, 159, 850 
British Consul v. Smith, 599c 
British I. W. Co. V. Dublin U. T. Co., 

1220 
British Motor Synd. v. Taylor, 1220 
British W. E. & M. Co. v. Underground 

E. R. Co., 226ft 
Britt V. Carolina N. R. R., 47 

V. Hays, 6556 
Brittanic, The, 588 
Britten v. Great Northern Ry., 873 
Britton V. Des Moines, O. & S. R. R., 
1131 

V. Fort Worth, 692c 

V. Ruffin, 973 

V. Street Ry., 171a 

e. Supreme Council Royal Ar- 
canum, 340 

V. Turner, 660, 1046 
Brizsee v. Maybee, 317, 352, 375, 434, 

506, 533, 538, 540, 690 
Broad St. Widening, Re, 1142 
Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co., 1089 
Broadway Coal M. Co. v. Smith, 1138a 
Broadway Sav. Bank v. Forbes, 326, 

330 
Broadwell v. Paradice, 77 
Brobst V. Skillen, 565 
Brock V. Bolton, 689a 

V. Clark, 762 



Brock V. Gale, 152, 873 

V. Knower, 734, 737 

V. Smith, 109, 943 
Brockenbrough v. Blythe, 3016 
Brockway v. Clark, 411 
Brodfield v. Schlanger, 414 
Brodie v. Fost, 642 

V. Ophir Silver Mining Co., 1226, 
1229 

V. Watkms, 83ig 
Brodnax v. Steinhardt, 310 
Brody V. Bimbaum, 734 
Brokaw v. Duffy, 1017 
Brolaskey v. Loth, 999e 
Brom. «. Hall, 834 
Bromberg v. Eugenotto Coiiat. Co., 

990e 
Bromley v. School Dist. No. 5, 667 
Bronson, The, 587 
Bronson v. Bruce, 4486 

V. Coffin, 970 

V. Forty-Second St. M. & St. 
M. A. Ry., 1348 

V. Rodes, 270 
Bronx Gas & Elec. Co. v. N. Y., 339 
Brook V. Bayless, 532 

V. Rawl, 455 
Brooke v. Bridges, 920 

V. Cunard S. S. Co., 1296 

V. Louisiana S. I. Co., 710 

». Tradesmen's Nat. Bank, 153a 
Brookfield v. Reed, 679a 
Brooklyn El. R. R. v. Phillips, 1198 
Brooklyn El. R. R., In re, 11986 
Brooklyn El. R. R., Matter of, 1205o 
Brooklyn, Ferry, In re, 11716 
Brooklyn L. I. Co. v. Week, 730 
Brooklyn U. E. R. R., In re, 1368 
Brookmire v. Monaghan, 1248 
Brooks V. Black, 961, 982, 983 

V. Boston, 1168 

V. Cotton, 673d 

V. Davenport & St. Paul R. R., 
1131 

V. Dutcher, 1335 

V. Hoyt, 554 

V. Hubbard, 279c, 424a 

V. Kirby, 549 

V. Miller, 1007 

V. Mohl, 979, 982 



TABLE 
[References 
Brooks V. Moody, 860, 979 

V. Northern Pac. Ry., 854, 856 

V. Robinson, 339a 

V. Rochester Ry., 85c, 481 

V. Rodgers, 502, 934 

V. Schwerin, 486 

V. Tobin, 692fc 

V. Western U. T. Co., 883 

V. Wichita, 416 

V. Wilcox, 307 
Brophy v. Illinois Steel Co., 1356 
Broquet v. Tripp, 125, 769 
Brosde v. Sanderson, 1336 
Brosnan v. Sweetser, 67 
Brossoit ». Turcotte, 359 
Brothers, The, 587 
Brotherston v. Barber, 711 
Brotton v. Lnnkley, 684a 
Broughel v. Southern N. E. Tel. Co., 

5706 
Broughton v. McGrew, 52, 445, 451 

V. Mitchell, 296, 301, 3016, 345 

V. Singleton, 1334 
Broumel v. Rayner, 618 
Brewer v. Lewis, 762 
Brewer v. Merrill, 64 
Brown v. Adams, 999o 

V. Allen, 35 la. 306; 156, 363 
383c, 433 

V. Allen, 4 Esp. 158; 1279 

V. AUey, 364 

V. Arrott, 814, 820 

V. Baldwin, 685k 

V. Barnes, 445 

V. Barry, 1285 

V. Beatty, 34 Miss. 227; 1139o, 
1155 

V. Beatty, 35 Up. Can. Q. B. 328; 
196 

V. Bellows, 410 

V. Bigelow, 762 

V. Blunt, 439 

V. Board of Education, 667 

V. Bosworth, 934a 

V. Bowen, 70 

V. Brooks, 448, 449, 451 

V. Brown, 3145 

V. Butler, 1247 

V. Calumet R. Ry., 244 

V. Carroll, 81 

176 



OF CASES 2801 

are to sections] 

Brown v. Chicago & N. W. Ry,, 571e 
t). Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 42, 

1216, 150, 868, 869, 870, 871 
V. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 180a, 

580o 
V. Cincinnati, 1148 
V. Collins, 33 
V. Commissioner, 1085 
V. Corey, 1142 
Ki Cowles, 149 
V. Crowley, 1052 
V. Cummings, 129, 200, 485a 
V. Cunard Steamship Co., 852 
V. Cunningham, 6856 
V. DeYoung, 673d 
V. Dickerson, 959 
V. Doyle, 3146 
V. Drake, 1331 
V. Durham, 1042 
V. East Carolina R. R., 190 
V. Edgington, 768 
V. Emerson, 109 

V. Evans, 360, 385, 386, 490, 1326. 
V. First Nat. Bank, 303 
V. Floyd, 120a 

V. Foster, 1 App. Div. 578; 1368 
V. Foster, 51 Pa. 165; 196, 657 
V. Galloway, 901, 907 
I). Georgia C. & N. R. R., 868 
V. Gorton, 685 
V. Hadley, 195, 742a 
V. Hallett, 676 
V. Hannibal & L. J. R. R., 66 Mo. 

588; 1216 
». Hannibal & S. J. Ry., 99 Mo. 

310; 1270 
V. Hardcastle, 325 
V. Hare, 750 
». Haven, 805 
V. Haynes, 80a 
V. Hearon, 959, 981 
V. Hiatt, 340c 
V. Honniss, 1007, 1009 
V. Jones, 52 111. App. 597; 385, 387 
V. Jones, 5 Nev. 374; 237, 685m 
V. Kimball, 673/ 
V. Knapp, 301c 
V. Lake, 929 
V. Lattimore, 6926 
V. Laurens County, 124 



2802 TABLE 

[References 

Brown v. Leath, 58, 937 

V. McBiide, 3836 

V. McGran, 228e, 821 

». McRa«, 67a 

V. Mader, 609 

V. MaUett, 1257 

V. Master, 467 

V. Maulsby, 331, 420 

V. Mead, 930a 

V. Metropolitan W. S. E. R. R., 
1169 

V. Minneapolis & S. P. S. Ry., 
1342 

V. Montgomery, 256 

V. Moore, 1296 

V. Morrill, 990c 

V. Morris, 171 

V. Moaely, 692i 

V. Muller, 228?, 3362, 636o, 636b, 
636/, 636m, 737 

V. Murdock, 265 

V. Neal, 54 

V. Norcross, 1021a 

V. Northwestern R. R., 844 

V. OdiU, 638, 638o, 6386 

V. Paxton, 686 

V. Perkins, 98 

V. Phipps, 692 

V. Pierce, 774 

V. Pierce County, 1156 

V. Pillow, 126d 

». Pine Creek R. R., 1110 

ti. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 851 

V. Pope, 934 

V. Providence & S. R. R. Co., 1295 

V. Providence, W. & B. R. R., 1130 

V. Rapid Ry., 222, 865 

V. Republican Mountain Silver 
Mines, 6736 

V. Richmond, 103 

V. Royal Ins. Co., 723 

V. St. Louis & S. Ry., 486& 

V. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Mani- 
toba Railway, 250 

V. Sampson, 993 

V. Sax, 502 

V. Sayles, 762a 

V. Seattle, 1123 

V. Seymour, 1368 

V. Southern Pac. R. R., 1357 



OF CASES 
are to sections] 

Brown v. Smith, 12 Cush. 196; 366 

V. Smith, 5 How. (Miss.) 387; 774 

V. Southwestern H. R., 317 

V. State, 692c 

V. SulUvan, 1348 

V. Swineford, 353, 357, 385, 386, 
487a 

V. Taggart, 413 

t). Taylor, 976 

V. Toronto General Hospital, 992 

V. Trinidad A. M. Co., 753 

V. Tyler, 685fc 

V. Union S. & L. Assoc, 497(i 

V. Van Braam, 700 

V. Watson, 101 

V. Weaver, 692i 

V. Weber, 659 

V. Webster City, 927, 1110 

V. Welch, 270 

V. Werner, 182 

V. Western U. T. Co., 85 S. C. 495; 
894 

V. Western U. T. Co., 6 Utah, 219; 
876 

V. White, 171a, 226/, 483 

V. Woodliff, 69 

V. Woods, 774 

V. Worcester, 1161 
Brown B. F. M. Co. v. Drohen, 1231 
Brown Iron Co. v. Norwood, 419 
Brown Land Co. v. Lehman, 999fc 
Brownback v. Frailey, 1216 
Browne v. Allen, 760 

V. Price, 107c 

V. St. Paul Plow Works, 754 

V. Steck, 331 
Brownell v. Chapman, 742 

». M'Ewen, 475 

V. Steere, 311a 
Browner v. Davis, 98 
Brownfield v. Dudley E. Jones Co., 149 
Browning v. Jones, 366, 478, 480 

V. Nat. Capital Bank, 439e 

V. Porter, 685y 

V. Powers, 447 

V. Simons, 753 
Brownlee v. Bolton, 753 

V. Steel, 301c 
Brownold v. Rodbell, 408, 413 
Brownson ti. Fenwick, 314 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2803 



Broyles v. Prosock, 482 
Bruce v. Baxter, 814, 834 

V. Coleman, 682 

V. Davenport, 819 

V. Fiss, 766 

V. Jones,' 719 

V. Learned, 528 

V. Pettengill, 107a 

V. Priest, 488 

V. Reed, 378 

V. United States, 692e 

V. Welch, 998 
Brack V. Feiner, 684 
Brucker v. Manistee & G. R. R. R., 

6476 
Bnihm v. Ford, 156 
Brumby v. Smith, 656c 
Brunell v. Cook, 637 
Bruns v. Schreiber, 964, 975 
Brunsden v. Humphrey, 85c 
Brunskill v. Mair, 755 
Branson v. Lynde, 461 

V. Martin, 1049, 1065, 1066 
Branswick v. Mi-aa Indemnity Co., 408, 
413 

V. Snow, 303, 692/ 

V. Slowman, 664 
Brush E. L. & P. Co. v. Simonsohn, 44 

V. Long Island R. R., 318, 319 

V. Manhattan Railway, 1198 
Braske v. Neugent, 1345 
Bryan v. Acee, 388 

V. Johnson, 973 
Bryant v. American Telegraph Co., 
887 

V. Barton, 607a 

». Booth, 1027o 

V. Craig, 311d 

V. Everley, 1012, 1020 

V. Hambrick, 679a, 1012 

V. Jackson, 448 

V. Omaha & C. B. R. & B. Co., 
98 la. 483, 67 N. W. 392; 1355 

V. Omaha & C. B. R. & B. Co., 
98 la. 483; 1364 

V. Stillwell, 659 

V. Tidgewell, 1251 
Bryer v. Foerster, 1364 
Bryson v. McCone, 646 
Bryton v. Marston, 411 



Bube V. Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co., 

43s 
Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Bd. of 

Works, 1101, 1102 
Buchan v. Broadwell, 332 
Buchanan v. Alwell, 973 

V. Carpenter, 1246c 

V. State, 692fc 

V. Stout, 439^ 

V. West Jersey R. R., 43A 

V. Western U. T. Co., 894 
Bucher v. Wisconsin Cent. Ry., 1364 
Buck V. Fisher, 307 

a. Hermance, 1220 

V. Leach, 256, 440 

V. Little, 700a 

V. Louisville & N. R. R., 932 

V. Maddock, 1249 

V. Morrow, 988, 988a 

V. People's St. R. E. L. & P. Co., 
486c 

V. Pike, 999^ 

V. Remsen, 76, 77 

V. Rhodes, 691a 

V. Rodgers, 999 

V. Webb, 873a 

V. Wilson, 85a 
Buckhout V. Witwer, 426 
Bucki V. McKinnon, 6736 
Buckingham v. Orr, 331 

V. Thompson, 1027a, 1030 
Buckley v. Buckley, 534, 639 

V. Dawson, 1002 

V. Kelly, 310a 

V. Knapp, 360, 377, 385, 445 

V. Van Diver, 682a 
Bucklin ». Beals, 54 
Buckman v. Davis, 335 
Buckmaster v. Grundy, 304, 969, 1012 

V. Smith, 4978- 
Bucknam v. Great N. Ry., 43^ 

V. Nash, 1268 
Buckner v. Terrell, 688o 
Buekry-Ellis v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 

4866, 1366 
Buckstaff V. Hicks, 446 
Budd V. Crea, 641 

V. Multnomah St. Ry., 267 

V. Union Ins. Co., 3406 

V. Walker, 914 



2804 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Buddin v. Fortunato, 926 
Budlong V. Cunningham, 1028 
Buel V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 1334 
Buell V. Worcester County, 1172o 
Buenzle v. Newport Amusement Assoc, 

222, 873b 
Buerk v. Imhseuser, 1227 
Buffalo V. Pratt, 1150 
Buffalo, In re City of, 1149 
Buffalo, The, 1357 
Buffalo & H. T. Co. v. Buffalo, 317 
Buffalo B. S. C. Co. v. Milby, 226^ 
Buffalo B. W. C. V. Phillips, 152 
Buffalo Bayou B. & C. R. R. v. Ferris, 

1143 
Buffalo C. C. M. Co. v. Hodges, 1303 
Buffalo Elevating Co. v. Prussian Nat. 

Ins. Co., 722a 
Buffalo G. Ins. Co. v. Title & T. Co., 

793o 
Buffkin V. Baird, 6556 
Buford V. Gould, 316, 772 

V. Hopewell, 368 
Bugge V. Seattle Electric Co., 1356 
Buggi V. Milbum, 365 
Building Co. v. Jencks, 968 
Building L. & W. Co. v. Fray, 966, 977, 

979 
Buist V. Guice, 738 
Bulgarian, The, 589, 593 
Bulkley v. Honold, 762 

V. U. S., 607 
Bull V. Beiseker, 966 

V. Griswold, 363a, 373a, 936 

V. Keenan, 235a 

V. Pratt, 914 

V. Rich, 3146 

V. Schuberth, 665 
BuUard v. Briggs, 964 

V. Harkness, 685A; 

V. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., 
1149 

V. Stone, 246, 734 
BuUen v. Arkansas V. & W. Ry., 1152a 
Bullock V. Adams, 1026 

V. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 387 

V. Ferguson, 341, 685ff 

V. Porter, 933 

V. White Star Steamship Co., 864 
Bump V. Cooper, 19 Ore. 81; 762 



Bump V. Cooper, 20 Ore. 527; 246 
Bumpass v. Webb, 913 
Bunce v. Bunce, 692fc 
Bunch V. Potts, 109, 734 
Bunchfield v. Haffey, 678 
Bundle v. State Belt Elec. Ry., 67 
Bundy v. Maginess, 360, 372, 386, 487a 

V. Ridenour, 973, 974 
Bungenstock v. Nishnabotna Drainage 

Dist., 109 
Bunke v. New York Tel. Co., 932, 1295, 

1334 
Bunker v. Hudson, 1110 
Bunn V. Moore, 339a 

V. Schnellbacher, 439i 
Bunny v. Hopkinson, 962 
Buntin v. Duchane, 383a 
Bunton v. U. S., 338 
Bunyea v. Metropolitan R. R., 573, 

573a 
Burch V. Bernard, 445 

V. Southern Pac. Co., 1356 

». State, 6929 
Burchfield v. Haffey, 678 
Burckhalter v. Coward, 447 
Burckhardt v. Burckhardt, 170a, 632 
Burcky v. Lake, 66 
Burde v. St. Joseph, 1154 
Burden v. Denig, 92 U. S. 719; 1225, 
1228, 1230 

V. Denig, 2 Fish. P. C. 588; 1215 
Burden v. Mobile, 940 
Burdett v. Esty, 1236, 1244 

V. Lowe, 688 

V. Withers, 999^1 
Burdick v. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 
316, 317, 933 

V. Garrick, 311e 

V. Weeden, 1330 
Burdict v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 1357 
Burditt V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 

924 
Burfeindt v. New York City Ry., 1342 
Burger v. Northern P. R. R., 1294 

V. Rhiney, 2266, 990a 
Burgess v. Alliance Ins. Co., 274 

V. Beaumont, 1045 

V. Doble, 688o 

V. Southbridge Savings Bank, 327, 
343 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2805 



Burgess, In re, 287 
Burgh V. Shanks, 316 
Burham v. Lockwood, 512a 
Burhmaster v. Ainsworth, 9906 
Burk V. Areata & Mad River R. R., 
579, 584 

V. Clements, 981, 982, 1053 

V. Dunn, 416 

V. Serrill, 1009 

V. Webb, 76, 79 
Burke v. Beveridge, 965 

V. Carruthers, 334 

V. City & County Contract Co., 
1350 

V. Ellis, 4865 

V. Keystone Mfg. Co., 750 

V. Louisville & N. R. R., 432a 

V. Miller, 461 

V. Pierce, 999/ 

V. St. Louis Southwestern Ry., 
1348 

V. Sanitary District, 1171 

V. Shaver, 636d 
Burkett v. Georgia Home Ins. Co., 722 

V. Griffith, 455 

V. Lanata, 388 
Burkhardt v. Press Pub. Co., 377 
Burks V. Hubbard, 515 

V. Shain, 639 
Burland v. Montreal, 932 

V. Mutual Benefit Assoc, 732 
Burleigh v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 1348 
Burley v. Menefee, 487a 
Burlingame v. Burlingame, 1020 
Burlington Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 692a 
Burlington R. R. v. Johnson, 1154a 

V. Schweikart, 1160a 
Bum V. Morris, 57 
Bumap V. Wight, 98, 127, 226d 
Bume V. Richardson, 911 
Bumell V. Brown, 288 
Burnett v. Great N. Ry., 937 

V. Simpkins, 639, 641 

V. Smith, 1072 
Burney v. Pledger, 492a 
Bumham v. Best, 307, 999a 

V. Jenness, 373 

V. Lawson, 228/, 228^, 512o 

V. Roberts, 753 

V. Webster, 226/, 486 



Bumhisel v. Firman, 327 

Bums V. Alabama & V. R. R., 387, 1342 

V. Anderson, 328, 334 

V. Campbell, 317, 363a, 364, 365, 
366, 367, 378, 383a 

V. FoUansbee, 676 

V. George, 692i 

V. Merchants' & P. O. Co., 1372 

t;. Pennsylvania R. R., 574o 

V. Schreiber, 964 
Bumside v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry., 

1342 
Burpee v. Sparhawk, 439A; 
Burr V. Burr, 353 

V. Redhead, 762, 767 

V. Todd, 410, 1006, 1010 

V. Wilcox, 301a 

t). WilUams, 750 
Burrage v. Cmmp, 407, 410, 424 

V. Melson, 1261, 1268 
Burrank v. New Orleans, 1139 
Burrell v. Lithgow, 554 

t). New York & S. S. S. Co., 613, 
614, 636A;, 1266 
Burridge v. Fortescue, 675c 
Burritt v. New Haven, 112o 

V. Rench, 844 
Burrough v. Abel, 303 
Burroughs v. Clancey, 1056 

V. Housatonic R. R., 1108 

V. Morse, 673a 

». Richmond County, 346 
Burrow v. Pound, 612 

». Terre Haute & L. R. R., 1109 
Burrows v. March Gas, etc., Co., 126e 

V. Stryker, 334, 345 

V. Wright, 128 
Burrus v. Life Ins. Co., 730 
Burmss v. Hines, 185, 233, 383c 
Burson v. Cox, 373 

V. Fire Assoc, 725 
Burt V. Advertiser Newspaper Co., 358 

V. Burt, 77, 537 

V. Butterworth, 6956 

V. Dewey, 774, 785, 956, 973 

V. Dutcher, 509 

V. Wame, 926 

V. Wigglesworth, 1161 
Burtis V. Thompson, 636d 
Burton v. Brookline, 1162 



2806 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Burton V. Chaney, 302 

V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 1156 

V. Fulton, 543 

V. Henry, 120o 

t). HoUey, 137 

V. Hughes, 76 

V. Pinkerton, 42, 126d, 675 

V. Randall, 497e 

V. Reeds, 959, 969, 977 

V. Schennerhom, 1050 

V. Seherpf, 8736 

V. Wilmington & W. R. R., 574a 

</. Young, 761, 762 
Burtraw v. Clark, 63, 932 
Burvant v. Wolfe, 1372 
Busby V. Treadwell, 973 
Buschman v. Codd, 439, 778 
Bush V. Baldrey, 274 

V. Baltimore & C. Constr. Co., 615 

V. Brandecker, 695a 

V. Brooks, 655b 

V. Canfield, 744 

V. Cole, 1011 

V. Finucane, 656 

V. Holmes, 734 

V. Johnson County, 692/ 

V. Jones, 660, 662, 1044, 1067 

V. Kirkbride, 685^ 

V. Phillips, 950 

11. Prosser, 447, 452 

V. Trowbridge Waterworks Co., 
1096 
Bushman v. Taylor, 762 
Bushnell v. Bushnell, 807, 807c 

V. Geo. E. King Bridge Co., 153 
Buson V. ElUott, 301c 
Bussey v. Excelsior Co., 1215 

V. M. & L. R. R. R., 854 
Bussman v. Ganster, 999e 
Bussy V. Donaldson, 29, 429 
Bustamente v. Stewart, 109, 237, 685A;, 

685TO 
Buston V. Pennsylvania R. R., 846a 
Butcher v. Churchill, 801 

V. Norwood, 336 

V. Peterson, 959, 975 
Butcher Steel Works v. Atkinson, 651 
Butchers' S. & M. Assn. v. Com., 163 
Mass. 386; 1151, II6O0, 1164 

V. Com., 169 Mass. 103: 1147 



Butler V. Anderson, 439d 

V. Baker, 999e 

V. Barnes, 238, 962, 982, 983 

V. Butler, 77 N. Y. 472; 636c 

V. Butler, 10 R. I. 501; 304 

V. Butler, 8 W. Va. 674; 801 

1). Collins, 436 

V. Esohleman, 641 

V. Gazette Co., 364 

II. Hoboken Printing Co., 444 

V. Horwitz, 270 

V. Kent, 1261 

V. Kirby, 301, 308a 

V. Ladue, 785 

V. Manhattan Ry., 486a 

V. Maimy, 636ra 

V. MehrUng, 375, 537, 1326 

V. Mercer, 386 

V. Moore, 191, 768 

V. Prentiss, 439c 

V. Rolfe, 675c 

V. State, 692i 

V. Stockdale, 461, 462 

V. Western U. T. Co., 371a, 8946 

V. Winona M. Co., 664 
Butler H. R. Co. v. Newark, 1164 
Butnam v. Hussey, 101, 940 
Butner v. Western U. T. Co., 894 
Butte County v. Boydston, 1165 
Butte Electric Ry. v. Jones, 5716, 577 
Butter V. Mutual Aid Loan, etc., Co., 

1070 
Butterfield v. Byron, 655c 

V. Kirtley, 999j 

V. Stephens, 824 
Butterworth v. Todd, 1335 
Buttner v. Smith, 302a 
Button V. Kinnetz, 311, 999fc 

V. MeCauley, 641 
Butts V. Collins, 1031 

V. Edwards, 100, 990a 

V. Nat. Exch. Bank, 44, 47 

V. Phelps, 819 

V. Woods, 689a 
Buxton V. Lister, 509, 636to 
Buzzell V. Snell, 301 
Byerlee v. Mendel, 1064 
Byers v. Homer, 487o 

V. Jacobs, 947 
Byram v. McGuire, 368 



TABLE OF CASteS 
[RefereBces are to sections] 



2807 



Byrd v. Bord, 673 

V. Southern Exp. Co., 573o 

V. State, 692 

V. Texas Midland R. R., 1371 
Byrket v. Monohon, 447 
Byrne v. Elfreth, 733a 

V. Gardner, 44a 

V. Great Southern & W. Ry., 861 

V. Independent School Diet., 667 

V. Mmneapolis & S. L. Ry., 924o, 
937 

V. Schwing, 819, 820 

V. Weeks, 1068 
Byrne Mill Co. v. Robertson, 199 
Byrnes v. Baldwin, 669 

V. National Ins. Co., 715 

V. Palmer, 540 

V. Rich, 961, 964, 966 
Byrom v. Chapin, 73 



C. B. Coles & Sons Co. v. Standard L. 

Co., 168 
C. F. Birtman Co. v. Thompson, 695 
C. H. Albers C. Co. v. Spencer, 685, 

685i 
C. P. Mayer Brick Co. v. D. J. Ken- 
nedy Co., 752o 
C. R. Cummings & Co. v. Masterton, 

934 
C. W. Dooley & Co. v. Hasenwinkle 

Grain Co., 762 
C. W. Himt Co. V. Boston El. Ry., 

243a, 645 
C. W. Robinson Lumber Co. v. Burton, 

22Qg, 226w 
C. W. Zimmerman Mfg. Co. v. DaiEn, 

923 
Cabell V. Arnold, 464 
V. Puryear, 301c 
Cable V. Bowlus, 43/ 
V. Dakin, 375 
V. Leeds, 608 
Cade V. Brown, 1012, 1018 
Cadle V. Muscatine W. R. R., 95^ 932, 

947 
Cadman v. Markle, 6556, 6736 
Cadmus v. Fagan, 968, 980 
Cadwell v. Town of Canton, 6336 



Cady V. Allen, 972 

V. Case, 360, 365 
Caffe V. Bertrand, 496 
Caffrey v. Darby, 816 
Cage V. Phillips, 9996, 1056 
Cagney v. Manhattan R. R., 1342 
Cahall V. Citizens' M. B. Assoc, 688a 
Cahen v. Piatt, 613, 753 
Cahill V. Bensen, 909a, 916 

V. District of Columbia,, 1110 

V. Lee, 843 

V. London & N. W. Ry., 873 

t). Murphy, 445 

V. Norwood Park, 1171 

V. Patterson, 673/ 

V. Pintony, 1258, 1259 

V. Verner, 557 
Cahn V. Western U. T. Co., 883, 889 
Cain V. C., R. I. & P. Ry., 95 

V. Cody,, 540 

V. Kelly, 1012a 

V. Volimer, 182a 
Cairnes v. Knight, 416, 676 
Cairo V. Zane, 346 
Calahan v. Babcoek, 334 
Calbeck v. Ford, 417 
Calcaterra v. lovaldi, 573a 
Calcote V. Elkin, 985 
Calcraft v. Earl of Harboroughi 480 
Calder v. Southern Ry., 385 
Calderno v. Atlas Steamship Co.,, 851 
Caldwell v. Brown, 573o, 575 

V. Central Park, N. & E. R. R., 
484, 1270 

V. Dickson, 659 

V. Dunklin, 301 

V. Ins. Co., 439c 

V. Murphy, 86c, 485a, 1289, 1307 

V. N. J. S. B. Co., 368 

V. Nashua, 1110 

V. Northern Pac. Ry., 484 

V. Porcher, 1234 

V. Sawyer, 1060 

». Schmulbach, 425 

V. Southern Ex. Co., 847 

V. Stadacona F. & L. I. Co., 725 

V. Vioksburg, S. & P. R. R., 368 

V. West, 530, 531 
Caledonia, The, 854 
Caledonian Ry, v. Colt, 156, 850, 1089 



2808 



Caledonian Ry. v. Ogilvy, 1090, 1092, 
1093, 1097 

V. Walker's Trustees, 1093, 1095, 
1105 
Calhoun v. Art Metal Constr. Co., 515 

V. Burnett, 495 

V. Marshall, 345 
California, The, 589 
California Cured Fruit Assoc, v. Ains- 

worth, 4976 
California N. & I. Co., In re, 573, 579, 

596o, 599a 
California P. B. & L. Co. v. Wasatch 

Orchard Co., 734 
California Pacific R. R. v. Armstrong, 

1135, 1175 
California S. N. Co. v. Wright, 415, 

418 
California Southern R. R. v. Colton 
Land, etc., Co., 1151 

V. Southern Pac. R. R., 1177 
Calkins v. Bertrand, 1215, 1233 

V. Colbum, 451 
Call V. Foster, 686 

V. Hagar, 240, 607, 629 

V. Moll, 695& 
Callaghan v. Hall, 311& 

V. Myers, 12466 
Callahan v. Ingram, 364, 377 

V. Shotwell, 655c 
Callanan v. Brown, 257 

V. Gihnan, 1194 

V. Port Huron & N. W. Ry., 95 

V. Shaw, 1331 
Callaway M. & M. Co. v. Clark, 196 
Callen v. Collins, 934 
Callendar I. & W. Co. v. Badger, 760 
Callender v. Marsh, 1108, 1112 

V. Oelrichs, 817 
Callo V. Brouncker, 665 
Calloway v. Laydon, 1254, 1256 

». Middleton, 451 
Calor O. & G. Co. v. Franzell, 1149 
Calton V. Bragg, 285, 287 
Calucha v. Naso, 632 
Calumet Canal Co. v. Morawetz, 1165a 
Calumet E. R. Ry. v. Jennings, 1364 
Calumet I. & S. Co. v. Martin, 1258 
Calumet River Ry. v. Moore, 252, 1151, 
' 1171 



^ABLE OF CASiES 
[References are to BectioBs] 

Calvit V. M'Fadden, 516c, 745 



Camden v. Allen, 332 

V. Greenwald, 676 

V. Ward, 6926 
Camden C. O. Co. v. Schlens, 762 
Camden I. Ry. v. Frazier, 1342 
Camden Interstate R. R. v. Smiley, 

1117 
Cameron v. Boyle, 692, 1258 

V. Bryan, 1358 

II. Burke, 975 

V. Cameron, 37 

V. Charing C. Ry., 1097 

v. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 1171 

V. New England T. & T., 436, 43d, 
43^ 

V. New York El. R. R., 924 

V. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R., 1154 

p. Smith, 287 

V. Vandegriff, 41, 485 

V. White, 608, 613, 752 

V. Wynch, 81 
Camp V. Bates, 343 

V. Bostwick, 807 

V. Camp, 360, 373 

V. Douglas, 1053 

V. First Natl. Bank, 331 

V. Gauley, 1040 

V. Hamlin, 753, 755 

V. Homesley, 906 

V. Morgan, 89 

V. Pollock, 426 

V. Randle, 695c 

I). Western U. T. Co., 876 
Campbell v. American F. I. Co., 623, 
727 

V. Arnold, 931 

V. Barclay, 1216, 1226 

V. Brown, 2 Woods, 349; 186, 908, 
916 

V. Brown, 100 Tenn. 245; 695o 

V. Campbell, 451 

V. Chamberlain, 682 

V. Commonwealth, 692 

V. Cook, 1270a 

V. Coquard, 310a 

V. Cowdery, 301c 

V. Dreher, 1347 

I/. Fleming, 762 

V. Gates, 658 



TABLE or CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2809 



Campbell v. Harmon, 377a, 1254 

V. Hatchett, 85 

V. Hillman, 777 

V. Howerton, 614, 988 

V. Johnston, 966 

V. Jones, 636re 

V. Kerrick, 439d 

V. Lewis, 1278 

V. Los Angeles Traction Co., 1216 

V. Metcalf, 685fc, 685n 

V. Metropolitan S. R. R., 1123 

K. Miltenberger, 2126, 992 

V. Morse, 119 

V. N. A. Brewing Co., 1354 

V. Paddington, 35, 927 

V. Pullman P. C. Co., 41, 47, 1216, 
485, 873a 

V. Railway Transfer Co., 1348 

V. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 363o 

V. Shields, 11 How. Pr. 565; 999c 

V. Shields, 6 Leigh, 517; 411 

V. Somerville, 802, 1066 

V. Tarbell, 680 

V. Wheelihan-Weidauer Co., 1357 

V. Wilson, 274 

V. Woods, 627a 

V. Woodworth, 244, 317, 432o 

V. Worman, 695c 

V. Wright, 828 

V. York, 1306 
CampbeUsville Lumber Co. v. Bradley, 

739 
Campfield v. Sauer, 741 
Canada v. Canada, 636i 
Canada Paint Co. v. Johnston, 102 
Canadian & A. M. & T. Co. v. Fitz- 

patrick, 685j 
Canadian Pac. Ry. v. Parker, 1089 

V. Robinson, 573a 

V. Roy, 1089 
Canady v. Knox, 418 
Canal Co. v. Grove, 1164 
Canandaigua & Niagara Falls R. R. 

V. Payne, 1115, 1185 
Canda v. Michigan M. I. Co., 1243 

V. Wick, 66, 753 
Candee v. Skinner, 341 

V. Webster, 341 

V. Western U. T. Co., 154, 888, 
890 



Candler v. Washoe L. R. & G. C. D. 

Co., 937 
Candler Inv. Co. v. Cox, 643 
Candrian v. Miller, 449 
Cane v. Allen, 979 
Cane Belt R. R. v. Hughes, 1171c 
Canfield v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 
142 la. 658; 1348 

V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 59 
Mo. App. 354; 380 

V. Eleventh School District, 339 

V. McLaughlin, 684 
Cannam v. Farmer, 1286 
Cannel v. Buckle, 675c 
Cannell v. M'Clean, 1010 
Canning v. Williamstown, 44 
Cannon v. Apperson, 301c 

i;. Beggs, 302a 

V. Brooklyn City R. R., 1365 

V. Folsom, 5166, 734 

V. Hunt, 645 

V. Labarre, 685ft 

V. Overstreet, 383c 

V. The Potomac, 67a, 587 

V. White, 904 

V. Wilbur, 988 

V. W. U. Tel. Co., 154, 890, 889 
Cannon Coal Co. v. Taggart, 674, 824 
Canon City Electric Light & Power 
Co. t). Medart Patent Pulley Co., 
760 
Canovan v. Neeld, 734 
Canteen, H. & F. Assoc, v. Schwartz, 

924 
Canter v. American & O. I. Co., 235 
Canthen v. Breyer, 1369 
Canton v. Smith, 313a 
Canton A. & N. R. R. v. French, 1159 
Canton Lumber Co. v. Lieler, 164 
Cantrell v. Fowler, 992 
Cantwell v. Burke, 991 
Cape Girardeau & C. R. R. v. Win- 

gerter, 1014 
Cape Girardeau & T. B. T. R. R. v. St. 

Louis & G. Ry., 905 
Capehart v. Carradine, 641 

V. Granite Mills, 844 
Capel V. Lyons, 184 
Capen v. Crowell, 331 

V. De Steiger G. Co., 739 



2810 

[References 

Capital Lumbering Co. v. Learned, 

681a 
Capital National Bank v. Cbldwater 

National Bank, 311e 
Capper, Ex parte, 413 
Capps V. Vasey Bros., 256 
Carbondale Invest. Co. v. Burdick, 185 
Cardell v. Bridge, 657 
Carey v. Berkshire R. R., 570 

V. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 1355 

V. Brooks, 946 

V. Guillow, 1044 
Cargill V. Thompson, 189, 218, 228 
Carhart v. Wainman, 229 
Carl V. Granger Coal Co., 107a, 109, 
999fc 

V. Sheboygan & F. du L. R. R., 
95, 924, 924a, 932 
Garland v. Cunningham, 126c 

V. New Orleans, 656 
Carle v. Nelson, 753 
Carleton v. Lombard, 773 
Carli V. Seymoin:, 618 

V. Stillwater & St. P. R. R., 1148 

V. Union D. S. R. & T. Co., 363, 
363a, 924, 932, 948 
Carlile v. Bentley, 172 
Carlin v. New York, 642 
Carlisle v. Callahan, 134 

V. Green, 417, 636a 
Carll V. Goldberg, 633c 
Carlon v. Dixon, 678, 689a 
Carlson v. Great Northern Ry., 1364 

V. Oregon, S. L. & U. N. Ry., 573a 

V. Stone-Ordean-Wells Co., 633 

V. St. Louis & Suburban Ry., 488 
Carlwitz v. Germania F. Ins. Co., 726 
Carlyon v. Lannan, 493, 493a 
Carman v. Beam, 908 

V. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 1042 

V. Noble, 795 

V. Trude, 762 
Carmichael v. Bell Tel. Co., 897a 

V. Texarkana, 91 
Carmody v. St. Louis Transit Co., 43i 
Carnahan v. Hughes, 756 
Carnegie v. Federal Bank of Canada, 

821 
Garner v. Chicago, S. P. M, <& 0. Ry., 
933 



TABLE OF CASES 



are to sections] 

Camer v. Peters, 1024 

Games v. Heimrod, 685^ 

Carney v. Concord St. R. R., 5716 

V. Vogel, 734 
Carolina Cent. R. R. v. McCaskill, 

917 
Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. 

Columbia Imp. Co., 161 
Carp V. Queen Ins. Co., 364, 1337 
Carpenter v. Barber, 3835, 1274 

V. Brand, 308a 

V. Buffalo, N. Y. & P. R. R., 574 

V. Carpenter, 90, 633o 

V. Cummings, 82, 565 

V. Doody, 549 

V. Dresser, 53, 565a 

V. Eastern Transp. Co., 67o 

t>. Easton & A. R. R., 331o 

». First Nat. Bank, 695, 740, 762, 
770 

V. Going, 61 

V. Hyman, 387 

V. Ibbetson, 644 

V. Jennings, 1138 

«. Landaff, 1129, 1148 

V. he Count, 834 

V. Lingenfelter, 499, 534, 936 

V. Locldiart, 413 

V. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 53 

V. Mexican N. R. R., 41, 47, 180 

V. MitcheD, 909o 

V. N. Y. Evening Journal Pub. 
Co., 448(i 

V. Pennsylvania R. R., 129 

V. Providence W. I. Co., 725 

V. Red Cloud, 1369 

V. Shelden, 456 

V. Small, 903, 916 

». Stevens, 691 

V. Stevenson, 682 

». Warner, 559 
Carpentier v. Atherton, 270 

V. MendenhaU, 911 
Carr v. Am. Locomotive Co., 1353 

V. Bennett, 301c 

V. Hills Archimedean Lawn Mower 
Co., 633 

V. Houston G. & W. Co., 684 

V. Moore, 777, 1291 

V, Roberta, 789 



TABLE OF CASES 



[References 

Carr v. Smith, 8O80 

V. State, 338 

V. Toledo Traction Co., 865 

V. Tucker, 1031 
Carricarti v. Blanco, 312 
Carrick v. Joachim, 484 
Carrico v. Stevenson, 614 
Carrie v. Cloverdale Banking & C. Co., 

4976 
Carrier v. Esbaugh, 61 
Carrine v. Westerfield, 931 
Carris v. Ingalls, 750 
Carrol St., In re, 243c 
Carroll v. Caine, 618 

0. Centralia Water Co., 1347 

V. Little, 310a 

V. Marshall, 1128 

w. Missouri Pac. Ry., 67a 

V. New York El. R. R., 11986 

V. Pathkiller, 527 

V. Sharp, 1031 

V. Welch, 660, 662 
Carroll's Estate In re, 616 
Carroll-Porter B. & T. Co. ». Colum- 
bus Mach. Co., 153, 157, 163, 607, 
740, 742, 767 
Carroll Springs Distilllag Co. of 

Baltimore v. Schnepfe, 116 
Carron v. Clark, 1265 
Carruthers v. Gay, 411, 413 
Carsey v. I'armer, 127, 179 
Carson v. Alexander, 298 

V. Arvantes, 414, 999a 

V. Coleman, 1148 

V. Gferman Ins. Co., 335 

V. Houssels, 777 

V. Kelley, 973 

V. Marine Ins. Co., 717 

V. Norfolk & C. R. R., 932 

V. St. Joseph, 1177 

V. Singleton, 481 

V. Smith, 317, 373o, 387 

V. Texas Installment Co., 361 
Carsten v. Northern P. Ry., 47, 129, 

865 
Carstens v. McDonald, 636(i 
Carter v. Baker, 1215, 1220, 1228, 1243 

V. Burr, 999d 

V. Cairo V. & C. Ry., 189, 942 

V. Carter, 4 Day, 30; 678 



2811 

are to sections] 

Carter v. Carter, 1 Bailey, 217; 973 

V. Corley, 411 

V. Denman, 976, 979 

V. Duggan, 555 

V. DuPre, 515 

V. Feland, 493, 497 

V. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 808 

V. 111. Cent. R. R., 387 

V. Kaufman, 419 

V. Lacy, 988 

V. Nunda, 171a 

V. Oster, 44a 

V. Pitcher, 933 

V. Roberts, 734, 741 

i;. Roland, 494 

V. Southern Ry., 212 

V. Strom, 413 

V. Thorn, Slid, 678, 692* 

V. Thurston, 1293 

V. Towne, 113 

V. Wabash R. R., 937 

V. Walker, 1060 

V. Wallace, 101, 923 
Carthage Turnpike Co. v. Andrews, 

485o, 1364 
Cartin v. Hammond, 1012 
Cartmill v. Brown, 301 
Cartwright v. Culver, 973 

V. Elliott, 1337 

V. McCook, 747 

V. Puissigur, 1353 
Caruth v. Allen, 101, 109 
Carver v. J. S. Mayfield Lumber Co., 

334, 695c 
Carvill v. Jacks, 959, 1027a, 1030 
Gary v. Courtenay, 274, 275 

V. Gruman, 761, 762, 1295 

V. Lovell Mfg. Co., 1222 

V. Preferred Accident Ins. Co., 
116 

V. Whitney, 335 
Cary Lithograph Co. v. Magazine Book 

Co., 245 
Casani v. Dunn, 684a 
Cascarella v. National Grocer Co., 1329 
Casco Bank v. Keene, 708 
Case V. Babbitt, 655 

V. Brown, 1226 

V. Case, 45 la. 48; 444 

V. Case, 137 App. Div. 393; 633a 



2812 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Case V. Fish, 339a 

V. Hall, 908 

V. Hart, 78 

V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 723a 

V. Hotchkiss, 310, 311 

V. Marks, 445, 451 

V. Minot, 1256d 

V. Osbom, 308a 

V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 435 

V. Shepherd, 924, 931 

V. Stevens, 164a, 762 

V. Simonds, 755 

V. Wolcott, 1012 
Case Plow Works v. Niles & Scott Co., 

762 
Casey v. Ballou Banking Co., 373a 

V. Carver, 314 

V. Galli, 301a 

V. Gibbons, 325 

V. Gill, 638 

V. Kelly-Atkinson Const. Co., 1367 
Cash V. Kennion, 275 
Cashion v. Western U. T. Co., 894, 

8946 
Casper v. Khppen, 126c, 182a 
Cass V. New Orleans Times, 453 
Cassaboglou v. Gibb, 826 
Cassady v. Trustees of Schools, 303 
Casselberry v. Forquer, 84o 
Cassell V. Board Councilmen of Nichol- 

asville, 1152a 
Cassels' MiUs v. Strater Bros. Grain 

Co., 753 
Cassidy v. Hunt, 1226 

V. Le Fevre, 190, 646 
Cassin v. Delany, 1330 

V. Marshall, 493 
Casteel v. Walker, 330 
Castello V. Landwehr, 574a, 577 
Castenholz v. Heller, 1299 
Castino v. Ritzman, 482a 
Castle V. Noyes, 834 

V. Peirce, 966 
Castleberry v. Atlanta, 1137 
Caston V. Perry, 929a 
Castor V. Dufur, 979 
Caswell V. Coare, 760, 1038 

V. Howard, 76 

a. Wendell, 962, 966 
Catawissa R. R. v. Armstrong, 574a 



Cate V. Schaum, 943 

Cater v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 864 

Gates V. McKimiey, 639, 1266 

V. Western U. T. Co., 894 
Catharine, The, v. Dickinson, 587, 592 
Cathcart v. Bowman, 970 
Catherwood v. Caslon, 86 
Cathey v. St. Louis & S. P. R. R., 365, 

1342 
CathoUc Knights of America v. Franke, 

301 
CatUn V. Bell, 816 

V. Knott, 311 

V. Lyman, 345 

V. Smith, 823 

V. Ware, 722 
Catlin C. C. Co. i;. Euster, 937 
Catron v. Lafayette County, 334 
Catterlin v. Voney, 426 
Cattle V. Stockton Water Works, 33 
Catzer v. Brooklyn, O. C. & S. R. R., 

1347 
Caulkins v. Gaslight Co., 83, 497 

V. Harris, 3016, 981, 982 
Causee v. Anders, 372 
Causin v. Taylor, 302a 
Cavanagh v. A. W. Stevens Co., 762 

V. Durgin, 202, 932, 939 
Cavanaugh v. Austin, 447 
Cavender v. Smith, 912 
Caverhill v. Robillard, 69, 932 
Caverly v. Nichols, 676 
Caves V. Bartek, 209 
Cawdor v. Lewis, 915 
Cawood Patent, The, 1230, 1231, 1234 
Cawston v. Sturgis, 778, 1028 
Cawthon v. Lusk, 738 
Cayuga, The, 593 
Caze V. Baltimore Ins. Co., 841 
Cease v. Cockle, 304, 313a 
Cecconi v. Rodden, 962 
Cecil V. Hicks, 326 

Cedar Rapids, I. F. & N. W. R. R. v. 
Raymond, 1166 

V. Ryan, 253 
Cederberg v. Robinson, 607, 615 
Ceigler v. Hopper-Morgan Co., 486c 
Celestial Empire, The, 597a 
Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Cellonite Mfg. 
Co., 1231 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2813 



Center v. American Ins. Co., 711 
Central A. Co. v. Buchanan, 636?i 
Central B. U. P. R. R. v. Andrews, 26 
Kan. 702; 95 

V. Andrews, 41 Kan. 370; 947 

V. Nichols, 252 

V. Twine, 1117 
Central Bridge Corp. v. Lowell, 1173 
Central C. & L. Co. v. Welbom, 564 
Central Coal Co. ». Hartman, 182, 183 
Central Coal & C. Co. v. John Henry 

Shoe Co., 504, 934 
Central Foundry Co. v. Bennett, 574 
Central G. P. Co. v. Mays, 1123 
Central of Ga. Ry. ». Ashley, 1342 

V. Forehand, 1356 

V. Glascock, 851 

V. Moore, 485a 

V. Morgan, 212, 864a 

V. Mote, 1354 

V. Murphey, 851 

V. PerkerSon, 580a 

V. Price, 117 

V. Sowell, 363a 

V. White, 212 

V. Windham, 924 
Central Ky. Tract. Co. v. Chapman, 

1270 
Central L. Co. v. Providence, 1158 
Central Mfg. Co. v. Cotton, 486c 
Central Oil Co. v. Southern Refining 

Co., 753 
Central Pac. Ry. v. Feldman, 251a 

V. Kuhn, 481 

V. Pearson, 1169, 1179 
Central R. R. & B. Co. v. Atlantic & 
G. R. R., 333 

V. Lanier, 1270 

V. Murray, 933 
Central Ry. v. Bayonne, 1167 

V. Crosby, 1306, 1367 

». De Brav, The, 1357 

V. Hassel, 856a 

V. Hetfield, 924a 

V. Sears, 316, 319 

». Senn, 1293 

V. Thompson, 574o, 581 

V. Warren, 438 
Central Trust Co. v. Arctic Ice Mach. 
Co., 735c, 762 



Central Trust Co. v. Clark, 153 

V. Condon, 311/ 

V. Savannah & W. R. R., 856o 
Centralia v. Wright, 95 
Centralia & Chester R. R. v. Brake, 
1163 

V. Rixman, 1167 
Cepheus, The, 589 
Cemahan v. Chrisler, 494a, 506a 
Cemy v. Paxton & Gallagher Co., 248a, 

440 
Cerrillos Coal R. R. v. Deserant, 573, 

584 
Chace v. Hinman, 795 

V. Lamphere, 914 
Chacey v. Fargo, 119, 486 
Chadwick v. Butler, 519, 734 

V. Lamb, 79 

V. Woodward, 127, 155, 992 
Chaffee v. Sherman, 79, 80o, 82 
Chaffee's Appeal, 1131 
Chaffer v. Sherman, 565 
Chafoin v. Rich, 702 
Chair Co. v. Henderson, 1123 
Chairman v. Moore, 692y 
Chaityn v. Stock, 6336 
ChaUce v. Witte, 153, 742 
ChaUe v. Duke of York, 285 
Chalk V. Charlotte C. & A. R. R., 139 
Chalmers v. Shackell, 447 
Chamber of Commerce v. Sollitt, 758 
Chamberlain v. Bagley, 417 

V. Bellar, 801 

V. Brady, 6076 

V. Colhnson, 503, 935 

V. Farr, 753 

V. Hibbard, 620, 644 

V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R., 1342 

V. Parker, 107c, 619, 993 

V. Porter, 86c, 1261 

V. Shaw, 80 

V. Smith, 304 

V. Ward, 587 

V. West End of London Ry., 1093 

V. Worrel, 493 
Chamberlaine v. Chester & B. Ry., 1076 
ChamberUn v. McCallister, 612a 

V. Scott, 6556, 665 

V. Vance, 451 
Chambers v. Boyd, 312 



2814 TABLE 

[References 

Chambers v. Brown, 984 

V. Chambers, 301c 

V. Donaldson, 931 

V. Ft. Bend County, 606c, 6796 

V. Frazier, 109 

V. Goldwin, 343 

V. Harper, 229 

V. Jajmes, 657 

V. Kupper-Benson Hotel Co., 574o 

V. South Chester, 1163, 1168, 1169, 
1172o 

V. Upton, 3836 
Chamlee v. Planters' Hotel Co., 1355 
Champion v. Smith, 55a 

V. Vincent, 101, 363o, 373a 
Champion I. M. & C. S. Co. v. Penn- 
sylvania I. W. Co., 165 
Champlain v. Detroit Stamping Co., 

667 
Champlain S. & S. Co. i). State, 224 
Champlin v. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. 
R., 932 

V. Rowley, 659 
Chandelor v. Lopus, 761a 
Chandler v. Allison, 127a, 182, 226d 

V. Bush, 1293 

«. Childs, 1044, 1071 

V. Doulton, 100, 990a 

».. Grieves, 672 

V. Jamaica Pond A. Co., 331a, 1158 

V. Smith, 126o 

V. Stear, 83 
Chandler's W. B. and London County 

Councils, In re, 1085 
Chapel V. Bull, 956, 962, 969 
Chaperon v. Portland G. E. Co., 435a 
Chapin v. Murphy, 325 
Chaplin v. Hicks, 200 

V. Warner, 762 
Chapman v. Albany & Schenectady 
Railroad, 1182 

V. Atlantic Ave. R. R., 1355, 1363 

V. Burt, 305 

V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 318, 844 

V. Cochran, 755 

V. Commonwealth, 692e 

V. Copeland, 101 

V. Dodd, 1326 

V. Doherty, 551 

V. Fowler, 736 



OF CASES 
are to sections] 

Chapman v. Ingram, 753 

V. Kansas City, etc., Co., 617, 752 

tf. Kerr, 533 

V. Kincaid, 1334 

J). Kirby, 182, 254 

V. Larin, 753 

V. McCrea, 819 

V. Oshkosh & M. R. R. R., 1148, 
1155 

V. Pfarr, 1365, 1367 

I). Rawson, 940, 1286 

V. Rockford Ins. Co., 722 

V. Ross, 795 

V. Southern Pac. Co., 1357 

V. Thames Manuf . Co., 99 

V. Thomburgh, 5656 

V. Western U. T. Co., 45a, 894, 
894a 
Chapman Dec. Co. v. Security Mut. L. 

Ins. Co., 419 
Chappel V. Theus, 301c 
Chappell V. Effis, 436, 564 

V. Western Ry., 182a 
Chappelle v. Olney, 340c 
Charde v. Brooklyn, 1154c 
Charles v. Altin, 86, 817 

V. St. Louis & I. M. R. R., 493 
Charles City Plow & M. Co. v. Jones, 

565c, 682 
Charles J. Webb & Co. v. Novelty 

Hosiery Co., 753 
Charles R. Stone, The, 587 
Charleston v. Newman, 1121, 1149 
Charleston & S. S. Bridge v. Comstock, 

1154 
Charleston & W. C. R. R. v. Reynolds, 

1156 
Charleston Fruit Co. v. Bond, 413 
Charleston Ice Manuf. Co. v. Joyce, 

650, 655»»655e 
Charleston Lumber Co. v. Friedman, 

426 
Charlotte, The, 124 Fed. 989; 1367 
Charlotte, The, [1908], P. 206; 76 
Charlton v. Markland, 1337 
Charman v. Hibbler, 970, 982, 983 

V. Tatum, 982, 983 
Charman, Ex parte, 287 
Charrington v. Laing, 415 
Chartier v. Marshall, 1012 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2815 



Chase v. Allen, 416 

V. Bennett, 241a 

V. Blaisdell, 493 

e. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry., 1306 

V. Clearfield Lumber Co., 2146, 933 

V. Cochran, 170 

V. Corcoran, 650 

V. Dearborn, 677 

V. Heaney, 623 

V. Hoosac T. & W. R. R., 933 

V. Jemmett, 1175 

V. Keyes, 554 

V. Manhardt, 341 

V. Munroe, 558 

V. New York Central R. R., 221 

V. Portland, 1148, 1172o 

V. Smith, 642 

V. Snow, 58, 226c 

V. Union Stone Co., 308a, 310 

V. Western U. T. Co., 45a, 894 

V. Worcester, 1147 
Chase County Nat. Bank v. Thomp- 
son, 535 
Chatfield v. Bunnell, 460 

V, Wilson, 940 
Chatham v. Jones, 742 
Chatsworth v. Rowe, 1327 
Chattahoochee, The, 687, 588 
Chattahoochee Brick Co. v. Sullivan, 

614 
Chattanooga ». Dowling, 91, 95 

V. Geiler, 1148 
Chattanooga, R. & C. R. R. v. Liddell, 

359 
Chatterton v. Crothers, 408, 419 

V. Fox, 986 
Chaude v. Shepard, 414 
Chauncey v. Yeaton, 317 
Chauvin v, VaUton, 537 
Chaves v. TorUna, 203 
Cheairs v. Coats, 999d 
Cheatham v. Red River Line, 571a, 

1367 
Cheddick w. Marsh, 397, 400, 418 
Cheek v. Waldnim, 301 
Cheeney v. Nebraska & C. S. Co., 502, 

503, 935 
Cheesborough v. Hunter, 304 
Cheetham v. Tillotson, 1276 
Cheeves v. Anders, 729 



Chellis V. Chapman, 370, 637o, 638 
Chelmsford Co. v. Demerest, 694 
Chemical Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 311/ 
340a 

V. Bailey, 309 
Cheney v. Bilby, 3406 

V. City Natl. Bank, 973 

V. Gleason, 1030 

V. Libby, 3016 
Chenowith v. Hicks, 1326 
Cherbuliez v. Parsons, 1361 
Chemick v. Independent American Ice 

Cream Co., 67a 
Cherokee & P. C. & M. Co. v. Limb, 

576, 1367 
Cherry v. Lake Drummond Co., 924a 

V. Louisiana & A. Ry., 1333, 1367 

V. Mann, 678 

V. McCall, 386 

V. Rock Hill, 1115 

V. Sutton, 1059 
Cherry Valley Iron Works v. Florence 
Iron River Co., 6366, 636(i, 753, 755 
Chesapeake & 0. C. Co. v. Allegany 
County, 241 

V. Chambers, 1110, 1154c 

I). Knapp, 655/ 

V. William, 1109 
Chesapeake & O. R. R. v. Chambers, 
1110, 1154c 

V. Conley, 387 

V. Crank, 1261 

V. Davis, 1356 

V. Dodge, 1347 

V. Dupee, 1367 

V. Fortune, 1366 

V. Gross, 96, 948 

V. Hawkins, 5716 

V. Hoffman, 1347 

V. Judd, 1367 

V. Lang, 574a 

V. Lavin, 58 

V. Osborne, 1342 

V. Satterfield, 368 

V. Smith, 1138a 

V. Stein, 1149 

V. Stock, 851 

V. Ward, 1367 
Chesapeake & P. T. Co. v. Mackenzie, 
932 



2816 TABLE 

[References 

Chesapeake Bank v. Swain, 271 
Chesapeake T. Co. v. Walker, 610 
Cheseborough v. Home Ins. Co., 720 
Chesebro v. Powers, 241, 455 
Cheshire v. Adams and C. Reservoir 

Co., 1112a 
Cheshire Turnpike Co. v. Stevens, 93 
Chesley v. Chesley, 639a 

V. St. Clair, 76, 80 

V. Tompson, 47 
Chesmore w. Barker, 565o, 734 
Chesnutt v. Chism, 976 
Chester v. Broderick, 688 
Chester Co. v. Brower, 1120 
Chesterfield, Earl of, v. Duke of Bolton, 



V. Jansen, 606c 
Chesterman v. Lamb, 772 
Cheuvront v. Bee, 9996, 1057 
Cheveley v. Morris, 1258 
Chew V. Bank of Baltimore, 302 

V. Lucas, 989 
Chicago, City of, v. Greer, 636a 
Chicago V. Allcock, 293, 301c 

V. Anglum, 1138 

V. Angnet, 1138 

V. Barbian, 331a 

V. Bork, 1354 

V. Brophy, 1328 

V. Burcky, 1151, 1160a 

V. Colman, 1347 

V. Didier, 1363 

V. Elzeman, 41, 47, 86c, 180, 481, 
485, 1328 

V. Fowler, 1328 

V. Gillett, 1363 

V. GurreU, 226/ 

V. Hesing, 584a 

V. Hoy, 1328 

V. Huenerbein, 184, 942, 948 

V. Jackson, 1168 

V. Jones, 41, 47, 86c, 180, 226/, 
3806, 481, 485 

V. Keefe, 574a 

V. Kelly, 3806, 1328 

V. Kimball, 1367 

V. Langlass, 41, 47, 180, 226/, 3806, 
481, 485 

V. Loebel, 1348 

V. McDonough, 74 



OF CASES 
are to sections] 

Chicago V. McLean, 44 

V. McNally, 1309, 1354 

V. McShane, 1138, 1169 

V. Major, 573o 

V. Martin, 368, 3806 

V. O'Brennan, 490, 1269 

V. Ogden Sheldon & Co., 1363 

V. Palmer, 331a 

V. People, 337 

V. Powers, 575, 680 

V. Pulcyn, 1152o 

V. Reid, 1358 

V. Saldman, 1363 

V. Scholten, 579 

V. Sexton, 613, 655d 

V. Spoor, 1169 

V. Sutton, 1348 

V. Taylor, 1115, 1121, 1123 

V. Tebbetts, 294 

V. Union Bldg. Assoc, 35 

V. Webb, 1138 

V. Wieland, 1354 
Chicago & A. R. R. v. Adler, 1367 

V. Davis, 316 

V. Erickson, 842 

V. Flagg, 42, 47, 864, 865, 866 

V. Goodwin, 1177 

V. Harrington, 483 

V. Johct, 1160a 

V. Kelly, 574 

V. Logue, 1367 

V. Murray, 1328 

V. Randolph, 487a 

V. Robbins, 924, 924a 

V. Scott, 1121, 1295 

V. Shannon, 579 

V. Springfield, 217, 1161 

V. Thrapp, 856a 

V. Watsker, 1348 

V. Wilson, 63 111. 167; 180, 226/, 
481, 485, 1325 

V. Wilson, 128 111. App. 88; 1367 
Chicago & E. 111. R. R. v. Beaver, 575 

V. Driscoll, 583 

V. Huston, 584a 

V. Loeb, 95, 1109, 1154e 

V. McAuley, 1110 

V. Barnes, 937 

V. Blake, 1138 

V. Branyan, 1367 



TABLE 

[References 

Chicago & E. 111. R. R. v. Cleminger, 
226o, 483 

V. Dresel, 1154 

V. HoUan, 41, 483 

V. Jacobs, 1171b 

V. Meech, 485o 

V. Smith, 937a 

V. Stephenson, 1367 

V. Vestor, 576, 1367 
Chicago & G. E. R. R. u. Vosburgh, 655 
Chicago & G. T. Ry. v. Hough, 1152a, 

1167 
Chicago & I. C. Ry. v. Huntor, 1110, 

1164 
Chicago & I. R. R. v. Baker, 373, 947, 
1275 

V. Hopkins, 1164 
Chicago & J. E. Ry. ». Barrows, 1356 

V. Fatten, 1355 

V. Spence, 485a 
Chicago & M. E. R. R. v. Diver, 1165c 

V. Krempel, 486 

V. Mawman, 1165c 

V. Ullrich, 484 
Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Bayfield, 580 

V. Calumet Stock Farm, 852 

V. Chicago, 1165, 1171 

V. Chishohn, 47, 865 

V. De Clow, 172 

V. Des Lauriers, 1367 

V. Dickinson, 844 

V. Hoag, 36a, 86a 

V. Kendall, 167 Fed. 62; 1309 

V. Kendall, 186 Fed. 139; 935a 

V. Moranda, 580 

V. Nichols, 836 

V. Peacock, 1326 

V. Shultz, 316, 318 

V. Stanbro, 853 

V. Sweet, 574 

V. WilUams, 47, 865 
Chicago & Pacific R. R. v. Francis, 
1123a 

V. Hildenbrand, 1154, 1163 

V. Stein, 1138 
Chicago & R. I. R. R. v. McKean, 1328 

V. Morris, 573a 

». Northern 111. Coal & I. Co., 999e 

V. Ward, 191, 226a, 942, 1275 
Chicago & S. E. Ry. v. McEwen, 416 

177 



OF CASES 2817 

are to sections] 

Chicago & S. E. R. v. Yawger, 614 
Chicago & W. I. R. R. v. Berg, 1165a 

V. Cogswell, 1109 

V. Englewood Connecting R. R., 
1169 

». Ptacek, 573a, 1367 
Chicago & W. M. R. R. v. Huncheon, 
1154 

V. Reid, 107c 
Chicago, B. & N. R. R. v. Bowman, 

1138 
Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. Blank, 1367 

V. Emmert, 937 

V. Gardiner, 851 

V. Griffin, 1328 

V. Gunderson, 584a 

V. Hale, 852 

V. Harwood, 573a 

V. Hines, 47 

V. Krayenbuhl, 1356 

V. Johnson, 67 

11. McGinnis, 1152o 

V. Metcalf, 435 

V. Miller, 851 

V. Morris, 1334 

V. Naperville, 101 

V. O'Connor, 60 N. W. 326; 947 

V. O'Connor, 42 Neb. 90; 1165 

V. Sample, 1367 

V. Schaffer, 93, 924 

V. Shafer, 1166 

V. Spirk, 150, 868, 872 

V. Starmer, 481, 485 

V. Steel, 1152a 

V. Sullivan, 1354 

V. Warner, 484, 485 

V. Weber, 1367 

V. West Chicago St. R. R., 1152a 
Chicago Building Society v. Crowell, 

623, 817 
Chicago City Ry. v. Carroll, 484 

V. Cooney, 2216 

V. Flynn, 181 

V. Gillam, 573a 

V. Henry, 62 111. 142; 172, 1328 

V. Henry, 218 III. 92; 483 

V. Howison, 685e 

V. Kenyon, 1348 

V. Mauger, 484 

V. Riddick, 575 



2818 TABLE 

[References 

Chicago City Ry. v. Saxby, 1216, 214a, 
221& 

V. Schaefer, 4866 

V. Shreve, 1355 

V. Strong, 1367 

V. Taylor, 170 111. 49; 44 

V. Taylor, 68 111. App. 613; 1355 

V. Wilcox, 1356 
Chicago Co. v. Core, 366 
Chicago Consol. Bottling Co. «. Tietz, 

573a 
Chicago C. T. Co. v. Mahoney, 366, 

1345 
Chicago City Ry. v. Mumford, 1348 
Chicago Consol. Traction Co. v. Schrit- 

ter, 44 
Chicago Dock Co. v. Dunlap, 939 
Chicago, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. v. Adamick, 
1367 

V. CathoBc Bishop, 252, 1158 
Chicago G. W. Ry. v. Gitchell, 434 

V. Root, 1367 
Chicago House-Wrecking Co. «. U. S., 

413, 620a 
Chicago, I. & E. Ry. Co. v. Mason, 

1148, 1165c 
Chicago I. & L. R. R. v. Woodward, 852 
Chicago Ins. Co. ». Graham, etc., Co., 

714 
Chicago, K. & N. Ry. v. BroqUet, 1151 

V. Davidson, 253, 1171 

V. EUis, 1156 

V. Wiebe, 1141, 1154 
Chicago, K. & W. Ry. v. Emery, 1148 

V. Hoffman, 1149 

V. Hurst, 1154a, 1156 

V. O'Connell, 387 

t. Parsons, 1149 

V. Union Inv. Co., 95, 947 

V. Watkins, 71, 932 

V. Willets, 932 

V. Woodward, 1148 
Chicago Macaroni Mfg. Co. v. Bog- 

giano, 294 
CMeago, Milwaukee & S. P. Ry. v. 
Baker, 1154, 1167 

V. Darke, 1165 

V. Hall, 1138, 1168 

«. Hock, 1169 

V. Lindeman, 173 



OF CASES 

are to sections] 

Chicago, Milwaukee & S. P. Ry. v. 
Mason, 252, 1166c 

V. Milwaukee, 1152a 

V. Newsome, 172 

V. Randolph T. S. Co., 1151 

V. Thayer, 1123 
Chicago N. S. St. Ry. i). Payne, 1121 
Chicago Office Bldg. v. Lake St. El. R. 

R., 1121 
Chicago, P. & M. R. R. Co. v. Atter- 
bury, 1165 

V. Moore, 1165a 
CMcagO, P. & S. L. Ry. v. Blimie, 1163 

V. Brinkman, 1109 

V. Eaton, 1164, 1165 

». Greiney, 1164, 1165 

V. Leah, 1121 

V. Nix, 1163, 1165 

V. Wolf, 1164 

V. Woolridge, 580, 584a 
CKeago Ry. v. Anderson, 47 
Chicago R. I. & G. Ry. v. Barnes, 47 

V. Forrester, 1359 

V. Jones, 852 

V. Rogers, 247 

V. Swam, 130 S. W. 855; 1363 

V. Swan, 127 S. W. 1164; 1360 

V. Trippett, 1367 
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. v. Austin, 577 

t). Barrett, 1350 

V. Broe, 854 

V. Buel, 1141 

*. Carey, 225, 942 

V. Caulfield, 47, 484 

V. George, 1149 

V. Hale, 482a 

V. Johnson, 937 

V. Kennedy^ 86c 

:V. McKittrick, 1328 

V. Miles, 856a 

V. Mosher, 1295 

c. Moss, 43y 

V. Newburn, 378, 380 

V. O'Neil, 1163 

V. Payzant, 1347 

V. Planters' G. & O. Co., 856, 856a 

V. Posten, 181j 860, 1303 

V. Pratt, 1349 

t. Scheinkoenig, 482a 

V. Smith, 1109 



TABLE OF CASES 



2819 



[References 

Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. v. Stibbs, 
482 
V. Sturey, 1141 
V. Wehrman, 1331 
V. Whiten, 45a 
V. Young, 67 Neb. 668; 1367 
V. Young, 107 S. W. 127; 854 
Chicago, R. I. & T. Ry. v. Long, 482, 
485a 
V. Porterfield, 677 
Chicago, S. F. & C. Ry. v. McGrew, 
1140, 1164, 1166, 1169, 1172a 
V. Miller, 1152a 
». Vivian, 1140 
V. Ward, 1154, 1171 
Chicago, S. P. M. & O. Ry. v. Lager- 

krans, 683 
Chicago Sanitary District v. Loughran. 
1138, 1162 
V. McGuirl, 1168 
Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. R. i. Abels, 
851 
V. Jarrett, 1331 
V. Rottgering, 253, 1138a, 1149, 

1154, 11716 
V. Scurr, 368, 387, 388 
V. Sullivan, 685j 
Chicago, St. L. & P. R. R. v. Barnes, 
319, 1334 
V. Butler, 171a 
V. Holbridge, 1342 
V. Wolcott, 842 
Chicago, T. & T. Co. v. Chicago, 6856 

V. Core, 367, 380 
Chicago Terminal Transfer R. R. v. 
Bugbee, 11656 
V. Helberg, 1367 
Chicago Training School v. Davies, 

6656 
Chicago U. T. Co. v. Berkes, 1350 
V. Brethauer, 181, 486a, 1342 
V. Brody, 1365 
V. Ertrachter, 123 
V. Lauth, 1381 
V. Lowenrosen, 1363 
V. May, 1354 
V. Scanlon, 1361 
Chicago Union Nat. Bank v. Cross, 

565c 
Chicago Veneer Co. v. Jones, 1369 



are to sectioils] 

Chicago W. D. Ry. v. Klauber, 1269 

i). Lambert, 180 
Chicago Wire Chair Co. v. Kennedy & 

Wright Co., 1710 
Chidester v. CensoUdated People's 

Ditch Co., 113 
Child V. Boston & Fairhaven Iron 
Works, 856, 1241 

V. Devereux, 340 

V. Eureka Powder WoJks, 793 

V. Homer, 449 
Childers v. San Jose M. P. & P. Co., 

364, 377 
Childress v. Southwest Missouri R. R., 

5716 
Childs V. Childs, 1335 

V. Lyons, 685? 

V. New Haven, & N. Co., 1130, 
1148 

V. New York O. & W. R,y., 872 

V. Newport, 1109 

V. Shower, 917 
Chiles V. Belleville Nail Mill Co., 665 

V. Craig, 664a 

V. Drake, 347, 386, 684 

V. Southern Ry., 357 
Chillimer v. Chillimer, 676c 
Chilson V. Downer, 803 
Chilton V. Union Pac. Ry., 677, 678 

V. Whiffin, 700 
Chinery v. Viall, 80 
Chinn v. Wagoner, 972 
Chinnock v. Marchioness of Ely, 12566 
Chipley v. Atkinson, 470a 
Chipman v. Hibberd, 603, 933 

V. Union Pac. R. R., 1356 
Chippewa Lumber' Co. v. Phoenix Ins. 

Co., 722 
Chirac v. Reinicker, 911 
Chisholm v. Arrington, 271 

V. Preferred Bankers' L. Assur. 
' Co., 667 
Chishohn & M. Mfg. Co. v. V. S. 

Canopy Co., 742a 
Chisolm V. Neyle, 311 
Chisom V. School District, 1277 
Chitty V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 1354 
Chlanda v. St. Louis Transit Co., 1360 
Choate v. Arrington, 692c, 692j 

K. Thorndike, 692j 



2820 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Chobanian ». Washburn Wire Co., 1357 
Choctaw, O. & G. R. R. v. Alexander, 
178, 927 

V. Baskins, 1367 
Choctaw, O. & F. R. R. v. Burgess, 226/ 
Choctaw, O. & G. R. R. v. Hill, 862, 

865 
Chouteau v. St. Louis, 1140 
Christ Church Hospital ti. Fuechsel, 273 
Christian v. Lord Kennedy, 355 
Christian County v. Merrigan, Q73d 

V. Oveholt, 655a 
Christie v. Buckeye Ins. Co., 712 

V. Fane S. S. Co., 593 
Christopher ». Austin, 999c 
Christophulos Cafe Co. v. Phillips, 1257 
Christy v. Ogle, 976, 982, 1053 
Chrysler v. Renois, 271 
Chrystal v. Leval, 777 
Chubb V. Gsell, 445 
Chuck V. Quan Wo Chong, 1274 
Chumasero v. Gilbert, 324a 
Churan v. Sebasta, 637a, 639 
Church V. Baker, 685fc 

V. Bedient, 711 

V. Kidd, 308a 

V. Milwaukee, 1148 

V. Wilkeson Tripp Co., 610 
Church of Holy Apostles v. New York 

Elevated Railroad, 1191 
Churchill v. Beethe, 1109 

V. Hunt, 792, 795 

V. Burlington Water Co., 948 

V. Moore, 785 

V. Welsh, 54 
Cicero & P. St. R. R. v. Boyd, 1367 
Cilley I'. Hawkins, 185, 984 
Cimarron Land Co. v. Barton, 410 
Cincinnati v. Evans, 189, 932 

V. Roth, 1112a 

V. Whetstone, 331o 
Cincinnati & C. Ry. v. Lutes, 608, 

614 
Cincinnati & Chicago A. L. R. R. v. 
Marcus, 873 

V. Rodgers, 212 
Cincinnati & H. & D. R. R. v. Chester, 

85c 
Cincinnati & S. Ry. v. Carthage, 618 

V. Longworth, 253, 1148, 1171a 



Cincinnati, C. C. & S. L. R. R. v. Mc- 

Kelvy, 935a 
Cincinnati, H. & D. R. R. v. Cole, 222, 
865, 1328 
V. Troy, 1172a 
Cincinnati, H. & I. R. R. v. Eaton, 42, 
150, 868, 869 
V. Hildreth, 1177 
Cincinnati, I. & W. Ry. v. Baker, 186 
Cincinnati, I., St. L. & C. Ry. v. Lutes, 
613 
V. Pfitzer, 1117 
Cincinnati N. & C. Ry. v. Cooke, 1365 
Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. R. v. 
Carson, 1342 
V. Crabtree, 1271a 
0. Falconer, 935a 
V. Fortner, 482 
V. Halcomb, 1270a 
V. Hansford, 844 
V. Harris, 1342 
V. Logan, 846 
V. Raine, 126o, 873a 
V. Richardson, 1364 
V. Rose, 212, 862 
V. Silvers, 1270 
V. Strosnider, 365, 1342 
V. Troxell, 4866 
Cincinnati N. T. Co. v. Rosnagle, 865 
Cincinnati O. & S. W. R. R. v. Webb, 

873 
Cincinnati R. & M. R. R. ». Miller, 

924o, 1117 
Cincinnati S. L. Co. v. Western S. L. 

Co., 1936, 633, 1246a 
Cincinnati, St. L. & C. R. R. v. Pfitzer, 

1148 
Cinciimati St. Ry. v. Altemeier, 573a, 

580o, 584 
Cincinnati, U. & F. W. R. R. v. Pearce, 

959 
Citizens' Bank i;. Baltz, 301 

V. Jeansonne, 983 
Citizens' C. & C. Co. v. Stanley, 81 
Citizens' Elec. Light & P. Co. v. Gon- 
zales Water Power Co., 646 
Citizens' G. & O. M. Co. v. Whipple, 

67 
Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Brown, 302a 
Citizens' Ry. v. Branham, 44 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2821 



Citizens' Ry. v. Griffin, 1347 

V. Washington, 580 
Citizens' R. & L. Co. v. Johns, 226/, 

1365 
Citizens' R. T. Co. v. Dew, 1298 
Citizens' State Bank v. Morse, 689a 

V. Pettit, 793a 
Citizen's St. R. R. v. Hobbs, 227 

V. Lowe, 1367 

V. Robbins, 516a 

V. Steen, 360, 368, 380 

V. Twiname, 486a 

V. Willoeby, 365 
Citizens' T. & G. Co. v. Ohio Valley 

Tie Co., 6856 
Citizens' Telephone Co. v. Wakefield, 

1354 
City & Suburban Rj'. v. Basshor, 655/ 

V. Brauss, 1331, 1342 

V. Findley, 47 

V. St. Mary WooMoth, 1085 
City Council of Montgomery v. Town- 
send, 1123o 
City Electric R. R. v. Shropshire, 384 
City F. Ins. Co. v. Corlies, 723o 
City Nat. Bank v. Jeffries, 380, 3836, 

683 
City of Alexandria, The, 595 
City of Chester, The, 592 
City of Glasgow U. Ry. v. Hunter, 1098 
City of Macon, 589 
City of New York, The, 589, 596 
City of Norwalk, The, 599 
City Ry. v. Adams, 221a 
Civilta, The, v. Peny, 588 
Claflin V. Case, 980a 
Clagett V. Easterday, 1018 

V. Hall, 341 

V. Richards, 680, 689o 
Clancey ». Robertson, 669 

V. Kenworthy, 692i 
Clapp V. Boston, 1154o 

V. Herdman, 979 

V. Hudson River R. R., 1328, 1330, 
1348, 1368 

V. Noble, 999e 

V. Thomas, 565c 

V. Vatcher, 1256fe 

V. Waters, 537 
Clare v. Maynard, 6 A. & E. 519; 761 



Clare v. Maynard, 7 C. & P. 741; 761, 

762, 772 
Clarence, The, 196, 593 
Clarendon Land, etc., Co. v. McClel- 
land, 317 
Claridge v. South S. T. Co., 76 
Clarion T. & B. Co. v. Clarion County, 

1173 
Clark V. Bailey, 742 

V. Baird, 1208, 1295 

V. Bales, 360, 373, 1279 

V. Barloe, 307, 999a 

V. Barnard, 416a, 6796 

V. Bates, 55 

V. Bell, 78 

V. Binney, 447 

V. Boardman, 1265 

V. Boyreau, 912 

I). Britton, 418 

V. Brown, 451 

V. Bush, 678, 679 

V. Busse, 655c 

V. Carrington, 802, 805 

V. Clark, 311 

V. Clement, 80a 

V. Colfax County, 3406 

V. Dales, 313o, 734 

V. Dearborn, 79 

V. Deering, 762 

V. Dodge Healey, The, 599c 

V. Dutton, 301 

V. Elizabeth, 1112a 

V. ElUthorpe, 1293 

V. Fairchild, 655/ 

V. Fisher, 54 Kan. 403; 976 

V. Fisher, 1 Paige, 171; 1290 

V. Fitch, 475 

V. Foster, 837 

V. Fox, 1327 

V. Franklin, 655c 

V. Gilbert, 655c, 672 

V. Gray, 126d, 109 

V. Hallock, 214, 665a 

V. Hampstead, 1160 

V. Hannibal & S. J. R. R., 1108 

V. Hardgrove, 975 

V. Hart, 107d 

V. Hershy, 304 

V. Hodges, 638 

V. Holdridge, 503, 934 



2822 

Clark 

V. 
V. 

V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 

V. 
V. 
V. 

V. 
V. 

V. 
V. 
V. 

V, 
V. 
V. 
V, 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 

V, 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V, 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to eections] 



V. Huber, 75 

Iowa City, 346 

Johnson County Telephone Co., 

1349 

Jones, 1 Denio, 516; 636^ 

Jones, 16 Lea, 351; 834 

Kay, 420 

Koemer, 646a 

Lamoreux, 79, 82 

Manchester, 51 N. H. 594; 665 

Manchester, 64 N. H. 471; 47, 

5706, 1307 

Marsiglia, 202, 206, 636c, 758 

MiUer, 4 Wend. 628; 814 

Miller, 54 N. Y. 528; 218, 316, 

645, 562 

Miller, 47 Barb. 38; 543 

Moody, 305 

Moore, 157, 159, 734 

Mumford, 238, 982 

National Benefit & Casualty Co., 

8345 

Neufville, 762 

Nevada L. & M. Co., 270 

New England M. F. I. Co., 725 

New York, 655b 

Newsam, 382 

North American Co., 453 

Parr, 959, 966, 981 

Peckham, 35 

Pennsylvania R. R., 101, 941 

Pinney, 2796, 279c, 744 

Reese, 637a, 641 

Rdbertson, 983 

Russell, 1 Colo. 52; 325 

Russell, 110 Mass. 133; 226e, 647 

St. L. & S. Ry., 1355 

San Francisco & S. J. V. Ry., 

1258 

Saybrook, 1154a 

School Board, 1096 

Sheldon, 311a 

Smith, 550 

Spense, 1288 

State, 1272 

Sullivan, 1531 

Terry, 6736 

Tilton, 464 

Tulare L. D. Co., 575 

United M. & F. Co., 714 



Clark V. Wabash R. R., 1175 

V. Warden, 310a 

V. Westrope, 6126 

V. Whitaker, 317 

V. Wildridge, 1041 

V. Wilkinson, 678 

V. Wooster, 1220 

V. Worcester, 1147, 1168 

V. Yocum, 1007 

V. Zeigler, 970 
Clark, In re, 3116 
Clark, The, 592 
Clark Mfg. Co. v. Western U. T. Co., 

882 
Clark Mile-End Spool Cotton Co. v. 

Shaffery, 4866 
Clarke v. Birmingham and Pittsburgh 
Bridge Co., 1112 

V. Holford, 990a 

V. Janesville, 346 

V. Locke, 1012 

V. Murray, 993 

.,. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., 
926 

V. Philadelphia & R. C. & I. Co., 
1350 

V. Scott, 106 

V. Sexton, 678 

V. West, 692i 

V. Westcott, 1352 
Clarke and Wandsworth Local Board, 

In re, 1086 
Clark's Cove Guano Co. v. Appling, 

1042 
Clarkson v. Skidmore, 988 
Clarry v. Grand Trunk Ry., 862 
Clary v. RoUand, 689 
Clason V. Baldwin, 913, 914 
Claudius v. West End H. A. Co., 607 
Clay V. Central R. & B. Co., 5716 

V. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul 
Ry., 1362 

V. Drake, 324a 

V. Hart, 692j 

V. Huston, 276 

V. Western U. T. Co., 888 
Clay Center v. Williamson, 685i 
Clay County v. Chickasaw County, 337 
Claycomb v. Munger, 980a 
Clayton v. Blake, 657 



TABLE 

{References 

Clayton v. Franco-Texan Land Co., 
793o 

V. Keeler, 372 

V. O'Connor, 440 
Cleary v. City R. R., 578, 573a, 575 

V. Sohier, 655c 
Cleaver v. Louisville & N. R. R., 371 
Clegg V. Dearden, 92, 949 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1347 

V. New York Newspaper Union, 
313 
Cleghom v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 

368, 378, 379 
Clem V. German Ins. Co., 726 

V. Holmes, 473, 475 
Clemens v. Dryden, 343 

V. Hannibal & S. J. R. R., 116 
Clement v. Britisb-Amefica Assur. Co., 
722, 725 

V. Cash, 413 

V. Courtright, 684o 

V. Duffy, 690 

V. Little, 317, 567 

V. McConnell, 310 

V. Mihier, 945 

V. Spear, 317, 319 

V. State Reform Sehool, 662 

V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 
876 
Clement & H. M. Co. v. Meserole, 

735c, 854 
Clement Talbot, Ltd., v. Wilson, 1232o 
Clements v. Beatty, 734, 1007, 1016 

V. Burlington, etc., R. R., 844 

V. Eisely, 493a 

V. Maloney, 445 

V. Philadelphia Co., 1142 

V. Schuylldll R. E. S. R. R., 419 

V. State, 753 
Clemmitt v. New York L. I. Co., 730 
Clemons v. Gray's H. & P. S. Ry., 419 

V. Seba, 639 
Clendaniel v. Tuckerman, 857 
Clendinen v. Black, 672 
Cleveland v. Bryant, 999/ 

«'. Citizens' Gaslight Co., 43/ 

V. South C. & C. S. Ry., 368 

V. Union Ins. Co., 718 
Cleveland & P. R. R. v. Ball, 1131, 
1293, 1295 



OF CASES 2823 

are to sections] 

Cleveland & P. R, R. v. Rowan, 573 

V. Sutherland, 485a 
Cleveland C. & C. Co. v. American C. 

I. P. Co., 419 
Cleveland, C. C. & S. L. R. R. v. 
Drumm, 579 

V. Poland, 1356 

V. Fuller, 1326 

V. Hadley, 1326, 1355 

V. Keenan, 574 

V. Lynn, 1356 

V. Miles, 575 

V. Mitchell, 999 

V. Patton, 852 

V. Sehaefer, 862 

V. Wood, 999 
Cleveland-Canton Springs Co. w.Golds- 

boro Buggy Co., 752 
Cleveland, H. V. & T. Ry. v. Shannon, 

1354 
Cleveland, P. & S. W. Co. v. Con- 
sumers' Carbon Co., 165 
Cleveland School Dist. v. Northern 

Ry., 933 
Clevenger v. Dunaway, 373a, 990o 
Clews V. Jamieson, 1298 
y Click V. Green, 959, 981 
Clifford V. Dam, 180 

0. Kimball, 692 

V. Leroux, 170 

V. Richardson, 226d, 618, 646, 6465 
Clifton V. Charles, 1011 

V. Hooper, 103, 647 

V. Kansas City So. Ry., 1349 

V. Newsom, 755 
Cline V. Crescent City Ry., 1367 ■ 
Clinical Instruction Co. v. New York 

Elevated Railroad, 1203 
Clinton v. Franklin, 363 

V. Laning, 1249, 1256 

ti. Mercer, 106, 610 
Clinton Wire Cloth Co. v. Gardner, 

999c 
Clio Gin Co. v. Western U. T. Co., 882 
Cliquot's Champagne, 1299 
Clissold V. Machell, 360, 372, 382, 1279 
Clore V. Robinson, 755 
Close V. Crossland, 774 

V. Fields, 295, 305, 6226 

<). Samm, 924 



2824 



TABLE OF CASES 



Closson V. Staples, 459 
Clothier v. Webster, 1089 
Cloud V. Smith, 310 
Clough V. Patrick, 1050 

V. Unity, 331a 
Clouser v. Clapper, 480 
Clover, The, 587 
Clow V. Brogden, 999ft 
Clowes V. Hawley, 260 

V. Staffordshire Potteries W. Co., 
1089 
Clowser v. Joplin Mining Co., 936 
Clukey v. Seattle El. Co., 1270a 
Clune V. Ristine, 67a 
Clunnes v. Pezzey, 1300 
Clyde, The, 30, 592 
Clyde Coal Co. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. 

R. R., 156, 843a 
Clydebank E. & S. Co. v. Castaneda, 

620a, 6206 
Coal B. E. Ry. v. Young, 1345 
Coal Creek Co. v. Tennessee C. I. & R. 

Co., 999a 
Coal Creek M. & M. Co. v. Moses, 503, 

935 
Coan V. Brownstown, 318 
Coast Wrecking Co. v. Phoenix Ins. 

Co., 599c 
Coates V. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry., 
572, 1306 

V. Cheever, 921 

V. Coates, 685j 
Coatsworth v. Lehigh Valley Ry., 1149 
Cobb V. Boston, 1151, 1162, 1169 

V. Great Western Ry., 150 
• V. Illinois C. R. R., 162, 843 

V. Johnson, 1344 

V. Klosterman, 979 

V. People, 370, 680, 1254 

V. St. Louis & H. Ry., 1359 

V. Smith, 91 

V. Titus, 801 

V. Western U. T. Co., 895 

V. Whitsett, 739 

V. Wrightsville & T. R. R., 924a 
Cobbey v. Knapp, 341 
Cobum V. Cal. Cement Co., 752a 

V. Goodall, 312 

V. Litchfield, 980 

V. Muskegon Booming Co., ^12 



, [References are to sections] 

Cochran v. Ammon, 490 

V. Cochran, 1338 

V. Jones, 766 

V. Miller, 368 

V. Missouri, etc., R. R., 1171a 

^. People's Ry., 419 
Cochrane v. Com., 252 

V. Justice Min. Co., 1256c 

V. Quackenbush, 126c 

V. Tuttle, 383b 

V. Winbum, 531 
Cockbum v. Alexander, 421, 858 

V. Ashland Lumber Co., 246, 739 

V. Muskoka, M. & L. Co., 199 
Cockcroft V. N. Y. & H. R. R., 1011, 

1017 
Cockerell v. Barber, 267 
Cockrell v. Ellison, 191 

V. Proctor, 966, 973 

V. Warner, 279b 
Cockrill V. Kirkpatrick, 340b 

V. Mize, 334 
Coddington v. Idell, 310a 
Cody V. American Educational Co., 250 

V. Filley, 335 

V. Raynaud, 673/ 

V. Turn Verein, 618 
Coe V. Peacock, 98, 549 
Coen V. Birchard, 419 
Coffee V. Meiggs, 613 
Coffey V. National Bank of Missouri, 

492 
Coffey ville Mining Co. v. Carter, 580 
Coffin V. Brown, 364, 377, 384a, 447 

V. Coffin, 481 

V. Newburyport Mar. Ins. Co., 
717 

V. Osceola, 66, 593 

V. Spencer, 364, 372, 481 

V. State, 109, 736 

V. Taylor, 537 

V. Varila, 462, 1326 
Coffing V. Dodge, 818b 
Coffman v. Burkhalter, 226c, 226d 

V. Huck, 959, 960 

V. Williams, 519, 746 
Cofield V. Clark, 746 

V. E. A. Jenkins Motor Co., 633 
Coggeshall v. Coggeshall, 89 

V. Ruggles, 801 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2825 



Cogswell 1). New York, New Haven & 
Hartford R. R., 1187 

V. West St. & N. E. E. Ry., 1355 
Cogwell's Heirs v. Lyons, 334 
Cohen v. Bellenot, 948 

V. Eureka & P. R. R., 41, 180, 226/, 
481, 485 

V. Marchant, 559a 

t>. St. Louis, F. S. & W. R. R., 331a, 
1176, 1177 

V. Wittemann, 1258 
Cohn V. National F. I. Co., 723a 

V. Neeves, 930a 

V. Norton, 618, 984 
Coker v. Brevard, 410 
Coil V. Wallace, 639 
Coine v. Chicago & N. W. R. R., 865 
Cointement v. Cropper, 1330, 1337 
Colbert ;;. Rhode Island Co., 1306 
Colbourn v. Wilmington, 432a 
Colburn v. Chicago, S. P. M. & O. Ry., 
618 

V. Morrill, 999c 

V. Northern Pac. R. R., 956 

V. Phillips, 842 

V. Woodworth, 665 
Colby V. Meservey, 685A, 685j 

V. Reed, 63, 1028 

V. Sampson, 554 

V. Wiscasset, 172a 
Colchester, Mayor of, v. Brooke, 35 
Colclouth V. Nashville, etc., R. R., 1110 
Colcord V. McDonald, 80a 

V. Sylvester, 685 
Colcough V. Milwaukee, 1109 
Coldren v. Miller, 276 
Cole V. Buckle, 991 

V. Cheovenda, 734, 737 

V. Conolly, 527 

V. EUwood Power Co., 1166c 

V. Fall Brook Coal Co., 1309 

V. Goodwin, 873 

V. Gray, 45, 361 

V. Hoeburg, 1260 

V. Holliday, 640o, 641 

V. Kimball, 979 

V. Parker, 575 

V. Patterson, 999(i 

V. Rankin, 844 

V. Ross, 279c 



Cole V. St. Louis, 1123, 1140 

V. Seattle R. & S. Ry., 226o, 484 

V. Sprowl, 924 

V. Stearns, 626 

V. Swanston, 742, 1059 

V. Thompson, 937 

V. Trull, 310a 

V. Tucker, 373o, 386 

V. Zucarello, 753 
Colean Implement Co. v. Strong, 537 
Coleman v. Allen, 360, 372 

V. Ballard, 962 

V. Clark, 148, 966, 982, 983 

V. Hudson, 89 

V. Lucksinger, 969, 973 

V. New York & N. H. R. R., 1216 

V. People, 1249a 

V. Pepper, 373 

V. Riggs, 806 

V. Simpson, 673d 

V. Southwick, 1326 

V. Stalnacke, 916 

V. White, 480 
Coleman's Appeal, 935 
Colerain v. Bell, 6926 
Coles V. Kelsey, 334 

V. Thompson, 86a 
Coley V. North Carolina R. R., 481 
Colgate V. Western Electric Mfg. Co., 

1225 
Collamer v. Page, 689 
CoUard v. Southeastern Ry., 136, 146, 

252, 852, 854 
College V. Western Union Fuel Co., 935 
CoUen V. Wright, 239a, 836, 837, 838 
ColUer V. Cowger, 304, 979 

V. Early, 1255 

V. Gamble, 966, 973 / 

V. Gray, 302a 

V. Lyons, 317 

V. PuUiam, 812, 814 

V. Rutledge, 651, 671 
Collingridge v. Royal Exchange Assur. 

Corp., 725 
Collins V. A. Luban Co., 163 

V. Albany & S. R. R., 1325, 1330 

V. Baumgardner, 618 

V. Bellefonte Central R. R., 631a 

V. Blantem, 36 

V. Cave, 441 



2826 



Table of cases 

[References are to sections] 



Collins V. Collins, 675c 

V. Couoejl Bluffs, 32 la. 324; 228 

V. Council Bluffs, 35 la. 432; 388, 
1330 

V. Crowaover, 1286b 

V. Delaporte, 753 

V. Dodge, 180 

V. Houston, 538 

V. Huffman^ 685A; 

V. Hutchinson, 565 

V. Janesville, 1348 

V. Karatopsky, 123, 992 

V. Lavelle, 188 

V. Lowry, 494a, 506a 

V. Mack, 45, 637, 638, 639 

V. McClurg, 824a 

V. Mitchell, 684 

V. New York C. & H. R. R. R,, 67a 

V. Perkins, 60, 1271a 

V. Price, 612 

V. Sabatier, 301 

V. St. Peters, 98 

V. Shaw, 1285 

V. Sinclair, 6856, 685n 

V. Stephens, 1216 

V. Thayer, 1054 

V. Tigner, 762 

V. Todd, 487a 

V. Waterbury Co., 1357 
Collins Park & B. R. R. v. Ware, 1306 
Collis V. Press. Pub. Co., 448a 
CoUomb V. Taylor, 78 
CoUyer v. Moulton, 613, 636c 
Colonel Ledyard, The, 852 
Colonial Investment & Agency Co. v. 

Cobain, 1011 
Colorado, The, 593, 595 
Colorado C. & I. Co. v. Lamb, 576 
Colorado C. L. & W. Co. v. Hartman, 

937 
Colorado Central C. M. Co. v. Turck, 

503, 935 
Colorado Central R. R. v. Allen, 1156 

V. Humphreys, 1136 
Colorado City v. Laife, 1330 

V. Smith, 1354 
Colorado M. Ry. v. Brown, 1171 

V. O'Brien, 1356 

V. Snider, 251 

V. Trevarthen, 1159 



Colorado Springs & I. Ry. v. Nichols, 

1354 
Colorado Springs Electric Co. v. Soper, 

1360 
Colorado Springs Livestock Co. v. 

Godding, 755 
Colrick V. Swinburne, 189, 927, 1195 
Colt V. Owens, 90 N. Y. 368; 512, 815, 
828 
V. Owens, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 430; 
98, 228e 
Colton V. Dunham, 273 
V. Good, 646 
V. Onderdonk, 33, 932 
Columbia, The, 593 
Columbia & P. S. R. R. v. Histogenetic 

Medicine Co., 908, 910 
Columbia Delaware Bridge Co. v. 

Geisse, 1173 
Columbia Nat. Bank v. Bletz, 333 
Columbia Sav. Bk. v. Los Angeles 
County, 334 
V. Winn, 305 
Columbian Bldg. Assoc, v. Crump, 3406 
Columbus, The, 1 Abb. Adm. 97; 852 
Columbus, The, 3 W. Rob. 158; 589 
Columbus & W. Ry. v. Bridges, 581 

V. Floumoy, 136 
Columbus, H. V. & T. Ry. v. Burke, 685 

V. Gardner, 1165 
Columbus, P. & I. R. R. v. Simpson, 

1148 
Colusa Co. V. Hudson, 252, 1165, 1178 
Colusa Parrot Mining & Smelting 

Co. V. Monahan, 1306 
Colvill V. St Paul, etc., R. R., 1148, 

1165, 1166, 11716 
Colville V. Besly, 798 
Colvin V. Corwin, 85a, 6S6h 
Colwell V. Foulks, 407, 410, 419 

V. Lawrence, 415 
Combs V. Scott, 1012 
V. Smith, 1140 
V. Tarlton, 959, 1012a 
Comer v. Foley, 1342 
V. Knowles, 466 
V. Mackintosh, 565c 
Comerford v. The Melvina, 592, 593 

V. Morrison, 942 
Comet, The, 587 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2827 



Comingar v. Jjouisville Trust Co., 248a 

Comings v. Little, 979 

Commerce, The, 1326 

Commerce C. O. Co. v. Camp, 1367 

Commerce Exchange Nat. Bank v. 

Blye, 536 
Commercial Bank v. Jones, 317 

V. Kortwright, 627ffl 

V. Bed River VaUey Nat. Bank, 
819 

V. Ten Eyck, 547 

V. Union Bank, 819 
Commercial Tel. Co. v. Davis, 1363 
Comminge v. Stevenson, 91, 924, 948 
Comrs. V. Dunlevy, 1162 

V. Greenwood, 692b 

V. Harkelroads, 1139o 

V. Johnson, 1157 
Commissioners' Court v. Street, 1165 
Comrs. of Asheyille v. Johnston, 1148 
Comrs.of Dickinson Cp. a. Hogaji, 1165 
Comrs. of Kensingtpii v. Wood, 948 
Comrs. of Parks v. Detroit C. G. T. 
Ry., 1165 

V. Michigan C. R. R., 1165 

V. Moesta, 1169 
Comrs. of Pottawatomie Qo. v. O'Sulli- 

van, 1129, 1148 
Comr. of Public Works v. Hills, 620a 
Comr. of Public Works oi New York, 

In re, 1146 
Comrs. of Smith Co. v. Lahore, 1165 
Commissioners of Stg,te Reservation at 

Niagara, In re, 1156 
Commons v. Walters, 451 
Commonwealth v. Allen, 692 

V. Bosley, 334 

V. Boston & M. R. R., 335, 1167 

V. Bracken, 311b 

V. Bradley, 692i 

V. Cole, 692a 

V. Collins, 338 

V. Comly, 692/ 

V. Contner, 549 

V. Coombs, 1147 

V. Crevor, 303 

V. Fairfax, 692d 

V. ffide & L. I. Co., 720 

V. Lightfoot, 545 

f . Lineberger, 692/ 



Commonwealth v. MagnoUa V. L. & 
I. Co., 682, 682a 

V. Massachusetts Mut, Ins. Co., 
311/ 

V. Middlesex, 1147 

V. Norfolk, 1147 

V. Porter, 19 

V. Ricks, 341 

V. Sayr^, 692 

V. Sessions of Norfolk, 481 

t). Vanderslice, 334 
Commonwealth Electric Co. v. Rooney, 

1359 
Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Sennett, 722 
Compania de Nav. La Fleeha v. Brauer, 

596a 
Compressed A. M. Co. v. West, S. P. L. 

& W. Co., 635 
Compta, The, 852 
Compton V. Compton, 346 

V. Heiasenbuttal, 240 

V. Johnson, 310 

V. Martin, 76, 78 
Comrade v. Atlas L, & S. Co., 1347 
Comstock V. Clearfield & M. Ry., 1163 

V. Connecticut R. & L. Co., 486a 

V. Heir, 256, 492a 

V. Hutchinson, 762 

V. New York C. & H. R. R. R.. 
2266 

V. Smith, 274 

V, Son, 965 
Conant v. Griffin, 584 

V. Leslie, 446 

V. Riseborough, 326 

V. The Pacific Ins. Co., 76, 428 
Conaway v. Shelton, 641 
Concanen v. Lethbridge, 555 
Concannon v. Tyler, 1326 
Concord R. R. v. Greely, 331a, 11716 
Concord U. M. F. I. Co. v. Woodbury, 

725 
Concordia Cemetery Ass'n v. Miime- 

sota & N. W. R. R., 1130, 1138 
Condemnation, Certain Land, In re, 

1162 
Condict V. Grand Trunk R. R., 119 
Condon v. Great Southern R. R., 575 

V. Kemper, 413, 419 
Cone V. Central R. R., 462, 860 



2828 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Cone V. Ivinson, 81, 492a 

V. Southern Ry., 1267 
Confederate Note Case, 278 
Confederation Life Assoc, v. Labatt, 

774 
Confrey v. Stark, 1249 
Conger v. Weaver, 1010, 1011 
Congregation of Children of Israel 

V. Peres, 667, 673/ 
Cong. Soc. in Newport v. Walker, 908 
Conheim v. Chicago & G. W. R. R., 

854 
Conhocton S. R. R. v. Buffalo, N. Y. 

& E. R. R., 1182, 1208 
Conkey v. Hopkins, 795 
Conklin v. Central New York Tele- 
phone & Tel. Co., 579 

«. Hannibal & S. J. R. R., 973 

V. Tice, 1367 
Conkling v. Manhattan Ry., 926, 1201 
Conley v. Maine Cent. R. R., 1367 
Conlon V. McGraw, 93a, 925, 932 
Conn V. Perm., 340c 

u. Wilson, 639 
Connah v. Hale, 55 
Connal v. Fisher, 842 
Connecticut v. Howarth, 344 

V. Jackson, 339o, 343 
Connecticut, The, 587 
Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. C, C. & 

C. R. R., 346 
Connecticut M. L. I. Co. v. New York 
& N. H. R. R., 120 

V. Schaefer, 729 

V. Westerhoff, 334 
Conn. River R. R. v. Clapp, 1286 
Connell v. Boulton, 974 

V. Harron, 734 

V. Putnam, 486c 

V. Stalker, 470a 

V. Western U. T. Co., 45a, 894 
Connelly v. Western U. T. Co., 45a, 

894 
Connemaugh, The, 588 
Cormer v. Bean, 793a 

V. Clark, 331a 

V. Cockerill, 1279 

u. Nevada, 123 

V. Reeves, 795 

V. Shepherd, 921 



Conners v. Walsh, 366, 384 
Connersville Wagon Co. v. McFarlan 

Carriage Co., 153, 190 
Conness v. Com., 252 
Conniff v. San Francisco, 1116 
Connoble v. Clark, 164o 
Connolly v. Sullivan, 6556, 655e 
Connor v. Hillier, 257 

V. International &. G. N. R. R., 
1143 

V. Levinson, 1296 

V. New York, 1372 

V. Potts, 1016 

V. Wabash R. R., 1347 
Connors v. Chingren, 1027 
Connoss v. Meir, 1275 
ConoUy V. Dolan, 808 
Conor V. Dempsey, 762 
Conover v. Rapp, 1226 
Conqueror, The, 196, 593 
Conquest v. Ebbetts, 999A 
Conrad v. Burbank, 310 

V. Effinger, 956, 959 

V. Grand G. U. O. Druids, 959 

u. New York Cent. & H. R. R. R., 
1367 

V. Springfield Consol. Ry., 1354 

V. Western U. T. Co., 876 
Conried M. O. Co. v. Brm, 413, 416 
Conroe v. Conroe, 451 
Conroy v. Flint, 98 
Consaul v. Sheldon, 645 
Conservators v. London, T. & S. Ry., 

1080 
Consolidated Coal Co. v. Haenni, 387 

V. Maehl, 573 

V. Schneider, 999 

V. Shepherd, 1355 

V. Stein, 574 
ConsoUdated Home Ditch & R. R. v. 

Hamlin, 932, 1164 
Consolidated Ice Co. v. Pennsylvania 

R. R., 1156 
ConsoUdated Ice Machine Co. v. 

Kiefer, 1367 
Consolidated Ins. Co. v. Cashow, 728 
Consolidated Stone Co. v. Morgan, 583 

V. Staggs, 574a 
Consolidated Trac. Co. v. Graham, 
1327 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2829 



Consolidated Trac. Co. v. Hone, 573 

V. Lambertson, 43t 
Consolidated T. L. Co. v. Bronson, 

691a 
Constable v. Colden, 340 

V. Lefever, 671 

V. National S. S. Co., 119c 
Constant v. Lehman, 1027 
Constantine v. Rowland, 684a 
Constitution Pub. Co. v. Way, 453 
Consumers' Ice Co. v. Jennings, 194 
Consumers' Pure Ice Co. v. Jenkins, 

646 
Contee v. Findley, 336 
Continental, The, 587 
Continental Divide M. I. Co. v. Bliley, 

4926, 520 
Continental L. I. Co. v. Houser, 73r 
Converse v. Burrows, 762 

V. Prettyman, 771 

V. U. S., 673e 
Convis V. Citizens' M. F. I. Co., 725 
Conway v. Mitchell, 614, 1046 

V. Nicol, 480 "■• 
Conwell V. Claypool, 3016 
Conwisher v. Johnson, 377 
Conyers v. Magrath, 310, 312 
Cooch V. Geery, 910 
Coody V. Gress Lumber Co., 933 
Cook V. American E. C. & S. G. Co., 
1367 

V. Beal, 19, 1368 

V. Boone S. E. R. R., 1154 

V. Brandies, 753 

V. Brockway, 1293 

V. Champlain Tr. Co., 71, 950 

V. Chapman, 685/, 685re 

V. Chehalis River Lumber Co., 
1355 

V. Clark, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 316; 302a 

V. Clark, 4 E. D. Smith, 213; 704 

V. Clary, 537 

V. Clay St. H. R. R., 573a 

V. Cockrill, 704 

V. Courtright, 345 

V. Curtis, 961, 964, 965 

V. Ellis, 352, 372, 386, 489 

V. Finch, 415 

V. Fowler, 290, 325 

V. Garza, 363o, 373, 1334 



Cook V. Greenough, 685ra 

V. Gross, 540 

V. Hamilton County, 613 

V. Hartle, 55, 4946 

V. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 
346 

V. Jennings, 841 

V. Loomis, 55, 493 

V. McCabe, 655c 

V. Marsh, 688a 

V. Merrifield, 795 

V. Moseley, 1073 

V. Nicholas, 905 

V. Perry, 316 

V. Redman, 866 

V. Sanders, 61 

V. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, 1166, 
1169 

V. Soule, 209, 991, 992 

V. South Park Com'rs, 336, 1138 

V. Southern Ry., 363 

t). State, 692e 

V. Tousey, 678 

V. Zucarello, 753 
Cook County v. Harms, 1299 

V. Sexton, 642 
Cook L. C. & P. Co. V. Oconto Co., 

934o 
Cooke V. Davis, 270 

V. England, 90 

V. Farinholt, 307 

V. Independent T. & T. C. Co., 671 

V. Meeker, 301c 

V. O'Brien, 452 

V. Preble, 1046, 1060, 1067 

V. Whorwood, 636g 

V. Wise, 307, 999a 
Cooley V. R. R., 863 
CooUdge V. Brigham, 775 

V. Burnes, 1041 

V. Choate, 244, 265, 432a 

V. Neat, 45, 638, 638o, 6386 

V. New York, 1367 
Coombe v. Sansom, 262 
Coombs V. King, 47 
Coon V. Moffitt, 473 
Coonan v. Cape Girardeau, 416a 
Cooney v. Chase, 458 

V. Pullman P. C. Co., 873a 
Coons V. People, 692d 



2830 TABLE 

[References 

Cooper V. Cedar Rapids, 1110 

V. Coates, 308 

V. Dallas, 2261 

V. Hames, 685^, 685^ 

V. Hopkins, 43i, 484 

t,. Kipp, 1032 

V. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry., 575, 
580, 582 

V. Manhattan R. R., 12056 

V. Mullins, 41, 47 

V. New York, L. & W. Ry., 924o, 
932 

V. New York O. & W. Ry., 1367 

V. Newman, 565 

V. Page, 789 

V. Randall, 74, 924 

V. Hatliff, 535 

V. St. Paul City Ry., 1354, 1362 

V. Soyoc, 467 

V. Sillers, 91 

V. Singleton, 973 

V. Townsend, 302a 

V. Young, 152, 842, 856 
Coopers v. Wolf, 98, 549 
Coorman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 

1342 
Coos Bay R. & E. R. & N. Co. v. 

Nosier, 170, 6476 
Coosaw Min. Co. v. Carolina Mfg. Co., 

184, 6856 
Copeland v. Copeland, 968, 974 

V. Cunningham, 237 

V. Hamilton, 762 

V. McAdory, 959, 970, 980, 980a, 
1041 

V. New England M. I. Co., 718 
Copelin V. Phcenix Ins. Co., 711 
Copper Co. v. Coppier Mining Co., 519 
Coppin V. Braithwaite, 4Sa, 47, 865 
Coppins V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 

1355 
Coppoia V. Kraushaar, 106 
Coquard v. Prendei'gast, 334 
Corbett v. Andetson, 614 

V. Brown, 441 

V. Oregon Short Line R. R., 573o, 
575 

V Wrenn, 968, 979 
Corbin 0. & G. Co. v. Mull, 618 
Corbley v. Wilson, 447 



OF CASES 
are to sections] 

Corcoran v. Benicia, 1116 

V. Doll, 334 

V. Harran, 386, 487a 

V. Judson, 237 

V. Ulster & D. R. R., 1347 
Cordell v. Western U. T. Co., 894c 
Corder v. Martiil, 685to 
Cordiner v. Los Angeles Tr. Co., 172 
Cordrey v. Washington Stevedore Co., 

1355 
Corey v. Buffalo, C. & N. Y. R. R., 
1182 

V. Eastman, 674 
Corgan v. Frew, 334 
Corkings v. Meier, 382 
Corliss V. Worcester, N. & R. R. R., 

5706 
Cormier v. Bourque, 126a 
Corn Exchange Bank v. American D. 
& T. Co., 703 

V. Nassau Bank, 304 

V. Peabody, 512 
Corn Products Refining Co. v. King, 

1356 
Cornelissens v. DriscoU, 987 
Cornell v. Jackson, 970, 975, 976, 977, 
1027 

V. Payne, 468 
Cornell, In re, 814 

Cornell-Andfews S. Co. «. Boston & 
P. R. R., 209 Mass. 298; 11546 

V. Boston & P, R. R., 202 Mass. 
585; 1169 
Comely v. Marckwald, 1215, 1220, 1222 
Corner v. Mackintosh, 86a 

». Shew, 1277 
Cornes v. Harris, 946 
Comfofth ». Maguire, 565 
Coming v. Corning, 487a, 488, 1259 

V. Lowerre, 1184, 1194 

V. Woodin, 934 
Cornish v. New Jersey S. Ry., 67a 
Cornwall v. Qould, 797 
Corporation of Hythe v. East, 12566 
Corridan v. Wilkinson, 447 
Corrigan v. Chicago, 1157 

V. Foster, 692c 

V. Trenton D. F. Co., 345 
Corrister v. ^ansas City, S. J. & C. B. 
Ry., 150 ' 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2831 



Corsair, The, 570, 5706 

Corsair M. Co. v. Carolina M. Co., 

6856 
Corse V. Minnesota Grain Co., 306 
Corson V. Neatheny, 294 
Cort V. Ambergate, N. & B. & E. J. 

Ry., 636a, 758 
Cortelyou v. Lansing, 509, 744 
Corwin v. Wallace, 667 

V. Walton, 386 
Cory V. Boylston Ins. Co., 714 

V. Silcox, 73, 101 

e. Thames I. W. & S. B. Co., 
146, 147, 160, 183, 190, 740 
Coryell v. Colbaugh, 351, 637, 637a 
Cosand v. Bunker, 256 
Cosgriff V. Miller, 360, 363, 364, 366, 

385, 386, 927 
Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 1356 
Costello V. Burke, 1154a 
Costio V. Rochester, 3806 
Costigan v. Mohawk & H. R. R., 206, 

207, 227, 667, 858, 1024, 1034 
Cota V. Mishow, 1064 
Cotes V. Davenport, 926 
Cotheal v. Talmage, 413 
Cothers v. Keever, 762 
Cothran v. Ellis, 824 

V. Hanoves Nat. Bank, 256 
Cotter V. Plumer, 933, 934» 
Cotterill v. Hobby, 100 
Cottier v. Stimson, 1222 
Cotton V. Reed, 60 

V. United States, 647c 

V. Wallace, 12866 
Cotton Press Co. v. Bradley, 368, 573a 
Cottone V. Murray's, 666 
Cottrell V. Russell, 435 
Cotts V. Wheeling & E. G. R. R., 1149a 
CotuUa V. Kerr, 444 
Couch V. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 377a 

». Eastham, 301c 
Coughlan v. Phila. B. & W. R. R., 579 
Coughlin V. McElroy, 303 
Coulson V. Panhandle Nat. Bank, 494a, 

565a 
Coulter V. Merchants' Union Ex., 43h 

V. Norton, 988, 98Sa 

V. Pine Twp., 67a 
Coulter's Case, 1034, 1044 



Council V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 252 
Countess of Rutland's Case, 55 
Countryman v. Fonda, 572 
County V. Brock, 1143o 

V. Leidy, 1288 
County Board of Education v. Bate- 
man, 692a 
County of Blue Earth «. St. Paul & 

S. C. R. R., 1151 
Coupe V. Royer, 1215 

V. Weatherhead, 1231 
Coupland v. Housatonic R. R., 851 
Courcier v. Ritter, 811 
Courier Journal Co. v. Millen, 607 

V. Sallee, 363, 377 
Course v. Stead, 1285 
Courtney v. Boswell, 760 

V. Kneib, 361 
Courtoy v. Dozier, 43 
Cousins 0. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry., 

486 
Coutant V. Catlin, 1154a 
Covenant M. B. Assoc, v. HoSman, 732 
Coventry v. Barton, 834 
Covert V. Gray, 91 

V. Sargent, 38 Fed. 237; 1228 

V. Sargent, 42 Fed. 298; 1229 

V. Valentine, 941 
Covey V. Campbell, 1303 
Covington v. BoUwinkle, 1363 

V. Diehl, 1364 

V. Taffee, 1123, 1138a 
Covington & C. B. Co. v. Goodnight, 

1364 
Covington & C. E. R. R. v. Kleymeier, 

95, 1165 
Covington St. R. R. v. Packer, 573o, 

575 
Covington S. R. T. Ry. v. Piel, 1169 
Covode V. Principal, 645 
Cowan V. Donaldson, 336 

V. Western U. T. Co., 45a, 894 
Coward v. East Tennessee, V. & G. 

R. R., 873 
Cowart V. Walter Connally Co., 417 
Cowden v. Finney, 665 

V. Lockridge, 234, 235a 
Cowdrey v. Carpenter, 416 

V. Coit, 979 

V. Greenlee, 1023 



2832 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Cowdrey v. Woburn, 1179a 

Cowell V. Edwards, 8076 

Cowen V. Winters, 366 

Cower V. Lehman, 311o 

Coweta Falls Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 183, 

6466 
Cowing V. Cowing, 478, 479 

V. Howard, 303 

V. Rumsey, 1228 
Cowles V. Marble, 3406 
Cowley V. Davidson, 10 Minn. 392; 98 

V. Davidson, 13 Minn. 92; 317, 
842 
Cowper Essex v. Local Board for 

Action Anony., 1102 
Cox V. Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co., 
388 

V. Charleston Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 
717 

V. Crumley, 360, 364, 365, 367, 
368, 373 

V. Estell, 660 

V. Gerkin, 777 

V. Henry, 959, -964, 979, 981, 982, 
1014 

V. McLaughlin, 54 Cal. 605; 655o 

V. McLaughlin, 76 Cal. 60; 312, 
314 

V. Marlatt, 324a 

V. Phila., H. & P. R. R., 252, 1142 

V. Sargent, 689 

V. Smith, 93 Ark. 371; 1020 

V. Smith, 1 Nev. 161; 330 

V. Sprigg, 106 

V. Strode, 959, 966, 982 

V. Sullivan, 831 

V. Vanderkleed, 47, 482, 483 

V. Wilmington City Ry., 578 
Coxe V. England, 933, 934 

V. State, 338 
Coxe Bros. & Co. v. Anoka Water 

Works, 734 
Coxhead v. Johnson, 1348 
Coy V. Indianapolis Gas Co., 143, 164 
Coyle V. Baum, 765 

V. Peoples' Ry., 482, 483, 484, 
485 
Crabbs v. Koontz, 183, 691a 
Crabtree v. Clapham, 83, 537 

V. Hagenbaugh, 85, 636^ 



Crabtree v. Kile, 760 

V. Messersmith, 636(i 

i). Missouri Pac. R. R., 580 

V. Randall, 303 
Crabtree C. Min. Co. v. Hamby, 948 
Craddock v. Goodwin, 467 
Crafts V. Wilkinson, 334 
Craig V. Catlet, 449 

V. Chambers, 101 

V. Cook, 366, 373, 1330 

D. Craig, 804 

V. Dillon, 416 

V. Dumars, 315 

V. Durrett, 664a 

V. McHenry, 80 

V. Penrick, 3406 

V. Rochester City & B. R. R., 
1183, 1184 
Crain v. Beach, 87, 636A 

V. Petrie, 113, 127o 

V. Yates, 266 
Craker v. Chicago & N. W. R. R., 43i, 

47, 357, 379, 380, 1342 
Cram v. Bailey, 81 

V. Dresser, 1042, 1047, 1058 

V. Laconia, 1117 
Cramer v. Barmon, 458 

V. Danielson, 1252 

V. Eagle M. Co., 70^ 

V. Lepper, 345 

V. Marsh, 497d 

V. Metz, 613, 614 
Crandall v. Quin, 638 
Crane v. Andrews, 678 

V. Bennett, 1335 

V. Dygert, 303 

V. Hardman, 1057 

V. Knubel, 659 

V. Patton, 988 

V. Peer, 426 

V. Powell, 90, 614 

V. Schaefer, 367 

V. Stone, 545 

V. Thayer, 303 

V. Warner, 555 
Crane Bros. Manuf. Co. v. Adams, 664 
Crane Co. v. Columbus Const. Co., 762 
Crane Elevator Co. v. Lippert, 1216 
Craney v. Schloeman, 1350 
Cranfill v. Hayden, 444 



TABLE OF CASES 



2833 



[References 

Crank v. Forty-second St., M. & S. N. 

A. Ry., 86c 
Cranmer v. Kohn, 193a 
Cranston v. Marshall, 862 
Crape V. Hefner, 331 
Crater v. Binninger, 117, 118, 778 

V. Futts, 1148 
Craufurd v. Smith, 495 
Craven v. Bloomingdale, 378 

V. Clary, 959, 979, 981 

V. Tickell, 304 
Cravens v. Hunter, 107a 
Crawford v. Andrews, 554 

V. Beard, 274 

V. Cochran, 823 

V. Delaware, 1115 

V. Earl, 750 

V. Forest Oil Co., 935 

V. Geiser Manuf. Co., 734 

V. Heatwole, 419 

V. Jarrett, 565 

V. Jones, 999e 

V. McDonald, 1031 

V. Mail Pub. Co., 312, 313 

V. Metropolitan El. Ry., 1208 

V. Morris, 1279 

V. Nolan, 565 

V. Parsons, 189, 1265 

t>. Rittenhouse, 857 

V. Simonton, 334 

V. Southern R. R., 575 

V. Willing, 310 

V. Wilmington Bank, 302a 

V. Word, 549, 692i 
Crawfordsville v. Bond, 1110 
Crawson ». Western U. T. Co., 894 
Craythome v. Swinburne, 964 . 
Creal v. Keokuk, 1108 
Creamer v. Bowers, 323, 1244 

V. Moran Bros. Co., 1367 
Creason v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 

1347 
Credle ». Ayres, 908 
Creech v. Creech, 676 

V. HumptuUps B. & R. G. Co., 132 
Creek v. McManus, 685/, 685A; 
Creevy v. Carr, 448d 
Cregin ». Brooklyn C. R. R., 573a 
Creighton v. Comstock, 743 

V. Dilks, 857, 858 

178 



are to sections] 

Creighton v. Haythorn, 531a 
Crenshaw v. Smith, 959 
Crescent Mfg. Co. v. N. O. Nelson Mfg. 
Co., 608, 613, 617 

V. Wabash Mfg. Co., 1256fc 
Crescent Min. Co. v. Wasatch Min. 

Co., 301 
Cressey v. Parks, 61 
Creswell v. Nesbitt, 692 

V. Woodside, 684 
Crete v. Childs, 2216 
Cretin v. Levy, 337 
Creve Coeur Lake Ice Co. v. Tamra, 

208a 
Crews V. Cortez, 989 
. V. Dabney, 440, 777 

V. Lackland, 1259 
Crichfield v. Julia, 192, 627o 
Crimes v. Bowerman, 126d 
Criner v. Pike, 76 
Crippen V. Thompson, 793 
Crisdee v. Bolton, 408, 418 
Crisfield V. Storr, 959, 961 
Crissell V. Riley, 817 
Crist V. Armour, 734 

V. Jacobi, 762 
Critcher v. Porter-McNeal Co., 762 
Critchfield v. Humbert, 906 
Crittenden v, Johnston, 193, 625 

V. Posey, 316, 774 

V. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co., 722 
Croak v. Owens, 755 
Crocker v. Field's B. & C. Co., 679a 
Crockett v. Mitchell, 326 
Crockford v. Winter, 286 
Crofford v. Vassar, 682 
Croft V. Bunster, 695 

V. London & N. W. Ry., 1082 
Crogan v. Schiele, 1272 
Croix L. & L. Co. v. Ritchie, 934a 
Crole V. Thomas, 671 
Cromer v. City of Logansport, 2146 
Crommelin v. New York & H. R. R., 
857 

V. Thiess, 999e 
Crompton v. Ward, 547 
Crompton & K. L. Works v. Hoffman, 

646 
Cromwell v. County of Sac, 327, 695, 
703 



2834 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Crone v. Crone, 301c 
Cronemillar ». Duluth-Superior Mill- 
ing Co., 668 
Crook V. TuU, 334 
Crooke v. Anderson, 1194 

V. Moore, 755 
Crooker v. Bragg, 99 

V. Hutchinson, 831 

V. Melick, 548 
Crooks V. Dickinson, 307 

V. Dickson, 999o 

V. Moore, 750 
Crookshank v. Mallory, 657 
Cropper v. Nelson, 275 
Crosby v. Cuba R. R., 1357 

V. Hanover, 1107 

V. Humphreys, 101, 487a 

V. Mason, 310 

V. Merriam, 311d 

V. Morton, 301 

V. Otis, 311 

V. Watkins, 734 

V. Wyatt, 807 
Crosby Lumber Co. ». Smith, 316, 627a 
Crosby S. G. & V. Co. v. ConsoUdated 

S. V. Co., 1237, 1244, 1250 
Crose V. Rutledge, 1326, 1328 
Croshaw v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 717 
Crosier ». Craig, 638 
Cross V. Bellona, The, 599c 

t). Brown, 497b, 684 

V. Cross, 1256ft 

». Devine, 1027 

V. Grant, 480 

V. HI. Cent. R. R., 482, 483, 484, 
485 

V. Kansas City, 1177 

V. Kansas City, H. S. & M. Ry., 
868 

V. Noble, 976 

V. Plymouth Co., 1147 

V. Wilkins, 1304 
Crossfield v. Such, 527 
Crossley v. Hojer, 536, 537 , 
Crouch V. Great Northern Ry., 843 

V. Gutmann, 657 

V. Johnson, 973 

V. Kansas City So. Ry., 937a 

V. L. & N. W. Ry., 76, 434 

V. Miller, 1039 



Croucher v. Oakman, 675 
Crounse v. Syracuse & R. R., 237, 685ra 
Crouse V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 67 
Crow I). National Bank, 682 

V. State, 295, 317 
Crowe ». Gallenkamp, 664a 
Crowell V. Beatrice Havener, The, 596 
V. Beverly, 1160a 
V. Brothers, The, 599c 
Crowley v. Apted, 990o 

V. Burns B. & M. Co., 734 
Crown Vinegar & Spice Co. v. Wehrs, 

751 
Crowninshield v. Robinson, 1066 
Crowther v. Sawyer, 334 
Crozier v. Grayson, 801 

V. Minneapolis St. Ry., 1360 
Cruce V. Cruce, 3116 
Crug V. Gorham, 734 
Cruger v. Sullivan, 334 
Crumb v. Oaks, 431, 493 
Crummey v. Bentley, 917 
Crump V. Ficklin, 684a 

V. Rebstock, 664 
Crutcher v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. R., 
101, 854 
V. Elliott, 768 
Cruts V. Wray, 78, 531 
Crux V. Aldred, 419 
Crymble v. Mulvaney, 248a, 665c 
Crj^stal City & U. R. R. v. Boothe, 1143 
Cubitt V. O'Dett, 924 
Cud V. Rutter, 750 
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Broadbent, 

171a, 1270a 
Cuddee v. Rutter, 750 
Cuddy V. Major, 153, 742 
Cue V. Breeland, 435 
Cuesta V. Royal Ins. Co., 723a 
Culbertson v. Ashland C. & C. Co., 

647c 
Culbertson I. & W. P. Co. v. Wildman, 

664, 665 
Culin V. Woodbury Glass Works, 156, 

734, 742a 
Cull V. San Francisco & Fresno Land 

Co., 989 
CuUen V. Bimm, 753 
V. Gallagher, 664a 
V. Sears, 657 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2835 



Cullen V. Whitham, 345 
CuUity V. Dorffel, 236 
Cullum V. Branch Bank, 3016 
Culmer v. Caine, 296, 340 
Culver V. Blake, 1060 

V. Green, 677 

V. Hill, 209, 992 

». Marks, 302a 
Cumberland v. U. S., 1171e 

V. Willison, 1112, 1116 
Cumberland, The, 135 Fed. 234; 593 
Cumberland, The, 5 L. T. R. 496; 716 
Cumberland & O. C. Co. v. Hitchings, 

93, 947 
Cumberland & P. R. R. v. Slack, 667 
Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. Tilgh- 

man, 77 
Cumberland T. & T. Co. t>. Allen, 368 

V. Cartwright C. T. Co., 370 

V. Cassedy, 363, 373, 380, 1334 

V. Hobart, 897a 

V. Jackson, 897a 

V. Overfield, 1261, 1270a, 1363 

V. Paine, 363 

V. Pitchford, 1367 

V. Poston, 366, 368, 385 

V. Quigley, 168, 881a, 894 
Cumberland Valley M. P. Co. v. Schell, 
' 722 
Cuming v. Brooklyn City R. R., 86c, 

486c 
Cummerford v. McAvoy, 447 
Cumming v. Hackley, 796, 797, 800 
Cummings v. Badger Lumber Co., 536 

V. Bradford, 306 

V. Burleson, 237 

V. Dixon, 1112a 

.;. Dudley, 279c 

V. Gaon, 363 

V. Harrison, 979 

V. Howard, 325 

V. M'Gehee, 905 

V. Mugge, 685i , 

V. Roeth, 1256e 

V. Williamsport, 1142 
Cummins v. Crawford, 372 

V. Des Moines & S. L. Ry., 1295 

V. Ennis, 769 

V. Hanson, 636$ 

V. Heald, 303 



Cummins v. Kennedy, 959 

V. Presley, 593 
Cunard S. S. Co. v. Fabre, 595 
Cundiff V. Cundiff, 993 
Cunnea v. Williams, 1040 
Cunningham v. Carrico, 325 

V. Dorsey, 613, 615 

V. E. & T. H. R. R., 67o 

V. Finch, 6851 

V. Jones, 659 

V. Metropolitan L. Co., 934 

V. Metropolitan S. Co., 534 

V. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 
1367 

V. Neal, 1363 

V. San Saba County, 334 

V. Seattle Electric R. & P. Co., 
1342 

». Steamboat Low Water, 675 

». Stein, 948 

V. Stockton, 414 

V. Stoner, 539 

V. Sugar, 248a, 565c 
Curd V. Letcher, 341 
Curl V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 364 
Curlee v. Rose, 458 
Curley v. Hudson County, 337 
Curlman v. Smith, 1115 
Cuman v. Delaware & O. R. R. R., 

408o, 647& 
Curphy v. Terrell, 12866 
Curran v. Rogers, 1024 

V. Smith, 193, 607 
Currie v. Waverly & N. Y. B. R. R., 
1154 

V. White, 313a, 734 
Currier v. Baker, 8076 

V. Davis, 271 

V. Kretzinger, 303 

V. McKee, 1255 

V. Swan, 384, 1305 

V. W. M. Ritter Lumber Co., 667 
Curry v. American F. L. M. Co., 685A, 
685TO 

V. CatUn, 565 

V. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 725 

V. Homer, 688a 

V. Kansas & C. P. Ry., 89 

V. Larer, 411, 676 

V. Manhattan Ry., 1211 



2836 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Curry ». Mt. Sterling, 1138 

V. Sandusky Fish Co., 908 

V. Wilson, 1300 
Curtin v. Harvey, 684 

V. Nittany V. R. R., 1164, 1165, 
1167 

». Western U. T. Co., 164, 894 
Curtis V. Aspinwall, 1026 

V. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 
1364 

V. Baugh, 794, 936 

V. Brannon, 966, 976, 978 

t). Brewer, 419 

». Buckley, 701 

V. Haanay, 761 

V. Innerarity, 301, 698 

V. Paggett, 98 

V. Rochester & S. R. R., 86c, 1270 

V. Sioux City & H. P. Ry., 865 

V. Smith, 75 Conn. 429; 302a 

V. Smith, 48 Vt. 116; 607, 613, 650 

V. Van Bergh, 419 

V. Ward, 60, 494 
Curtiss V. Bachman, 685Z 

V. Hoyt, 364, 366, 373, 931 

V. Lawrence, 1258 
Curtley ». Security Savings Society, 46 
Wash. 50; 241, 1027o 

V. Security Sav. Soc, 51 Wash. 242; 
171o 
Curvin v. Grimes, 1353 
Cushing V. Boston, 1160a 

V. Drew, 418 

V. Gore, 793 

V. Longfellow, 934 

V. Seymotir, 182, 195 

V. Wells, Fargo & Co., 272, 844 
Cushman v. Blanchard, 962 

V. Hayes, 519, 746 

V. Northwestern Ins. Co., 722a 

V. Waddell, 487a 
Cushman & Rankin Co. v. B. & M. R. 

R., 67o 
Custis V. Adkins, 301c 
Cutler V. Close, 657 

V. How, 606c 

V. James Goold Co., 493, 493o 

V. Johnson, 606c 

V. Pittsburg S. P. G. M. Co., 1357 

V. Smith, 365, 373, 388 



Cutler V. Southern, 786 
Cutter V. Emery, 807 

V. Fanning, 493 

V. Gillette, 666 

V. Gudebrod Bros. & Co., 1246c 

V. New York, 339 

I/. Powell, 659 

V. Waddingham, 75 
Cutting V. Cox, 931 

V. Grand T. Ry., 136, 854, 882 

V. Miner, 193 
Cutts V. Spring, 933 

V. Western U. T. Co., 891 
Cyr V. Dufour, 1326, 1328 
Czamecki v. Bolen-Darnell Coal Co., 

948 
Czamikow, MacDougall & Co. v. 
Baxter, 742 



D. A. Tompkins Co. v. Monticello Cot- 
ton Oil Co., 165, 1070 
D. H. Ewing & Sons v. Callahan, 1349 
D. N. Osborne & Co. v. Carpenter, 608 
Dabney v. Catlett, 795 

V. New England M. M. I. Co., 717 
Dabovich v. Emeric, 517, 745 
Dady v. Gondii, 188 111. 234; 96, 1012 

V. Condit, 209 111. 488; 1018 
Daggett V. Adams, 568 

I). Daggett, 695 

V. Davis, 257, 494 

V. Reas, 966 

V. Wallace, 637, 639 
Daggs V. Bolton, 334 
Dahill V. Booker, 82, 497e 
Dahmer v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1350 
Daigneau v. Grand Trunk Ry., 172 
Dailey v. Crowley, 55, 57 

V. Dismal Swamp Canal Co., 91 
Daily v. Litchfield, 413 
Daily Post Co. v. McArthur, 380a 
Dain v. Wycoff, 475 
Daingerfield v. Thompson, 481 
Dakin v. Williams, 401, 418 
Dalbeattie S. Co. v. Card, 614 
Daiby v. Campbell, 536 

V. India & London Life Ass. Co., 
729, 1034 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2837 



Dalby v. Stearns, 822 
Dale V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 
6716 

V. Grant, 120 

V. HaU, 1032 

V. Richards, 305 

V. St. Joseph, 1140 

V. Shively, 979, 983 

V. Southern Ry., 924 
Dallam v. Fitler, 59 
Dallas V. Allen, 251 

V. Hollingsworth, 673a 

V. Kahn, 1149 

V. Leake, 1149 

V. Moore, 486a 

V. Ross, 1110 
Dallas & G. Ry. v. Abler, 1359 
Dallas & W. Ry. v. Spioker, 578 
Dallas Consol. Electric St. Ry. v. 

Motwiller, 171 
Dallas C. E. St. Ry. v. Summers, 490 
Dallas Exch. v. Tuttle, 695c 
Dallas P. & S. E. R. R. v. Day, 1123 
Dallin v. Mayer, 1335 
Dalrymple v. Hannum, 1295 
Dalton V. Beers, 234, 359, 360, 384a, 
1342 

V. Bowker, 238, 959, 975 

V. Kansas City, F. S. & M. R. R., 
864a 

V. Southeastern Ry., 573, 574 
Daly V. Byrne, 1328 

V. Maitland, 407, 416 

V. Van Benthuysen, 360, 377, 454 
Daly, In re, 1156, 1171 
Dalzell V. Davenport, 1112a 
Dame v. Kenney, 451 
Damhorst v. Missouri Pac. R. R., 318 
Damron v. Roach, 125a, 927 

V. Sweetser, 682a 
Dana v. Fiedler, 296, 313a, 734, 1297 

V. Goodfellow, 969 

V. Sessions, 1074 
Dance v. McBride, 480 
Dancey v. Grand Trunk Ry., 865 
Dando v. Home Telephone Co., 1367 
Danforth v. Freeman, 660, 662 

V. Pratt, 555 

V. Tennessee & C. R. R., 614, 615, 
6476 



Danforth v. Walker, 37 Vt. 239; 630f, 
753 

V, Walker, 40 Vt. 257; 636/ 

V. WilUams, 332 
Daniel v. Allen, 1368 

V. Fort W. & R. G. Ry., 1154c 

V. Gibson, 334 

V. Giles, 487a 

V. Holland, 493 

V. Judy, 1275 

V. Lumber Co., 411 

V. Perkins Logging Co., 926, 927 

V. Western U. T. Co., 154, 890 

i;. Wharton, 341 
Daniell v. Boston & M. R. R., 666 

V. Sinclair, 343 
Danielly v. Cheeves, 93 
Daniels v. Ballantine, 119 

V. Bradley, 324a 

V. Brown, 75, 83 

V. C. I. & N. R. R., 1175 

V. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., 
126a 

V. Newton, 636i, 758 

V. Osborn, 294 

ti. Union Pac. Ry., 1354 

V. Ward, 325, 331 

V. Wilber, 664o, 1049 
Danna v. Monroe, 1371 
Danner v. Fort Worth Implement Co., 

762 
Danolos v. State, 614 
Danville Bridge Co. v. Pomroy, 657 
Danville Turnpike Road Co. v. Stew- 
art, 1348 
Danziger ». Boyd, 120 N. Y. 628; 913 

V. Boyd, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 365; 
912 

V. Hoyt, 650 
Daquin v. Coiron, 301 
Darby v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry., 856 
Darcey v. Darcey, 416 
D'Arcy v. Lyle, 834 
Darden v. Orgain, 301c 
Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell, 

925 
Darling v. McBride, 685A; 

V. McDonald, 1328 

V. Tegler, 77 
Darlington v. Allegheny, 1172o 



2838 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Darlington v. Copeland, 685A; 

V. DeWald, 99%" 

V. J. L. Gates Land Co., 976 

V. Western U. T. Co., 894c 
Darnell v. Columbus S. C. Co., 363a 

V. Williams, 702 

V. Wilmoth, 934 
Darst V. Mathieson Alkali Works, 666 
Dart V. Laimbeer, 193 

V. Southwestern B. & L. Assoc, 
676 
Dashiell v. Moody, 69Sc 
Daskam v. Ullman, 705 
Dass V. West, 988a 
Daub V. Martin, 334 
Daughtery v. American U. T. Co., 873, 
874, 879, 891, 895 

V. Brown, 1140 
Dauley v. Williams, 612 
Dauphiny v. Buhne, 447 
Davelaar v. Milwaukee, 942, 1110 
Davenport v. Abbott, 1296 

V. Anderson, 777 

V. Bradley, 1259 

V. Ledger, 59, 494, 540 

V. McKee, 333 

V. Richards, 69^' 

V. Russell, 929 

V. Wells, 1 Iowa, 598; 2796 

V. Wells, 3 la. 242; 516& 
Davenport R. I. & N. W. R. R. v. 

Sinnet, 1166 
Davey v. Davey, 378 

V. Rhode Island Co., 1354 
David V. Bradley, 78 

V. Conard, 311, 1258 

V. Southwestern R. R., 581 
David Dows, The, 587 
Davidge v. Guardian Trust Co., 777 
Davidor v. Bradford, 627a 
Davidson v. Brown, 676 

V. Edgar, 657 

V. Gunsolly, 76, 78 

V. Gwynne, 1068 

V. Lee, 43 

V. Mexican Nat. R. R., 58 Fed. 
653; 310 

V. Mexican Nat. R. R., 11 App. 
Div. 28; 311c, 314a 

V. Michigan C. R. R,, 435 



Davidson v. Molyneux, 1330 

V. Munsey, 1246c 

V. Nichols, 126a 

V. St. Louis Transit Co., 1360 
Davidson-Benedict Co. v. Severson, 

579, 580 
Davidson Bros. Co. v. Smith, 762 
Davidson Development Co. v. South- 
ern Ry., 152 
Davies v. Hotchkiss, 984 

V. Jenkins, 32, 38 

V. Penton, 408, 413 

V. Stevenson, 256 

V. Underwood, 999A 
Davin V. Syracuse, 416a 
Davis V. Alden, 688a 

V. Alpha P. C. Co., 417 

V. Atchison, T. & S. P. Ry., 1331 

V. AjTes, 665 

V. Barr, 668 

V. Barrington, 657 

V. Bean, 979, 1053 

V. Bhss, 80a, 497gr 

V. Blue Ridge Ry., 852 

V. Bronson, 636c 

V. Cayuga & S. R. R., 873 

V. Central R. R., 481 

V. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 380 

V. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. R., 190, 
850 

V. Crow, 689a 

V. Cushing, 235a 

i>. Davis, 1326 

V. Delpit, 901 

V. Dickey, 762 

./. Dodge, 665, 666, 667 

V. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry., 
65 

V. Elliott, 695 

V. Emerson, 808 

V. Fish, 201 

V. Ford, 618 

V. Freeman, 420 

V. Funk, 703 

V. Gardiner, 50 

V. Garrett, 816 

V. Gillett, 410 

V. Gott, 565a 

V. Grand Rapids Fum. Co., 636d, 
742 



Table op cases 



2830 



[References are to sections 

Davis V. Greely, 282, 324a 
V. Griffith, 449 
V. Guamieri, 120, 583 
V. Hall, 959 
V. Hamilton, 451 
V. Harding, 691a 
V. Harrison, 704 
V. Hearst, 377, 378, 380o, 382, 

387, 445, 447, 451 
V. Hedges, 1073 
V. Hendrie, 331 
V. Hutton, 922 
V. Jefferson Gas Co., 1166c 
V. Justice, 1248 
V. Kendall, 102 

V. La Crosse & M. R. R., 924a 
V. La Crosse Hospital Assoc, 419 
V. Lewis, 4 Bibb, 456; 1010 
V. Lewis, 7 T. R. 17; 448(i 
V. Logan, 976 
V. Louk, 909a, 914 
V. Lyman, 973, 979 
V. McMillan, 1337 
V. Marxhausen, 448a 
V. Mason, 1286 
V. Maxwell, 673/ 
V. Michigan Cent. R. R., 5706 
V. Michigan Southern & N. I. 

R. R., 873 
V. Miller B. L. Co., 933, 934 
V. Mohn, 43i 
V. Nest, 265 
V. New Bedford, 1149 
V. Northwestern Ry., 1138 
V. Oswell, 505 
V. Poland, 2146 
V. Pryor, 639 
V. Ry., 570a 
V. Rake, 301c 
V. Richardson, 734, 736 
V. Rider, 331 
V. Rosedale S. Ry., 237 
V. Seeley, 1263, 1337 
V. Shields, 734 
V. Silverton, 1108 
V. Simmons, 908 
V. Sladen, 4486 
V. Slagle, 640a 

V. Smith, 5 Ga. 274; 916, 959 
V. Smith, 48 Vt. 52; 298, 310, 344 



Davis V. Smyth, 289 

V. Southern Pac. Co., 1331 

V. Standish, 1248, 1254 

V. Starrett, 444a, 446 

V. State, 338 

V. Tacoma & P. Ry., 43;, 47 

V. Talcott, 189, 190, 646 

V. Titusville R. R., 1154c 

V. Wabash, S. L. & P. Ry., 119 

V. Wait, 1040 

V. Walker, 311 

V. Watkins, 301a 

./. Western U. T. Co., 896 

V. Wilbome, 774 
avis Provision Co. v. Fowler Bros., 
735c 
Davis S. M. Co. v. Best, 540 
Davis Sulphur Ore Co. v. Atlanta 

Guano Co., 755 
Davisson v. Burgess, 692 
Davy V. Hallett, 713 
Dawes v. Dinger, 304 

V. Shed, 681a 

t). Winship, 316 
Dawson v. Amey, 934 

V. Clay, 335 

V. Dawson, 692^ 

V. Holt, 688 

V. Louisville & N. R. R., 864 

V. McGill, 913 

V. Morgan, 705, 803 

V. Pittsburgh, 1163 

V. Quincy, O. & K. C. R. R., 854 

v. State, 681o 
Day V. Conn. G. L. I. Co., 730 

!;. Cross, 734 

V. Gravel, 843 

V. Holland, 360, 373 

V. Litchfield, 688 

V. Lockwood, 310 

V. Mapes-Reeve Construction Co., 
762 

V. New York C. R. R., 51 N. Y. 
583; 651 

V. N. Y. C. R. R., 22 Hun. 412; 
314 

V. Woodworth, 233, 234, 352, 360, 
364, 365, 366, 927, 930, 932 
Dayton v. Estate of Dakin, 317 

V, Gunnison, 789 



2840 



TABLE OP CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Dayton v. Hooglund, 1060 

V. Lincoln, 1141 

V. Parke, 857 

V. Pease, 117, 927 
Dayton & C. R. R. Co. o. Hatch, 627 
Deagan v. Weeks, 1031 
Deal V. Osborne, 82, 531a 

V. Potter, 531 

V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 937 
De Amado v. Friedman, 1367 
Dean v. Blackwell, 373o 

V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 318, 437 

V. Peely, 915, 916 

V. Governor, 692a 

V. Kansas City, S. L. & C. R. R., 
1354 

V. Mason, 1220 

V. Melbourne, 153a 

V. Nichols & Shepard, 506a 

V. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 573 

V. Radford, 168 

V. R., etc., Co., 580a 

V. Ritter, 211, 858 

V. Roesler, 984 

V. Vaccaro, 844 

u. Wabash R. R., 483, 1348 

V. White, 607 

V. Williams, 339a, 343 
Deane v. Michigan Stove Co., 164a, 

766 
Dearborn v. Boston, C. & M. R. R., 

1108, 1110, 1151 
Dearing v. Pearson, 667 
Dearing W. T. B. Co. v. Thompson, 

1046 
Dearlove v. Herrington, 1328 
Deas V. Harvie, 695 
Deaton v. Polk, 1148 
De Berard v. Priale, 685 
De Bemales v. Fuller, 286, 287 
Deberry v. Young, 660, 662 
Deblois v. Ocean Ins. Co., 711 
De Boom v. Priestly, 655 
De Boul V. Freeport R. R., 11656, 1169, 

11716 
De Camp v. BuUard, 184, 794 

V. Bums, 685o 

V. Hewitt, 666, 667 

V. Stevens, 673/ 

V. Wallace, 926, 943 



Decatur v. Fisher, 1326, 1328 

V. Hamilton, 47 
Decatur Car Wheel Co. v. Mehaffey, 

574a 
Decatur St., Matter of, 243c 
Dechample v. Nav. Co., 1155 
Deck V. Feld, 257, 750 
Decker v. Decker, 78 
V. Gaylord, 447 
V. Hassell, 667 
V. Mathews, 256, 708 
V. School Dist., 657 
DeClerq v. Mungin, 492 
Decorah Woolen Mill Co. v. Greer, 

214 
De Costa v. Massachusetts F. W. & 
M. Co., 172, 939, 941 
V. Newnham, 715, 717 
De Courcy v. Prendergast Const. Co., 

1262, 1360 
Deegan v. Gutta Percha & R. M. Co., 

1357 
Deems v. Albany, 318 
Deen v. Harrold, 1034, 1046 
Deep Mining & Drainage Co. v. Fitz- 

Gerald, 1359 
Deere v. Lewis, 734 
Deering v. Johnson, 6226 
Deery v. Williams, 753 
Deeves v. Richardson & Boynton Co., 

643 
De Ford v. Maryland Steel Co., 119, 

196 
De Forest v. Fulton F. I. Co., 725 

V. Leete, 967, 1261 
Defrance v. Austin, 673d 
Defries v. Davis, 446 
Degnan v. Brooklyn City R. R., 1363 
De Goudouin v. Lewis, 265 
De Graff v. Widkham, 413, 419 
De Groat v. Fulton, etc., Ins. Co., 722 
DeGroff V. Amer. Linen Thread Co., 

416 
De Havilland v. Bowerbank, 286, 287 
Dehler v. Held, 684 
Deimel v. Brown, 316 
Deisen v. Chicago, S. P., M. & M. 

Ry., 1306 
Deisher v. Stein, 988a 
Deitrick v. Highway Com'rs, 1138 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2841 



Deitzler v. Wilhite, 909a, 915 

De Jamette v. Dreyfus, 982 

De Kay v. Haokensack Water Co., 

695 
De la Bere v. Pearson, 12id 
Delafield v. 3. K. Armsby Co., 162 

V. San Francisco & S. M. Ry., 
279c 

V. Westfield, 302a 
De La Garza v. Booth, 692i 
De La Grange v. Southwestern Tel. 

Co., 876 
Delamarre v. Bott, 91 
Delamater v. Folz, 70 
Delano v. Curtis, 55 

V. Smith, 999ff 
Delaney v. Canadian Pac. R. R., 325 

V. Stoddart, 817 
Delany v. Hill, 257 
Delaplain v. Kansas City, 1216 
De Lavalette v. Wendt, 296, 307, 313 
Delavergne v. Norris, 967, 973, 979 
De La Vergne R. M. Co. v. Stahl, 1359 
Delaware, The, 596o 
Delaware & A. T. & T. Co. v. Elvins, 

73, 926 
Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Dubois, 
655e 

V. Mitchell, 636b, 734, 737 

V. Torrey, 99 
Delaware & M. C. T. Co. v. Fisk, 933 
Delaware & Raritan C. Co. v. Lee, 
1108 

V. Wright, 924 
Delaware, L. & W. R. R. v. Burson, 
331a, 1142, 1149 

V. Devore, 486& 

V. Jones, 678 

V. Oxford Iron Co., 801 
De la Zerda v. Kom, 927 
Delden v. Krom, 736 
Delegal v. Naylor, 256, 275 
DeLeon v. Echeverria, 667 

V. McKeman, 193o, 856a 
Deleshaw v. Edelen, 565c 
Delevan v. Bates, 1263 
De Lisle v. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 

854 
Dellahunty v. Little Rock, etc., Co., 
979 



Delmonte v. Southern Pac. Co., 868 
DeLong v. Spring Lake, etc., Co., 

969 
Delp V. Edlis, 179, 193 
Delphi V. Evans, 1108, 1112 
Deluise v. Long Island R. R., 618 
De Luna v. Union R. R., 574a, 1372 
Delves v. Wyer, 349 
De Mahy v. Morgan's Louisiana & 

T. R. R., & Steamship Co., 860 
Demarest v. Little, 573, 574, 577 
Demarett v. Bennett, 973 
Demars v. Koehler, 970, 976, 978 
De May v. Roberts, 47 
Deming v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 
43h 

V. Grand Trunk Ry., 164, 856a 

V. Kemp, 1059 

V. Merchants' Cotton-Press, etc., 
Co., 812 
Demme v. Dierkes Furniture Co. v. 

MoCabe, 615 
Dempsey v. Dobson, 78 

V. Hertzfield, 992 

V. Schawacker, 310 

V. W. U. Tel. Co., 212a 
Dempster v. Lansingh, 234 111. 381; 
1286b 

V. Lansingh, 128 111. App. 388; 
377b 
Den Bleyker v. GastoUj 734 
Denby v. Hairson, 1326 
Denew v. Daverell, 1038 
Dengler v. Auer, 645 
Denham v. Kirkpatrick, 440 

V. Western U. T. Co., 894b 
Deninger v. American Locomotive Co., 

575 
Denio v. State, 681a 
Denison v. Ford, 7 Daly 384; 987 

V. Ford, 10 Daly 412; 188 
Denison & P. S. Ry. v. Cummins, 1165 

V. Evans, 1149 

V. O'Maley, 947 

V. Scholz, 1171 

V. Smith, 1143 

V. Randell, 380a 
Denken v. Canavan, 932 
Denman v. Johnston, 1306 
Denmead v. Coburn, 659 



2842 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Denn v. Chubb, 920 
Dennery v. Bisa, 182 
Dennis v. Barber, 374 

V. Belt, 1032 

V. Cummins, 400, 407, 417 

V. Jolmson, 1335 

V. Maxfield, 193, 669 

V. Stoughton, 127 
Dennison v. Daily News Pub. Co., 43ff 

V. Hyde, 226c 

V. Lee, 307, 999o 

D, Van Wormer, 1255 
Dennison L. & P. Co. v. Patton, 1354 
Deimiston v. Imbrie, 340c, 344 

I). PMladelphia Co., 1110, 1164 
Denny v. New York C. R. R., 119, IWd 

V. Reynolds, 691o 
Deno V. Thomas, 4976 
De Noyels v. JoUne, 1347 
Densch v. Scott, 685n 
Denslow v. Van Horn, 640a, 641 
Densmore v. Mathews, 81, 565 
Denson v. Love, 973, 979 
Dent V. Davison, 98, 679a 

V. Dunn, 287 

V. Pickens, 638, 639, 640 

V. Smith, 717 

V. South-Bound R. R., 932 

V. Springfield Trac. Co., 1355 
Denton v. Crouch, 692j 

V. Wood's Adm'r, 688 
Denton Lumber Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 

695 
Dentson v. Henderson, 700 
Denver!). Bayer, 1123, 1136, 1153, 1163 

V. Bonesteel, 1123, 1136 - 

V. Hayes, 302a 

V. Hyatt, 1216, 485, 485a 

V. Rhodes, 1110 

V. Sherret, 481 

V. Vemia, 1110 • 
Denver & R. G. Ry. v. Bourne, 947, 
1136 

V. Conway, 318 

V. De Witt, 856 

V. Griffith, 1171e 

V. Gunning, 578, 1367 

V. Harris, 41o, 360, 363a, 1270a 

V. Hutchins, 734 

V. Lorentzen, 67, 226/, 483 



Denver & R. G. Ry. v. Mitchell, 1270a 

V. Moynahan, 318 

». Roller, 43i, 44 

V. Schmitt, 1153 

V. Scott, 1326 

V. Spencer, 574a, 1367 

V. Woodward, 574o 
Denver B. & M. Co. v. McAllister, 345 
Denver City I. & W. Co, v. Middaugh, 

91, 1109, 1110, 1164 
Denver City Tramway Co. v. Martin, 

44 
Denver E. W. Co. v. Elkins, 753 
Denver L. & S. Co. v. Rosenfield Constr. 

Co., 419 
Denver, S. P. & P. R. R. v. Conway, 
293 

V. Frame, 251, 844 
Denver, T. & F. W. R. R. v, Dotson, 
932 

V. Pulaski I. D. Co., 95 
Denver, U. & P. R. R. v. Barsaloux, 

1152 
De Palma ». Weinman, 182, 927 
Depew V. Ketchum, 193, 987 

V. Peck Hardware Co., 191 
Depew, The, 587 
Depeyster v. Sun M. I. Co., 710 
Deppe V. Chicago, I. & P. R. R., 1328 
De Puilly v. St. Louis Church, 667 
De Puy V. Cook, 1367 
Derby v. Gage, 310a 

V. Gallup, 1295 

V. Johnson, 655a, 6556 
Derham o. Derham, 4805 
Deri v. Union Bank, 256 
Derleth v. Degraaf, 756 
Dermott v. Jones, 23 How. 229; 656 

V. Jones, 2 Wall. 1; 655/, 659, 1067 
Dem ». Kellogg, 819 
Derocher v. Continental Mills, 663, 

673a 
Derry v. Derry, 107c 

V. East Saginaw Bd. of Education, 
668 

V. Flitner, 135 
Derry Bank ». Heath, 685g 
De Rutte v. New York, A. & B. T. Co., 

228e, 876, 878, 885, 895 
Desha v, Robinson, 1050 



TABLE OF CASES 



2843 



[References 

Desha v. Smith, 310o 

Deslonde v. O'Hem, 468 

Deslottes v. Baltimore & O. T. Co., 154, 

879 
Des Moineaux v. New York City Ry., 

1360 
De Steiger v. Hannibal & St. J. Ry., 

293, 317 
De Taslet v. Crousellat, 623 

V. Baring, 700 
De Tastett v. Crousillat, 817 
Detmold v. Drake, 1151 
Detroit v. Beecher, 1167 

V. Brennan, 1169 

V. C. H. Little Co., 1169 

V. Daly, 1128 
Detroit & M. R. R. v. Griggs, 973 
Detroit Daily Post Co. v. McArthur, 

448a 
Detroit Gas Co. v. Moreton Truck 

Storage Co., 42 
Detroit White Lead Works v. Knaszak, 

149 
Detzur v. B. Stroh Brewing Co., 1355 
Deutsch V. Pratt, 762, 780 
De Varaigne v. Fox, 1187 
Devaughn v. Heath, 366, 373, 387 
Development Co. of America v. King, 

667 
Devendorf v. Wert, 99 
Devereaux v. Buckley, 854 
Devereux v. Burgwin, 295 

V. Cotton Press Co., 942 

V. Taft, 312 
Deverill v. Bumell, 422 
Devers p. May, 984, 984a 
Devin v. Himer, 1012, 1020 
Devine v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 485 

V. Edwards, 294, 306 

V. Kerwin, 312 

V. Lewis, 959, 964 
Devir v. Corley, 490 
De Visme v. De Visme, 288 
Devitt V. Providence Washington Ins. 

Co., 711 
Devlin v. New York, 63 N. Y. 8; 146, 
156, 615 

V. New York, 131 N. Y. 123; 331a, 
339 

t>. Philadelphia, 1151 



are to sections] 

Devlin v. Pike, 493 

Devlin's Estate, 301c 

Devol V. Mcintosh, 789 

DeWardener v. Metropolitan St, Ry., 

1363 
Dewey v. Osbom, 69, 907 
Dewing v. Sears, 270 
Dewint v. Wiltse, 999fe 
Dewit V. Greenfield, 447, 451 
De Wolf V. Ford, 873b 

V. McGinnis, 1297 
Dexter v. Arnold, 310a 

V. Collins, 312 

V. Manley, 987, 988 

V. Spear, 29 
Dey V. Dox, 734 
Deyo V. Van Valkenburgh, 101 

V. Waggoner, 126c, 626 
Diamond v. Smith, 365 
Diamond M. P. Co. v. Independent P. 

P. Co., 741 
Diamond Match Co., v. Roeber, 426 
Diamond Mills Emory Co. v. Phila- 
delphia, 1168 
Diamond S. S. M. Co. v. Brown, 1220 
Diamond State I. Co. v. San Antonio & 

A. P. Ry., 608 
Diana Shooting Club v. Lamoreux, 101 
Dias V. Glover, 301& 
Dibble v. Bron, 873 

V. Morris, 233, 234, 359, 360, 364, 
366, 373a 
Diblin v. Murphy, 1330, 1349 
Dibol V. Minott, 615 
Dickens v. Shepperd, 975 
Dickenson v. Fitchburg, 252, 1129, 
1147, 1151, 1154c, 1160a, 11716 

». Gould, 310 

V. Jardine, 717 
Dickermann v. New York, N. H. & H. 

R. R., 1151 
Dickerson v. Finley, 159, 199 
Dickey v. Weston, 86a 
Dickins v. New York C. R. R., 579 
Dickinson v. Boston, 5706 

V. Boyle, lOld 

V. Bull, 695 

V. Hart, 182, 189 

V. Nicholson, 950 

V, Norwegian Plow Co., 664 



2844 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Dickinson v. Talmage, 226d, 667 
Dickinson Creamery Co. v. Lyle, 988a 
Dickson v. Ctdcago, etc. R. R., 93 

V. Desire, 959, 961, 973 

V. Renter's Tel. Co., 878 

V. Screven, 819 

V. Surginer, 298 

V. Turner, 1024 
Dieckerhoff v. United States, 416a, 676 
Dieffenbach v. New York, L. E. & W. 

R. R., 1349, 1354 
Die! V. Ferguson, 484, 485 
Diels V. Kennedy, 752 
Diers v. Edwards, 107o 
Diesen v. Chicago, S. P., M. & O. Ry., 

581 
Diestel v. Stevenson, 417, 6206 
Dietrich v. Hannibal & S. J. R. R., 226i 

V. Murdock, 1177 
Digby V. Atkinson, 999i 
Digman v. Spurr, 743 
Dikeman v. Arnold, 1007 
Dill V. Lawrence, 410 

V. Mumford, 753 
Dillahunty ». Railway, 979 
Dillard v. Collins, 451 

V. McClure, 531o 

V. Stringfellow, 685^ 
Dilley v. Ratcliss, 742 
Dilliard v. Tomlinson, 31 1& 
Dillingham v. Richards, 1354 

V. Russell, 378, 380a 
Dillon V. Anderson, 205, 636c 

V. Dudley, 302a 

V. Great Northern Ry., 5706 

V. Hunt, 67a 

V. Masterson, 161 

V. New York & E. R. R., 846 
Dills V. Dougherty, 734 
Dilts V. Plumville R. R., 1154c 
Dilworth v. Curts, 334 

V. McKelvy, 77, 6916 

V. TinderUng, 304 
Dimick v. Campbell, 1260 
Dimmick v. Lockwood, 953, 959, 969, 

971, 979 
Dimmock, The, 595 
Dimock v. United States Nat. Bank, 

520, 1050 
Dingle v. Hare, 760 



Dingley v. Oler, 758 
Dinkelspiel v. New York Evening Jour- 
nal Pub. Co., 451 
Dinnihan v. Lake Ontario Beach Imp. 

Co., 1367 
Dinninny v. Fay, 551 
Director, The, 11 Sawy. 494; 1261 
Director, The, 180 Fed. 606; 587 
Disbrow v. Garcia, 237 

V. Ulster T. 580a 

V. Westchester Hardwood Co., 933, 
934 
Disosway v. Edwards, 408, 418, 676 
Distin V. Bradley, 359 

V. Rose, 446 
District of Columbia v. Armes, 1148 

V. Camden Iron Works, 181 U. S. 
453; 313a 

V. Camden Iron Works, 15 D. C. 
App. 198; 308 

V. Harlan & Hollingsworth Co., 
419 

». Prospect Hill Cemetery, 1148 

V. Robinson, 316 

V. Woodbury, 485a 
Ditmars v. Sackett, 533 
Dixon ». Baker, 74, 1165 

V. Caldwell, 493 

V. Clow, 101 

V. Deveridge, 105 

V. Fawcus, 1271 

V. Scott, 1347 

V. Smith, 444a 

V. U. S., 680 

V. Western U. T. Co., 885 
Dixon-Woods Co. v. Phillips Glass Co., 

190, 646 
Doak V. Snapp, 276, 734 
Doan V. Warren, 98, 103 
Doane v. Anderson, 1345 

V. Chicago City R. R., 410, 1177 

V. Dunham, 1060 
Dobbins v. Duquid, 182, 222, 984, 988 

V. Higgins, 301, 6556, 662 
Dobbs V. The Justices, etc., 544 
Dobenspeck v. Armel, 313o 
Dobson V. Blackmore, 74, 946 

V. Dorman, 1234 

V. Hartford Carpet Co., 1234, 1243 

V. Postal T. C. Co., 373, 1334 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2845 



Dobyns v. Yazoo & M. V. R. R., 574, 

1367 
Dockstader v. Young M. C. Assoc, 625 
Doctor V. Darling, 312, 970, 980a 
Dr, Harter Medicine Co. v. Hopkins, 

633, 834(2 
Dodd V. Jones, 226, 622, 623 

V. Noiris, 475 
Dodds V. Hakes, 189, 984, 987 
Dodge V. Chandler, 531a 

». Cohen, 685^ 

V. County Commrs., 1119 

V. Keine, 753 

V. Perkins, 305 

V. Rockport, 331a 

V. Tileston, 1066 
Dodson V. Cincinnati, 1155 

V. Cooper, 58, 316, 494, 494c, 565a 

V. McAdams, 673d 
Dodwell V. Gibbs, 911 
Doe V. Ausman, 98 

V. Black, 901 

V. Davis, 920 

V. Dyeball, 1276 

V. Filliter, 350, 920 

V. Hare, 918, 920 

V. Harlow, 911 

V. Huddart, 920 

V. Perkins, 920 

V. Roe, 448c 

V. Rowlands, 210, 999ft 

V. Vallejo, 345 

V. Warren, 343, 345 
Doerhoefer v. Shewmaker, 386, 487a, 

1345 
Doggett V. Emerson, 303 
Doherty v. Des Moines City Ry., 1354 

V. Dolan, 1012, 1018 

V. Munson, 107c 
Doig V. Barkley, 345 
Dolan V. Rodgers, 655d 
Dolbeattie Steamship Co. v. Card, 858 
Dolbeer v. Waterworks Co., 1165a 
Dole V. New Orleans R. & L. Co., 1333, 

1348 
Dolf V. Bassett, 921 
D'Olier v. New York Cent. & H. R. R., 

852 
Doliff V. Robbins, 497 
Doll V. Cooper, 682, 683 



Doll V. Hennessy Mercantile Co., 4976 
Dollar V. International Banking Corp., 

695 
Dolph V. Troy Laundry Mach. Co., 734 
Dolson V. Saxton, 556 
Dommerich v. Garfunkel, 766 
Domville v. Keevan, 1268 
Donahoe v. Emery, 862 

V. Star Pub. Co., 448a 

V. Johnson, 685ft, 685fc 

». Parkman, 414 

V. Partridge, 302 

V. Prosser, 1050 
Donald v. Ballard, 4866 

V. Lightfoot, 70 

V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. R., 924a 
Donaldson v. Mississippi & M. R. R. R., 
573a, 580, 581 

V. State, 6796 
Donellan v. Hardy, 531a 
Donelly v. Booth B. & H. I. G. Co., 
1326 

V. St. Paul City Ry., 1363 
Donely v. Rockfeller, 792 
Donhard v. Shirley, 1334 
Donk Bros. C. & C. Co. v. Novero, 932 

V. Thil, 172a 
Donlan v. Evans, 959, 965, 1028 
Donnell v. Columbian Ins. Co., 716 

V. Jones, 113, 126c, 352, 372, 467, 
1271 

V. Sandford, 481, 484, 485 

V. Thompson, 973, 976, 979 
Donnelly v. Brooklyn, 331a, 339 

V. Chicago C. Ry., 123 

V. Harris, 487a 

V. Hufschmidt, 483 
Donner v. Redenbaugh, 1010 
Donohoe v. Henry, 107a 
Donohue v. Chase, 3406 
Donovan v. Clark, 688 

V. Consolidated Coal Co., 935 

V. Hanauer, 426 

V. Johnson, 803 

V. New Orleans, 32 
Dooley v. Boston Elevated Ry., 214a 

V. Gladiator, C. G. M. & M. Co., 
257 

V. Smith, 269, 3406 
Doolin V. Omnibus Cable Co., 485(i 



2846 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Doolittle V. Dwight, 797 

V. Eddy, 1293 

V. McCuUough, 7 Oh. St. 299; 59 

V. McCuUough, 12 Oh. St. 360; 
6556 

V. Murray, 611 

V. Nash, 655c 
Dooly Black v. Salt Lake R. T. Co., 

1117 
Doom V. Curran, 1012a, 1027ffl 
Dooner v. Delaware & H. C. Co., 481 
Door V. Fisher, 762 
Doover v. Pennsylvania R. R., 1120 
Doran v. Brooklyn & N. Y . F. Co., 1342 

V. Butler, 692? 

V. Cohen, 85c 
Dorchester ». Coventry, 921, 922 
Dorchester, The, 589 
Dore V. Milwaukee, 1110, 1112a 
Doremus v. Patarson, 947 
Doremus, In re, 324o 
Dorer v. Hood, 916 
Dorgan v. Boston, 1128, 1147 

V. Tel. Co., 895 
Doriocourt v. Lacroix, 1012 
Dority v. Dunning, 91 
Dorian v. East Brandywine & W. R. R., 

1195 
Domian v. Ames, 99 

V. Jacksonville, 110 

V. Sebree, 1340 
Dormer v. Fortescue, 908 
Dorn V. Cooper, 443 
Dorr V. Clark, 684 
Dorrah v.l.C. R. R., 43/, 372 
Dorrance, Matter of, 1128 
Dorrance & Co. v. International & G. 

N. R. R., 316 
Dorris v. Miller, 241b 

V. Warford, 484, 485 
Dorser v. Hale, 753 
Dorsett v. Firth, 493o, 519 
Dorsey v. Dashiell, 789 

V. Henderson, 1152a 

V. Manlove, 363o, 364, 365, 366, 
367, 432a 

V. Moore, 74 
Dorwin v. Porter, 209, 991 
Doss V. Billington, 932 

(1. Doss, 1268 



Doss V. Jones, 447 

V. Missouri, K. & T. R. R., 379 
Doster v. Brown, 655c 

V. Western U. T. Co., 361 
Doten V. Boston, 1230 

V. Doten, 301c 
Dothage v. Stuart, 916 
Dothard v. Sheid, 237, 682a, 683, 1266 
Dotterer v. Bennett, 295, 312 
Doty ». Doty, 1014 

». Miller, 934a 

V. Quincy, O. & K. C. R. R., 933, 
943 
Doubet V. Kirkman, 641 
Doud V. Duluth Milling Co., 170, 646 

V. Guthrie, 101 

V. Mason aty R. R., 1154, 1171a 
Dougherty v. Bunting, 946 

V. Chestnutt, 934, 935 

V. Dore, 685d 

V. Duvall, 961 

V. Miller, 334 
Dougherty Co. v. Tift, 1173 
Douglas V. Fox, 366 

V. Gausman, 637, 638, 1328 

V. Hoffman, 382 

V. Minnesota Transfer Co., 851 
Douglass V. Boonsborough Turnpike 
R. R., 1112 

V. Campbell, 40 

». Clarke, 786 

t). Ferris, 681o 

V. Kessler, 692c 

V. Kraft, 517 

V. McAllister, 513 

V. Moses, 762 

V. Murphy, 623, 817, 999i 

V. Northern Cent. Ry., 1367 

i). Ohio River R. R., 107o, 170, 184 

V. Railroad, 873 

V. Tousey, 451 
Doushkess v. Burger Brewing Co., 622 
Douty V. Bird, 121d 
Dover v. Twombly, 6926, 692(£ 
Dow V. Adams, 999o 

V. Humbert, 56, 107d, 547, 562 

ti. Julien, 363, 565, 565o 

V. Simset T. & T. Co., 1354 

V. Winnipesaukee Gas & Electric 
Co., 1260 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2847 



Dowa^ac Manuf. Co. v. Corbit, 170 

V. White Rock Lumber Co., 753 
Dowd V. Westinghouse A. B. Co., 1371 
Dowdney v. McCuUom, 279c 
Dowell ». Griswold, 335 
Downer v. Baxter, 803 

V. Madison County Bank, 819 

V. Smith, 976 

V. Whittier, 326, 339o 
Downes v. Back, 508 
Downey v. Beach, 331 

V. Biggs, 1012o 

V. Burke, 660 

V. Stirton, 449 
Downie v. Ladd, 976 
Downing v. Brown, 447 

V. Outerbridge, 366, 496 
Downs V. Allen, 334 
Dows V. Greene, 78 

V. Rush, 531 

V. National Exchange Bank, 317, 
497 
Dox V. Dey, 295, 313a, 1258 
Doyle V. American F. Ins. Co., 725 

V. Brundred, 964, 975 

V. Bums, 5166 

V. Days, 134 

V. Dixon, 1330 

V. Eccles, 261 

V. Kansas City & S. Ry., 1149 

V. Kiser, 873, 1289 

V. Lamson, C. & S. Ry., 331a 

V. St. James' Church, 310 
Doysher v. Adams, 1031 
Draffen v. Boonville, 692e 
Drago V. Mead, 991, 992 
Drake v. Auerbach, 261, 531 

V. Baker, 1009, 1011 

V. Bosworth, 1154 

V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 184, 
937, 947 

V. Cockroft, 1058 

V. Eubanks, 1028 

V. Gilmore, 579 

V. Holbrook, 777 

V. Hudson River R. R., 1183, 1184, 
1185 

V. Kiely, 226j 

i». Lady Ensley Coal, Iron & R. 
Co., 35 



Drake v. Mitchell, 797, 798 

V. Sherman, 6956 

V. Sworts, 681o, 682, 682a 

V. Webb, 680, 688, 688a 
Dranow v. MacDonald, 832 
Draper v. Baker, 385 

V. Randolph, 1067 

V. Saxton, 1296 

V. Sweet, 764 

V. Tucker, 575, 1372 
Dreamland, The, 587 
Drenner v. Charles, 498 
Dresch v. Elliott, 1347 
Dresher v. Becker, 1027 
Dresser v. Missouri & I. R. R., 695 
Dresser Manuf. Co. v. Waterston, 499 
Drew V. Baby, 71, 74 

V. Beall, 1027 

V. Ellis, 566(i 

V. Pedlar, 414, 426a, 1023 

V. Sixth Ave. R. R., 86c, 570 

V. Towle, 956, 959, 982, 983 
Drews v. E. P. Burton & Co., 35 

V. Williams, 685o 
Drexel v. Man, 907, 919 
Dreyfus v. Peruvian Guano Co., 538 

V. St. Louis & S. Ry., 43A 
Driess V. Frederich, 1216, 1348 
Driessel v. Urkart, 364 
Driggera v. Bell, 313a, 734 
Driggs V. Dwight, 607a, 1266 
Drinkwater v. Dinsmore, 67 
Drischman v. McManemin, 984 
DriscoU V. Gaffey, 43i 

V. Humes, Cruise & Smiley Co., 
1347 

». Taunton, 1149 
Driver v. Western Union R. R., 224, 

1151, 1154, 1169 
Droege v. Interurban St. Ry., 1259 
Drogmund v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 

171a 
Drohn v. Brewer, 365, 372, 487a 
Drown v. Allen, 451 

V. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 
481 
Druckeru. Manhattan Ry., 1184, 1191, 

1198, 1205 
Drumm v. Cessnum, 457, 459, 1331 

II. Harrison, 98 



2848 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Drumm-Flats Com. Co. i;. Edmission, 

317 
Drumm S. & F. Co. v. J. Horace Mc- 

Farland Co., 610 
Drummond v. Eau Claire, 923, 1110 

V. Humphreys, 834 
Drury v. Connor, 908 

V. Holden, 964 

V. Merrill, 637 

V. Midland R. R., 331o, 1165a 

V. Reg., 331a 

V. Shumway, 962 
Druse v. Wheeler, 929 
Dryden v. Kellogg, 959 
Dryer v. Lewis, 205 
Diyfoos V. Uhl, 752 
Dubay v. Kelly, 975, 982 
Du Belloix v. Lord Waterpark, 287 
Duberley v. Gunning, 355, 1235 
Dubois V. Allen, 469 

V. C. Co., 655e 

V. Decker, 491 

V. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 
655 

V. Glaub, 136 

V. Hermance, 236, 240, 802 

V. Spinks, 565 
Du Bost V. Beresford, 265 
Dubuque Lumber Co. v. Kimball, 310 
Dubuque W. & C. A. v. Dubuque, 121d 
Duche V. Wilson, 603 
Ducktown S. C. & I. Co. v. Barnes, 937 
Duckworth v. Ewart, 622 

V. Johnson, 575 
Dudley v. Johnson, 915 

V. Reynolds, 330 
Duecker v. Goeres, 760 
Duff V. Judson, 638c 
Duff & R. F. Co. V. Read, 359, 378 
Duffield V. Pike, 301c 

V. Rosenzweig, 926, 1157 

V. Scott, 805 

V. Tobin, 1326 
Duffy V. Donovan, 918 

V. Duncan, 311c 

V. Frankenberg, 361 

V. Jacobson, 1347 

I/. Shockey, 408, 418 

i;. Thompson, 873 
Dufort V. Abadie, 47, 443 



Dugan V. Anderson, 90, 636d, 666 
Duggan V. Baltimore & O. R. R., 461, 

462, 463 
Dugger V. Wright, 692c 
Duggleby Bros v. Lewis Roofing Co., 

620 
Dugue V. Levy, 615 
Duke p. Missouri Pac. R. R., 171, 171a, 
483 

V. Morning Journal Assoc, 368 

V. Norfolk & W. Ry., 752 

V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 577, 1367 
Dukeman v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. 

Ry., 584o 
Dulany v. Nolan County, 1143 
Du Laurans v. St. Paul R. R., 363 
Dulieu V. White, 43a, 436, 43d, 4Sh 
Dulin V. Knechtel, 999/ 
DuUaghan v. Fitch, 412 
DuUea v. Taylor, 194 
Duluth & W. R. R. V. West, 1171 
Duluth Furnace Co. v. Iron Belt Min- 
ing Co., 737 
Dumars v. Miller, 959, 961, 1006, 1009 
Dumois V. Mayor of New York, 926 
Dumont v. Smith, 1261 
Dumont, The, 589 
Dunbar v. Cowger, 482, 1370 

V. Montgomery, 191 
Duncan v. Baker, 660 

V. Blundell, 674 

V. Brown, 449 

V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 565d 

V. Hill, 834 

V. Holder, 824a 

V. Jackson, 1368 

V. Johnson, 615 

V. Levee Comrs., 1166ii 

V. McMahan, 734 

V. Markley, 86, 91, 924 

V. Matney, 565a 

V. Nassau El. R. R., 1152o, 1165c 

V. Stalcup, 363o, 364, 365, 366 

V. Tanner, 1012 

V. Western U. T. Co., 93 Misc. 
500; 881a 

V. Western U. T. Co., 87 Wis. 173; 
888 
Dunford v. Weaver, 554 
Dungan v. Von Puhl, 909o 



TABLE OF CASES 



2849 



[Eeferences 

Dunham v. Bower, 1072 

V. Commercial Ins. Co., 715 

V. Hastings Pavement Co., 612a, 
633, 636c 

V, Miller, 364 

V. New England M. I. Co., 591 

V. Orange L. Co., 615 
Dunkin v. Hoquiam, 1354 
Dunlap V. Clark, 638c, 639o 

V. Hand, 674 

V. International Steamboat Co., 
873 

V. Snyder, 1291 

V. Toledo, A. A. & G. T. Ry., 1159 

V. Wagner, 1255 

V. Watson, 303 

V. Wiseman, 346 

V. Yoakum, 908, 909 
Dunlavey v. Watson, 1249 
Dunlevie v. Spangenberg, 734 
Dunlevy v. Wolferman, 1336 
Dunlop V. Gregory, 418 
Dunn V. Allen, 608, 615, 636a 

V. Barnes, 271 

V. Bushnell, 768 

V. Daly, 211 

V. Hannibal & S. J. R. R., 844, 854 

V. Hereford, 665 

V. Johnson, 227 

V. Mackey, 611, 829 

V. Moore, 673/ 

V. Morgenthau, 411 

V. Patrick, 913 

V. Smith, 45 

V. Sutliff, 688 

V. W. U. Tel. Co., 4SJ 
Dunnahoe v. Williams, 537 
Dunnica v. Sharp, 1006, 1012a 
Dunning v. Young, 685A; 
Dunphy v. People, 549 

V. Whipple, 556, 692i 
Dunseth v. Bank of the U. S., 922 
Dunshee v, Geoghegan, lOU, 1012 

V. Standard Oil Co., 301, 333, 373a 
Dunsworth V. Wood M. Co., 277 
Dunton v. Brown, 673a 
Duplaptier v. Pjgman, 301 
Dupont V. McAdow, 638, 638a 
Dupuis V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 252, 
1138, 1171 

179 



are to sections] 

Dupuis V. Saginaw Valley Tr»e. Co., 

1354 
Dupuy V. Ducondu, 962 
Duran v. Ayer, 326, 789 
Durand v. Ansofiia, 1108 
Durant v. Banta, 695 
Durant Mining Co. v. Percy Consol- 
idated Mining Co., 935 
Durell V. Pritchard, 12566 
Durfee v. Newkirk, 358 

V. Union Pac. Ry., 1342 
Durgan v. Boston, 1162 
Durgin v. Exp. Co., 851 

V. Neal, 36o 
Durham Consolidated Land & Imp. 

Co. V. Guthrie, 1012a 
Durham R. R. v. Bullock Church, 

1165a, 11716 
Durkee v. Gunn, 834a 

V. Mott, 608, 610, 614 
Duroe v. Stephens, 968, 979 
Durose V. St. Paul City Ry., 1347 
Durst V. Burton, 738 

V. Swift, 405, 417 
Durward v. Hubbell, 829 
Duryea v. Mayor, 93, 96, 317 

V. Rayner, 753 
Duryee v. New York, 316, 319 
Dusenbury v. Ellis, 836 
Dusb V. Fitzhugh, 385 
Dushane «, B^wdict, 766, 1040, 1058 
Duskey v. Green Lake SJjipgle Co., 

1357 
Dustan v. Carter, 301c 

V. McAndrew, 753 
Dustin V. Newcomer, 959, 1007 
Dustin Co. V. St. Petersburg Ins. Co., 

742 
Dutch Church v. Ackerman, 301c 
Dutilh V. Gatliff, 711 
Dutro V. Wilson, 74 
Dutiton V. Solomonson, 756 
Duval V. Dav^, 451 
Duvall V. Craig, 966, 969 

V. Ferwerda, 742a 

V. Fuhrman, 637a, 640a 

V. Price, 675c 
Duzan v. Meserve, 324o 
Dwelle V. Wilson, 686j 
Dwiggins v. Clark, 753 



2850 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Dwight V. Elmira C. & N. R. R., 933 
Dwight Bros. Paper Co. v. Western 

Paper Co., 1334 
Dwinel v. Brown, 416 
Dwyer v. Carroll, 988a 

V. Chicago, S. P. M. & O. Ry., 673o 

V. Tulane Educational Fund, 134 

V. United States, 314, 677 

V. Woulfe, 547 
Dyar v. Slingerland, 345 
Dyas V. Southern Pac. Co., 577, 578 
Dye V. Chicago & A. R. R., 860 

V. Denham, 387 

V. Dye, 688 

V. Forbes, 622a 

V. Mann, 789 
Dyer v. Dorsey, 410, 1008 

V. Hutchins, 36a 

V. Jones, 661 

V. National S. N. Co., 118 U. S. 
507; 597a 

V. National S. N. Co., 14 Blatch. 
483; 596 

V. The National Steamship Co., 
596 

V. Rich, 746 

V. St. Paul, 1110 

V. Wightman, 1154o, 1157 

V. Woodbury, 544 
Dyett V. Hyman, 55, 684a 
Dyke v. National Transit Co., 363, 

383c, 503, 935 
Dyson v. Phelps, 4926 

E 

E. E. BoUes W. W. Co. v. U, S., 933, 

934 
E. E. Thomas Fruit Co. v. Start, 674 
E. F. Hallock Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. 

Gray, 4926 
E. H. Frost & Co. v. Powell, 1070 
E. G. Beechwood Ice Co. v. American 

Ice Co., 936 
Eachus V. Los Angeles Consolidated 

Electric R. R., 1123, 1151 
Eads V. Murphy, 1031 
Eager v. Atlas Ins. Co., 715 

V. Grimwood, 471 
Eagle V. Charing Cross Ry., 1103, 1096 



Eagle & P. M. Co. v. Gibson, 101 
Eagle Distillery v. Hardy, 1347 
Eagle Insurance Co. v. Lafayette In- 
surance Co., 728 
Eagle Iron Works v. Des Moines S. R. 

Co., 762 
Eagle Point, The, 588, 597o 
Eagle Tube Co. v. Edward Barr Co., 

618 
Eaken v. Harrison, 673 
Eakin v. Scott, 405, 408, 414 
Eames v. Armstrong, 979 

V. Brattleboro, 866, 172a, 574 

i;. New England Worsted Co., 
1166d 

V. Worsted Co., 1119 
Earl V. Bull, 1072 

V. Spooner, 681 

V. Tupper, 234, 372 
Earle v. Earle, 335 

V. Gorham Mfg. Co., 538 

V. Holdemess, 54, 4946 

V. Sawyer, 1217 
Earley v. Winn, 451 
Early v. Friend, 304, 307, 908, 909a 
Earnest v. Express Co., 851 
Earp V. Lilly, 377a 
East V. Pace, 59 
East & West India D. & B. J. Ry. v. 

Gattke, 2 
East AngUan Ry. v. Lythgoe, 668 
East Brandywine & W. R. R. v. Ranck, 

1142 
East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge Co., 

1187 
East India Co. v. Evans, 1288 
East India, etc., Co. v. Gattke, 1090 
East Jersey Co. v. Slingerland, 1345 
East Jersey W. Co. v. Bigelow, 182, 949 
East Line & R. R. Ry. v. Smith, 1367 
East Moline Co. v. Weir Plow Co., 107a, 

109, 413 
East Penn. R. R. v. Heister, 1167, 1179 

V. Hottenstine, 1142 
East S. L. C. & W. Ry. v. Illinois S. Co., 

252, 253 
East St. Louis v. Lockhead, 1121 

V. Wiggins Ferry Co., 1121 
East St. Louis E. S. R, R. v. Burns, 
573o 



TABLE Oi^ CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2851 



East Tennessee Land Co. i;. Leeson, 334 
East Tenn. V. & G. Ry. v. Fleetwood, 
380 

V. Hale, 854 

V. Herrman, 852 

V. Johnson, 316, 846, 854 

V. Lee, 368 

V. Lockhart, 1216 

V. Staub, 90, 666a, 170 

V. Toppins, 573 
East Tennessee & V. R. R. v. Love, 

1148 
East Texas F. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 302 
Easter v. Foster, 691a 
Easterbrook v. Erie R. R., 947 
Easterly Mach. Co. v. Spencer, 990a 
Eastern Ice Co. v. King, 762 
Eastern R. R. v. Benedict, 497, 736 

V. Tuteur, 618 
Eastern Texas R. R. v. Eddings, 1143, 

1171c 
Easterwood v. Quin, 448d 
Eastland v. Caldwell, 451 
Eastman v. Harris, 499 

V. Mayor, 251 

V. Mayor of New York, 1328 

V. Sanborn, 226o, 228 
Easton v. Cressey, 1012a 

V. Erie R. R., 854 

V. Houston, etc., R. R., 312 

V. New York, etc., Ry., 685 

V. P. & O. Canal Co., 412 

V. Vandom, 334 
Eastwick v. Saylor, 911 
Eatman v. New Orleans P. Ry., 234, 

359 
Eaton V. Bell, 344 

V. Boissonnault, 325 

V. Boston, Concord & Montreal 
Railroad, 1110, 1117 

V. Gladwell, 556, 657 

V. Kelly, 692i 

V. Knowles, 959 

V. Lambert, 801 

V. Langley, 534 

V. Larimer & W. R. Co., 685 

V. Lyman, 24 Wis. 438; 979 

V. Lyman, 26 Wis. 61; 961 

V. Lyman, 30 Wis. 41; 98, 973 

V. Melius, 303, 704, 1297 



Eaton V. Redick, 1012a 

V. Tallmadge, 979 
Eaves v. Blaenclydach Colliery Co., 

675a 
Ebenreitter v. Dahlman, 18 Misc. 351; 
248a, 497 

V. Dahlman, 19 Misc. 9; 182, 189 
Eberg v. Heisler, 1006 
Eberhart v. Chicago, M. & S. P, R. R., 

1125a, 1149 
Ebert v. Mutual R. F. L. Assoc, 730 
Eby V. Schumacher, 565 
Eccles V. Radam, 446 

V. Stephenson, 814, 831 
Echols V. Louisville & N. R. R., 246 
Eckels V. Boylan, 1354 

11. Edison, 1356 
Eckenrode v. Chemic?! Co., 613 
Ecker v. Cottrell, 624 
Eckerd v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 171 
Eckert v. Wilson, 295 
Eckington & S. H. Ry. v. McDevitt, 18 
D. C. App. Cas. 497; 620 

V. McDevitt, 191 U. S. 103; 630 
Eckles V. Carter, 1071 
Eckstein v. Whitehead, 837 
Economy L. & P. Co. v. Cutting, 937 
Eddings v. Seabrook, 1169 
Eddington v. Nix, 968, 979 
Eddowes v. Hopkins, 1276 
Eddy V. Clement, 646a, 1061 

V. Coffin, 988a 

V. Fay Fruit Co., 742a 

V. Harris, 862 

V. Lafayette, 845 
Eddystone, The, 599 
Eden v. Lexington R. R., 573, 573a 
Edenton v. Dickinson, 334 
Edgar v. Castello, 575 

V. Joseph Breck & Sons Co., 768 

V. Newall, 451 
Edge V. Griffin, 641a 
Edgerton v. Clark, 906 

V. Page, 1058 
Edington v. Pickle, 650 
Edmands v. Boston, 1157 
Edminson v. Baxter, 844 
Edmison v. Sioux Falls Water Co., 685c 
Edmonds v. Edmonds, 692 

V. Shehan, 807a 



2852 



TABLE OF CASES 
[ReferenceB are to sections] 



Edmondson v. Hyde, 271 

V. Machell, 472, 474 
Edmundson v. Nuttall, 60, 80 
Edsall V. Howell, 933 
Edward v. Clark, 970, 976, 978 
Edwards v. Bates County, 346 

V. Beebe, 178 

V. Bodine, 685^, 685re 

ti. Cheyenne, 253 

V. Collson, 762 

V. Dickinson, 262 

V. Edwards, 685, 685o 

V. Erwin, 101 

V. Hood-Barrs, 36a 

V. Kansas City Times Co., 451 

V. Leavitt, 386 

V. Moody, 334 

V. Pope, 685^ 

V. Reynolds, 1278 

V. Ricks, 362 

V. San Jose Printing, etc., Co., 451 

». Seattle R. & S. Ry., 1360 

V. Todd, 1068 

V. Van Patten, 997 

V. Weissinger, 489 

V. White, 692y 

V. Wiester, 1258 

V. WilUams, 399, 413, 426 
Eells V. St. Louis, K. & N. W. R. R., 851 
Effinger v. Kenney, 278 
Efroymson v. Smith, 1336 
Efta V. Swason, 978 
Egan V. British M. I. Co., 714 

V. Browne, 9906 

V. Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. R., 
1347 

V. Martin, 976 

V. Yeaman, 972 
Eggert V. Pratt, 1011 
Eggett V. Allen, 1337 
Eginoire v. Union County, 580 
Ehmer v. Title Guarantee & T. Co., 

831a 
Ehreb v. Schuylkill R. E. S. R. R., 1164 
Ehrgott V. Mayor, 122, 1270o 
Ehrman v. Brooklyn City R. R., 1356 

V. Stanfield, 685 
Eichar v. Kistler, 476 
Eichbaum v. Caldwell Bros. Co., 735c 
Eichhorn v. Central R. R., 1356 



Eicholz «. Bannister, 774 

V. Niagara Falls H. P. & M. Co., 
1354 
Eilerman v. Farmer, 1348 
Einolf V. Thomson, 1326 
Einstein v. Dunn, 497(i 
Eisele v. Oddie, 218 
Eisendrath v. Knauer, 80 
Eisenhart v. Ordean, 387 
Eisenlohr v. Swain, 138 
Eiswald v. Southern Express Co., 109 
Ekins V. East India Co., 275, 317 
Ekstrand v. Barth, 643 
Ela V. Card, 959 

V. French, 623, 817 
Elba V. BuUard, 226/, 485a, 476 
Elbert County v. Swift, 1123a 
Elbin V. Wilson, 365 
Elbinger Actien-Gesellschaft v. Arm- 
strong, 161, 740 
Elder v. Kutner, 682, 682o, 683 

V. Lykens V. C. Co., 932 

V. Sabin, 685^ 

V. True, 962 
Eldon V. North-Eastern Ry., 1081 
Eldorado M. & S. W. Ry. v. Everett, 

1138 
Eldred v. Eames, 304 
Eldridge v. Crow, 793a 

V. Gorman, 107a, 933, 934 

V. Mather, 1046 

V. Rowe, 656 

V. Wadleigh, 774 
Electric Co. v. Battery Co., 109 
Electric S. & C. Co. v. Consolidated 

L. & R. Co., 614 
Elfenbeim v. Abbondanza, 623 

V. Von HafMi, 
Elgin V. Joslyn, 655 
Elgin W. P. & P. Co. V. Nichols, 1243 
Elias V. Manhattan R. R., 1208 
Eliot V. Allen, 1276 
EUza Lines, The, 324 
Elizabeth, The, 675 
Elizabeth v. Nicholson Pavement Co., 
1237 

V. Pavement Co., 1230, 1231, 1243 
Elizabethtown & P. R. R. v. Geoghegan 
412 

V. Helm's Heirs, 1138d 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2853 



EKzabethtown & P. R. R. v. Pottinger, 

613, 615, 1290, 1293 
Elizabethtown, L. & B. S. R. R. v. 
Catlettsburg, Water Co., 1123 

V. Combs, 95 
Elizabethtown, L. & S. R. R. v. 
Combs, 1165 

V. Tierney, 1138d 
Elkhart v. Ritter, 484, 485a 
Elkhart & W. R. R. v. Waldorf, 95 
Elkhart M. A. Assoc, v. Houghton, 732 
Elkhart Rubber Works v, Neff, 667 
Elkin V. Moore, 307 

V. People, 692d 
Ell V. Northern Pac. R. R., 316, 319 
EUer V. Carolina & N. W. Ry., 45a, 84 
EUery v. Cunningham, 305 
EUesmere Brewery Co. v. Cooper, 807a 
EUet V. Paxon, 1009, 1023 
Ellick «>. Wilson, 43h 
EUiff V. Oregon R. & N. Co., 121& 
Ellington v. Bennett, 253, 942 
Elliot V. Heath, 1066 
Elliott V. Bankston, 987 

V. Barry, 1252 

V. Beeson, 345 

V. Caldwell, 659 

V. Pitchburg R. R., 940 

V. Herz, 363 

V. Hughes, 745 

V. Missouri, K. & T. Ry., 685j 

V. Newport St. Ry., 1356 

V. Rossell, 844 

V. Russell, 487 

V. Van Buren, 1216, 372, 386 

V. Walker, 834 

V. Wilkinson, 660, 662 
Ellis V. Albany City Ins. Co., 726 

V. Allen, 565, 692i 

V. American T. Co., 876 

V. Barlow, 439a 

V. Bible, 325 

V. Brockton Pub. Co., 358 

V. Chinnock, 772 

V. Cleveland, 43^ 

V. Durkee, 1266 

V. Fips, 767 

V. Gosney, 774 

V. Hamlen, 659 

V. Hilton, 226a 



Ellis V. Howard, 567 

V. Jeans, 911 

V. Kansas City, S. J. & C. B. R. R., 
948 

V. Pond, 834 

V. Salmon, 1011, 1256e 

V. State, 1275 

V. Welch, 1154a 

V. Willard, 636 

V. Wire, 502, 516a, 936 
Ellison V. Dove, 606a, 626 

V. Johnson, 762 

V. Simons, 762 
EUithorpe A. B. Co. v. Sire, 607, 753 
EUmaker v. Franklin F. I. Co-, 720 
EUsler v. Brooks, 106, 670 
Ellsworth V. Chicago & 1. W. Ry., 1154 

V. Potter, 373 

i;. Railway, 1148 

t). Fau-bury, 1371 
Ellsworth, M. N. & S. R. R. v. Gates, 
1156 

V. Maxwell, 1148 
EUyson v. Lord, 692y 

V. International & G. N. R. R., 113 
Elmendorf v. Classen, 619 
Elmer v. Fessenden, 67 
Elmira Iron & Steel Rolling Mill Co. v. 

Elmira, 325 
Ehnore v. Booth, 1039 

V. Naugatuck R. R., 846 

V. Rugely, 406 
Elms V. Southern Power Co., 385 

V. Wright-Blodgett Co., 68574, 685^ 
El Paso & N. E. Ry. u. Lumbley, 846 

V. Sawyer, 860 
El Paso & S. W. R. R. v. Eichel & 
Weikel, 611 

e. Muftle, 1367 
EI Paso El. Ry. v. Furber, 45fe 

V. Murphy, 4S5(i 

V. Shaklee, 1355 

V. Sierra, 1257, 1365 
El Paso S. W. R. R. v. Barrett, 1270 
Elphland v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 67 
Else V. Ferris, 449 
Elser V. Southern Pac. Co., 222, 865, 

1342 
Elshire v. Schuyler, 573, 1251 
Elswick Steamship Co. v. Montaldi, 851 



2854 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Elwell V. Skiddy, 66, 1041, 1068 
Elwood V. Addison, 575 

V. Deifendorf, 797 

V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 
878 
Elwood Planing Mills Co. v. Harting, 

620, 646o, 762 
Ely V. Parsons, 109 

V. Rochester, 1182 

V. Stannard, 440 
Elzy V. Adams Express Co., 165 
Emblen v. Myers, 360, 368 
Emblin v. Dartnell, 1277 
Embrey v. Owen, 100 
Emeric v. Tams, 334 
Emerson v. Atwater, 311 

V. Booth, 689a 

V. Howland, 667 

V. Miller, 449, 1335 

V. Pacific C. & N. P. Co., 92 Minn. 
523; 834c 

V. Pacific C. & N. P. Co., 96 Minn. 
1; 162, 200, 633 

V. Prov. H. M. Co., 798 

V. Schoonmaker, 316, 320 

V. Simm, 1211, 1219 

V. Skidmore, 324a, 370 

V. Western Union R. R., 1177 
Emery v. Boston & M. R, R., 1216, 483 

V. Boyle, 416 

V. LoweU, 42, 226/, 948 

V. Phila., 581 

V. Smith, 651, 6735 
Emigh V. Baltimore, & Ohio Railroad, 

1225 
Emilie, The, 595 
Emily, The, v. Carney, 844 
Emily Souder, The, 271 
Emlen v. Lehigh Coal, etc., Co., 3406 
Emma Kate Ross, The, 593 
Emmerich v. Chegany, 620 
Emmerson v. Dardanelle Bank, 439e 
Emmitt v. Brophy, 334 
Emmons v. Alvord, 4706 

V. Quaid, 226; 
Emory v. Addis, 1248 
Emory Mfg. Co. v. Salomon, 741 
Empie v. Empie, 90, 636i 
Empire Dairy Feed Co. v. Chatham 
Nat. Bank, 1032 



Empire G. M. Co. v. Bonanza G. M. 
Co., imd 

V. Jones, 974 
Empire Mill Co. v. Lovell, 60 
Empire Realty Corp. v. Sayre, 1006 
Empire S. C. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. 

F. Ry., 119 
Emporia Lumber Co. v. League, 934 
Empress Eugenie, The, 594 
Empson v. Griffin, 1278 
Emrich V. Ireland, 901, 910 
Endel v. Norris, 494 
Enders v. Board of PubUc Works, 313a, 

747 
Enfield V. Colbum, 442 
Engel V. Fitch, L. R. 3 Q. B. 314, 334; 
1003, 1007 

V. Fitch, 10 B. & S. 738, 743; 1018 
Engell V. Fitch, 1295 
Engelman v. Metropolitan St. R. R., 

226/ 
Engelsdorft v. Sire, 984, 984a 
Engine Co. v. Du Bois, 182 
Engineering Co. v. Broadman, 752a 
England v. Slade, 901 
Engle V. Jones, 363, 363a, 364, 365 

V. Simmons, 43i 
Engleken v. Hilger, 1252 

V. Webber, 1251 
Englert v. New Orleans R. & L. Co., 

1371 
English V. Clerry, 1369 

V. Delaware & H. C. Co., 865 

V. Harvey, 301c 

V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 124 

V. Southern Pac. Co., 574a 

V. Spokane Com. Co., 762 

V. Thomason, 973 

V. Wilson, 656 
Engstrom v. Merriam, 984 
Engvall V. Des Moines City Ry., 1367 
Enid & A. Ry. v. Wiley, 932 
Enlow V. Hawkins, 143 
Ennis v. Buckeye Pub. Co., 90, 613, 615 

V. Pulhnan P. C. Co., 650 

V. Shiley, 1251 
Eno V. Christ, 932 
Enoch V. Mining & P. Co., 1258 

V. Spokane Falls, etc., R. R., 1143o, 
1154a 



TABLE OF CASES 



2855 



' [References 

Enos V. Enos, 445, 446 

Enos Kre Escape Co. «. Lanagan, 1351 

Ensley v. Ensley, 301c 

V. Nashville, 933 
Enterprise Loan Bldg. Society v. Balin, 

303 
Enterprise Lumber Co. v. Porter, 1122 
Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Campbell, 742 
Entzminger v. Seaboard A. L. Ry., 1326 
Epenbaugh v. Gooch, 6856 
Ephland v. Mo. Pao. R. R., 860 
Epperly v. Bailey, 656, 1048 

V. Little, 1258 
Eppinger v. Canepa, 3116 
Epstein v. U. S. Fidelity Co., 682a 
Equitable B. & L. Assoc, v. Bank of 

Commerce, 120 
Equitable F. Ins. Co. v. Quinn, 722 
Equitable G. L. Co. v. Baltimore, C. T. 

& M. Co., 742a 
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Lester, 

123 
Equitable Mort. Co. v. Thorn, 168, 622 
Erb V. Fidelity Ins. Co., 726 
Erben v. LorUlard, 671 
Erber v. Dun, 448a 
Erd V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 1296 
Ericius v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 1367 
Erickson v. Bennet, 1017 

V. Brooklyn Heights Ry., 1356 

V. Green, 419 
Erie & P. R. Ry. v. Douthet, 250 

V. Johnson, 636A 
Erie C. I. W. v. Barber, 121d, 178, 646, 
767 

v. Tatum, 762, 773 
Erie Co. N. G. & F. Co., Ld., v. Carroll, 

226^1 
Erie R. R. V. Erie & W. T. Co., 588 
Erie Ry. v. Lockwood, 317, 846 
Erie T. & T. Co. v. Grimes, 880 

V. Kennedy, 383a 
Ernest v. StoUer, 816 
Ernst V. Hogue, 691c 
Eroe, The, 67 
Erskine v. Johnson, 655 

V. Van Arsdale, 303, 340 
Erwin v. Bowman, 565 

V. Harris, 734 

V. Neversink S. B. Co., 1367 



are to sections] 

Erwin v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry., 5716 
Esch V. Chicago, M. «&; St. P. R. R., 

1171 
Eschbach v. Hughes, 155, 992 
Escher v. Carroll County, 482a 
Escondido G. & D. Co. v. Glaser, 416, 

999/ 
Escopinche v. Stewart, 841 
Escott V. White, 567, 660 
Eshleman v. Bolenius, 808a 

V. Martic, 932, 947 
Esmond v. Brown, 301c 

V. Van Benschoten, 416 
Espy V. Jones, 639, 641 
Esseltyne v. Elmore, 857 
Essex V. Daniell, 1026 

V. Local Board of Acton, 1091, 1102 
Essex's Estate, In re, 3116 
Essex M. Co. v. Pacific Mills, 734 
Estabrook v. Smith, 67, 979 
Estebene v. Estebene, 339a 
Estell V. Myers, 54 Misc. 174; 439 

I). Myers, 56 Misc. 800; 777, 1053 
Estep V. Fenton, 656 

V. Morton, 1046 
Esterly v. Cole, 310 
Estes V. Chesney, 565, 565a 

V. Desnoyers Shoe Co., 667 

V. Odom, 1028 
Estill V. New York, L. E. & W. R. R., 

852 
Esty V. Baker, 91 
Etches V. Aldan, 714 
Eten V. Luyster, 71, 1216, 218, 9906 
Etheridge v. Binney, 302o 
Etherington v. Prospect P. & C. I. 

R. R., 574a 
Etnyre v. McDaniel, 326 
Etringham v. Earhart, 490 
EttUnger v. WeiU, 1027 
Eufaula v. Simmons, 95, 948 
Eupes V. Nephue, 387 
Eureka Fertilizer Co. v. Baltimore C. 

S. &. R. Co., 1042 
Eureka Marble Co. v. Windsor Mfg. 

Co., 226 
Europe, The, 597 
Eva V. McMahon, 426a 
Evans v. Bennett, 668 

V. Brander, 555, 678 



2856 



TABLE OF CASES 
IReferences are to sections] 



■Evans v. Chapel, 324a 

V. Chicago & R. I. R. R., 613 

V. CiBcinnati, S. & M. Ry., 194 

V. Elliott, 633 
. V. Fisher, 334 
' p.'FbrSter, 857 ■' ' 

V. Fulton, 965, 966, 973 

V. Harrtis, 1271 

V. Hugh^J^- 1042 

V. lowa^City, 1353 

V. Irvin, 12'r2 

I). Keystoiie Gas Co., 933 

V. Ky^dr, 256, 999? 

V. Min. Co., 316 

V. Moseley, 413, 414 

V. Murphy, 182, 990 

V. Oregon Short Line R. R., 574o 

V. Rice, 326 

V. Root, 824 

V. Rudy, 850 

V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., ISO 

V. Smith, 448d 

V. Trenton, 673e 

V. Western Brass Mfg. Co., 310 

V. Western U. T. Co., 881, 883 

V. White, 334 
Evansich v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry., 486c 
Evansville & J. H. R. R. v. McKinney, 

851 
. Evansville & R. R. R. v. Charlton, 1154 
Evansville & T. H. R. R. v. Talbot, 
1337 

V. Welch, 117 
Evansville El. Ry. ». Lerch, 1347 
Evansville H. & S. Co. v. Bailey, 482, 

4^4, 485 
Evansville R. R. v. Cochran, 1167 

V. Fitzpatrick, 1167 

V. Stringef, 1167 

V. Swift, 1149 
Evarts v. Santa Barbara C. R. Co., 578 
Eve V. Rodgers, 637 
Eveleigh V. Stitt, 959 
Evelyn v. Raddish, 994 
Evening News Association v. Tryon, 

453 
Evening Post Co. v. Hunter, 448c 

V. Rhea, 448c, 1335 
Everest v. Buffalo L. O. Co., 1233 
Everett v. Gores, 89 Wis. 421; 333, 934a 



Everett v. Gores, 92 Wis. 627; 934o 

V. O'Leary, 817 

V. State, 688a 

tr. Union P. R. R., 253 
Everroad v. Qabbert, 36o 
Evers v. Weil, 1347 

V. Wig^ns Ferry Co., 1348 
Everson v. Powers, 666, 667 

V. Seller, 499 
Evertson v. Sutton, 1343 
Evetts V. Tendick, 909a 
Eviston V. Cramer, 378, 380 
Evrit V. Bancroft, 1023 
Ewalt V. Gray, 914 
Ewalis V. Wilmington C. Ry., 483, 484, 

485 
Ewart V. Kerr, 493a 
Ewart Mfg. Co. v. Baldwin C. C. Co., 

1222 
Ewell V. Daggs, 327 
Ewen V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 575, 580 
Ewing V. Blount, 58, 515 

V. Handley, 909a 

V. Ingrato, 673/ 

n. Janson, 664, 674 

V. Louisville, 66 

V. Pittsburgh, C. & S. L. Ry., 43o, 
43d, 43fe 

V. Reilly, 692/, 795, 801 
Excelsior F. I. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 

725 
Excelsior Needle Co. v. Smith, 106 
Excelsior Terra Cotta Co. v. Harde, 

3146 
Exchange Bank v. Appalachian Land & 
Lumber Co., 695c 

V. Gaitskill, '777 
Explorer, The, 599 
Eyennan v> Provenchere, 332 



F. E. Wilcox V. James Campbell, 220 
F. M. Davis I. W. Co. v. White, 1331 
Fabbri v. Kalbfleisch, 273 
Fabbricotti v. Launitz, 1048 
Factors' Ins. Co. v. New Harbor Pro- 
tection Co., 334 
Fadner v. Filer, 1337 
Fogan V. Hook, 6556 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2857 



Fagan v. Whitcomb, 999fe 

Fagen v. Davison, 1017 

Fagnan v. Knox, 457, 458, 459 

Fahey v. Frawley, 800 

Fahlbusch v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 

1371 
Fahy v. North, 655c 
Fail V. MoRee, 636j 

V. Presley, 317, 435a 

V. W. U. Tel. Co., 45a, 894 
Faile v. Crawford, 301& 
Fair v. Himmel, 1345 

V. London & N. W. Ry., 485 
Fairbank Co. v. Bahre, 924 
Fairbanks v. Rtchburg, 1171 

V. Kerr, 128 

V. Witter, 234, 360 
Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Midvale 

Co., 750 
Fairchild v. California S. Co., 41, 47 

V. Rich, 36a 

V. Rogers, 834a 
Fairchild-Gilmore- Wilton Co. v. South- 
em Refining Co., 734 
Faires v. Cockerell, 807 
Fairfax v. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 

251, 873 
Fairfield v. Baldwin, 549 

V. Jeffreys, 613 
Fairley v. Western U. T. Co., 892 
Fairlie v. Lawson, 678 
Fairman v. Fluck, 1057 
Faivre v. Mandersohied, 1251, 1309 
Fake v. Eddy, 339 
Falardeau v. Couture, 359 
Falconer v. Roberts, 906 
Falender v. Blackwell, 1367 
Fales V. Easthampton, 1171 

V. Hemenway, 633a, 636g, 636i , 

V. McKoen, 762 
, Falk V Fletcher, 497 

V. Waterman, 233, 234 
Falkner.ti. Hendy, 310a 

V. Woodard, 973 
Fall V. McMurdy, 1028 
Fall River Nat. Bank v. BuflBnton, 

708 
Fall River Print Works v. Fall River, 

1112a 
Falldin v. Seattle, 1360 



Fallenstein v. Boothe, 1326 

Fallon V. Manning, 77, 6916 

Falvey v. Standford, 1368 

Fancher v. Goodman, 755 

Faneuil Hall Ins. Co. v. Liverpool 

Ins. Co., 728 
Fanjoy v. Portland, 1336 
Fanning v. Osborne, 1194 
Farbenfabriken of Elberfield Co, v. 

Beringer, 43fc, 443 
Farber v. National Forge & Iron Co., 

695 
Fargo V. Browning 1154c 
Fargo Gas & Coke Co. v. Fargo Gas 

& Electric Co., 777, 1027 
Faris V. Lewis, 125, 441, 769 
Farish v. Reigle, 1326 
Farkas v. Towns, 64 
Farley v. Charleston, 171o 

V. Craig, 999d 

V. Gate City G. L. Co., 93, 947 

V. Union M. L. I. Co., 730 
Farman v. Lauman, 386 
Farmer v. Cedar Rapids, 1112a 

V. Parmer, 341 

V. Francis, 655e, 656 

V. Grand Trunk Ry., 67a 

V. Randel, 1030 
Farmers' & C. B. L. & S. Assoc, v. Rec- 
tor, 1023 
Farmers' & M. Bank v. Maines, 549 
Farmers' & M. I. Co. v. Cuff, 723o 
Farmers' Bank v. Calk, 344 

V. Glenn, 977, 979 

V. McKee, 506, 506o 

V. Reynolds, 340 
Farmers' C. M. Co. v. Albermarle R. 

R., 122, 948 
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern 
Pac. R. R., 326 

V. Toledo A. A. & N. M. Ry., 
571a 
Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. New Hol- 
land Turnpike Co., 724 
Farmers' Turnpike v. Coventry, 543 
Famham v. Moor, 6916 

V. Ross, 419 
Famsworth v. Boardman, 789 

V. Garrard, 664a, 1036 

V. Rockland, 11666 



2858 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Famsworth v. Western U. T- Co., 53 
Hun 636; 70, 366, 385 

V. Western U. T. Co., 6 N. Y. 
Supp. 735; 926 
Farnum v. Peterson, 968, 979 
Farr v. Griffith, 620, 999 

V. Newman, 557 

V. Rasco, 451 

V. Ward, 289 
Farrand v. Bouchell, 310 
Farrand & V. O. Co. v. Board of 

Church Extension, 537 
Farrant v. Olmius, 395 
Farrar v. Brackett, 468 

V. Christy, 677 

V. Eash, 537 

V. Midland Electric R. R., 1152 

V. Nightingal, 975 

V. United States, 6926 
Farrar Lumber Co. v. T. H. Johnston 

& Co., 1039 
Farrel v. Colwell, 252, 433 
Farrell v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 1367 

V. School Dist., 667 
Farrell Lumber Co. v. Deshon, 968 
Farrely v. Cincinnati, 35 
Farrer v. Caster, 742 
Farrington v. Cheponis, 1270 

V. Payne, 856 
Farris v. Ware, 1027a 
Farson v. Gilbert, 691a 
Farwell v. Bean, 962 

V. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 1171 

V. City of Cambridge, 1129, 1149 

V. Davis, 850 

V. Price, 825 

V. Sturdivant, 345 

V. Warren, 51 111. 467; 929a 

V. Warren, 70 111. 28; 363, 383c, 
388 
Fasholt V. Reed, 3016 
Easier v. Beard, 416, 972 
Fatjo V. Seidel, 1335 
Faucette v. New Orleans, 302a 
Faulkenau v. Rowland, 1367 
Faulkner v. Bartley, 554a 

V. Closter, 109, 734 

V. Davis, 484, 1345 

i>. South P. R. R., 854 

V. State, 692i 



Faulkner v. White, 695 
Faunce v. Burke, 419 
Fauntleroy v. Hannibal, 346 
Faurot v. Gates, 8076 
Faust V. Pope, 932 
Favar v. Riverview Park, 189 
Favor v. Philbrick, 856a 
Favorita, The, 18 Wall. 598; 593 
Favorita, The, 4 Ben. 132; 592 
Favorite v. Cottrill, 361 
Favorite, The, 598 
Faw V. Marsteller, 268 
Fawcett v. Purcell, 304 

V. Woods, 959, 979 
Fay V. Allen, 1238 

V. AlUance Ins. Co., 714 

«>. Bradley, 339a 

V. Brewer, 72 

V. Guynon, 90, 636^, 636i 

V. Haven, 106 

V. Parker, 353, 356, 358, 386 

V. Swan, 47, 372 
Fayetteville & L. R. R. v. Combs, 
1155, 1165c 

V. Hunt, 1154 
Feagin v. Beaseley, 762, 772 
Feamster v. Withrow, 801 
Fears v. MerrUl, 912 
Feaster v. Richland Cotton MiUs, 614, 

642 
Featherston v. Wilkinson, 843 
Feaver v. Montreal Tel. Co., 878 
Feddeck v. St. Louis Car Co., 1353 
Feder v. Gass, 736 
Federal I. & B. Bed Co. v. Hock, 633 
Federal Lumber Co. v. Reece, 6226 
Fee V. Orient Fertilizing Co., 669 
Feehan v. Hallman, 734 
Feeney v. Bardsley, 657, 659 

V. Long Island R. R. Co., 171a, 
172, 483 
Feeter v. Heath, 308a, 834 
Fehlinger v. Boos, 411 
Feige v. Burt, 257 
Feize v. Thompson, 98 
Feland v. Berry, 161 
Feldman v. Levy, 1326 
Felkner v. Scarlet, 473 
Fell V. McHenry, 80 

V. MuUer, 734 



TABLE OF CASES 



2859 



[References 

Fell f . Newberry, 614 

V. Northern Pae. R. R., 380, 484, 
866 

V. Rich, H. C. M. Co., 47 

V. Union Pac. Ry., 317 
Feller v. McKillip, 317 
Fellowes v. New Haven, 1108 

V. Gihnan, 692 
Fellrath ti. Peoria German School 

Assn., 36a 
Fells V. Vestvali, 664 
Felsch V. Babb, 1354 
Felt V. Puget S. E. Ry., 577, 1367 
Felton V. Fuller, 58, 316, 432o, 565a 

V. Smith, 704 
Felts V. ColUns, 83a 
Fenelon v. Butts, 462, 464, 466 
Fenley v. Kendall, 325 
Fenn v. Dugdale, 705 
Fenster v. Bass, 407 
FeUstermaker v. Tribune Pub. Co., 

451 
Fenton v. Braden, 762a 
Fentz V. Meadows, 1254 
Fenwick v. RatcUff, 3406 

V. Robinson, 715 
Ferguson v. Baker, 691c 

V. Buchell, 55 " 

V. Buckell, 933 

V. Davis Co., 47 

V. Day, 531a 

V. Ehret, 1363 

V. Evening Chronicle Pub. Co., 
361 

V. Firmenich Mfg. Co., 948 

V. Hosier, 762 

V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 865 

V. Tobey, 1293 

V. Truax, 1354 

V. Wilson, 1256b 
Fergusson v. Anglo-Amer. T. Co., 

154, 890 
Femander v. Dunn, 301b, 959, 981, 982 
Fern wood M. H. A. v. Jones, 432a, 

990a 
Fero V. Ruscoe, 447 
Ferrand v. Boushel, 603 
Ferrea v. Chabot, 312 

V. Tubbs, 336 
Ferrer v. Beale, 29 



are to sections] 

Ferrerro v. Western U. T. Co., 885 
Ferrier v. Shoenberg Mercantile Co., 

486b 
Ferringer v. Crowley, O. & M. Co., 

1353 
Ferris v. Comstock, 191, 768 

V. Hard, 324a, 325 

V. Spooner, 636(i 

V. U. S., 615 
Ferry v. Diabenstadt, 976 

V. Ferry, 343 
Fessenden v. Forest Paper Co., 1041 
Fessler v. Love, 695, 734, 1031 
Fessman v. Seeley, 405, 414 
Fetter v. Beale, 84 
Fettretch v. Leamy, 924 
Fewings v. Tisdal, 668 
Fewings, Ex parte, 330, 334 
Fiala v. Ainsworth, 694 
Fidelity & C. Co. v. Seattle,, 932 
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. South- 
ern Ry. News Co., 226 
Fidelity & D. Co. v. Colvin, 679a 

V. Tinsley, 685i 

V. Walker, 685;i 
Fidelity L. & I. Co. v. Buzzard, 575 
Fidelity Tr. Co. v. Shelbyville W. & 

L. Co., 95 
Fidler v. McKinley, 637, 640a 
Fiedler v. St. Louis, B. & M. Ry., 101 
Field V. Columbet, 910 

V. Insurance Co. of N. A., 301 

V. Kinnear, 738 

V. Plaisted, 1326 

V. Winheim, 1355 
Fielder, v. Starkin, 760 
Fielding v. Silverstein, 691a 
Fields V. Baum, 302a 

V. Buinum, 377 

V. Johnston, 95 

V. Lancaster Cotton Mills, 361 

V. Williams, 55, 317, 494, 565a 
Fifield V. Whittemore, 1237 
Fifth B. B. Assoc, v. Sylvester, 1023 
Fifth Baptist Church v. Baltimore 

& O. R. R., 334 
Fifth Nat. Bank v. New York El. R. R., 
1199, 1210 

V. Providence Warehouse Co., 79, 
492 



2860 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Figh V. United States, 642 

Filbert v. Philadelphia, 657 

File V. Wilmington City Ry., 482, 483, 

484, 485 
Filer v. New York C. R. R., 86c, 485 

V. Smith, 464 
Fillebrown v. Hoar, 44o, 126&, 226j, 

988a 
Fillingham v. Michigan United Rys., 

1309 
Final v. Backus, 499 
Finch V. Heermans, 645 

V. Northern Pac. R. R., 1342 

V. Zenith F. Co., 753 

V. Strickland, 916 
Finckh v. Evers, 803 
Findlater v. Borland, 200 
Findlay v. Carson, 685, 6856 

V. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 633, 
536 
Findley v. Findley, 692fc 
Fine v. Navarre, 458 
Finigan v. Sullivan, 1337 
Fink V. Busch, 1270 

V. Farmers' Bank, 692(i 

V. Newark, 1128 

V. Thomas, 387 
Finke v. Allen, 751 
Finkelstein v. Kramer, 1357 
Finken v. Elm City Brass Co., 482 
Finlen v. Heinze, 3016 
Finley v. Carothers, 334 

V. Hershey, 92, 941, 947 

V. Tucson, 108, 679o 
Finn v. Providence Gas & W. Co., 1168 

V. W. R. R., 76 
Finnerty v. Tipper, 446 
Finney v. Cadwallader, 610 

V. Smith, 233, 234, 359, 444 

V. Warren Ins. Co., 712a 
Finton v. Eggleston, 982 
Fiola V. McDonald, 1337 
Firard v. Taggard, 755 
Firbank v. Humphreys, 836 
Fire Assoc, v. Rosenthal, 723 
Firemens' Fund Ins. Co. v. Western 

Refrigerating Co., 324a 
Firmin v. Firmin, 502, 934 
Firmstone v. Spaeter, 1016 
First Bank of Mertens v. Steffens, 364 



First Baptist Church ». Sch'y & Troy 

R. R., 32, 35, 946 
First Church v. Boston, 1147 
First Ecclesiastical Society w. Loomis, 

325 
First Nat. Bank of Louisville v. Boyce, 

80, 497c 
First Nat. Bank v. Briggs, 692d 

e. CajfoU, 183 
V. Felker, 256 

V. First Nat. Bank, 633c, 8186, 
819 

f. Fourth National Bank, 77 N. 
Y. 320; 107rf, 6336, 812, 813, 
814 

V. Fourth Nat. Bank, 89 N. Y. 
412; 324a, 813, 819 

V. Gerke, 692a 

V. Haulenbeek, 695 

V. Kansas Grain Co., 361 

e. Minneapolis & N. E. Co., 517a 

V. Oliver, 695 

V. Red River Val. Nat. Bank, 249, 
517a 

V. Rogers, 688 

V. St. Cloud, 170a 

V. Strang, 257 

V. Tenney, 834 

V. Thomas, 130 

V. Thurman, 149 

V. Turner, 333 
First Nat. Bank of Bamesville v. W. 

U. T. Co., 602, 707d, 877, 897 
First Nat. Bank v. Williams, 2266, 

442 
First Orthodox Cong. Church v. Wal- 

rath, 413 
First Parish in Shrewsbury v. Smith, 

931 
First Parish in Woburn v. County of 

Middlesex, 1158, 1165 
First State Bank v. Martin, 681o 
Firth V. Fitzgerald, 1268 
Fischer v. Hayes, 1231 

V. Hope M. L. I. Co., 730 
Fish i;. Dana, 795 

V. Dodge, 949, 1258, 1293 

V. FoUey, 636A 

V. Glass, 667 

V. Nethercutt, 506a, 584, 1261 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2861 



Fish «. Rochester, 1108 

V. Seeberger, 305 
Fishburne v. Engledore, 363a, 364, 366, 
367 

V. Sanders, 339 
Fishell V. Winans, 313fl! 
Fisher v. Anderson, 411 

V. Baden Gas Co., 1142 

V. Barber, 1356 

V. Bidwell, 301 

V. Brown, 104 Mass. 359; 80, 259 

V. Brown, 70 Fed. 670; 504 

V. Cobb, 76 

V. Dowling, 929 

V. Budding, 334 

V. Edington, 917 

V. Fallows, 805 

». Fisher, 703 

V. George S. Jones Co., 256 

V. Goebel, 209, 643, 647e, 993 

V. Grace, 71 

V. Jansen, 180a, 255, 485o 

V. Kay, 1007, 1010 

V. Kenyon, 637, 638 

V. Met. El. Ry., 368 

V. Naysmith, 65, 929a, 1130 

V. New Orleans Anchor Line, 318 

V. Newark City Ice Co., 753 

V. Otis, 331 

V. Patterson, 446, 451 

V. Prince, 54, 4946 

V. Samuda, 1036 

V. Sargent, 298 

V. Val de Travers Asphalte Co., 
240, 241 

V. Waupaca E. L. & R. Co., 1367 
Fisher, H. S. & M. Co. v. Warner, 753 
Fishwick v. Sewell, 506a 
Fisk V. Brunette, 304 

V. Fowler, 416 

V. Gray, 411 

V. Hicks, 762, 777 

V. New York, 593 

V. Tank et al, 767, 1060 
Fiske V. Chesterfield, 331a 

V. Foster, 700 
Fitch V. Bragg, 1240 

V. Broadway & S. A. R. R., 1348 

V. Casey, 6556 

V. Fitch, 1261 



Fitch V. Livingston, 316 

V. Western U. T. Co., 130 S. W. 
■44; 157, 159 

V. Western U. T. Co., 150 Mo. 
149; 879 
Fitchburg v. C. M. Corp. v. Melven, 

999c, 999e 
Pitchett V. North Pennsylvania R. R., 

346 
Fitts t>. Reinhart, 657 
Fitzgerald v. Allen, 655d 

V. Boulat, 388 

V. Caldwell, 341 

V. Chicago, K. & W. R. R., 1109 

V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 47, 
383o, 865 

V. Clark, 935 

V. Dobson, 41, 47, 1355 

V. Evans, 762 

V. Stewart, 451 
Fitzgibbon v. Brown, 460 
Fitzgibbons v. Freisem, 66, 988 
Fitzhugh V. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 1169 

V. McPherson, 345 

V. Wiman, 78 
Fitzimmons v. Chapman, 194, 441 
Fitzjohn v. Mackinder, 126c 
Fitzpatrick v. Boston & M. R. R., 101, 
215, 221a, 927, 931 

V. Cottingham, 415 

V. Flagg, 685y 

V. Great W. Ry., 43;^ 

V. New York El. R. R., 1203 
Five Tracts of Land v. United States, 

252 
Fixel V. Tallman, 682o 
Fixen v. Blake, 1030 
Flagg V. Roberts, 449, 1328 

V. Tyler, 691a 
Flagler v. Hearst, 512 
Flaherty v. St. Louis Transit Co., 1356 
Flake v. Carson, 312 
Flam V. Lee, 457, 458 
Flanagan v. Chicago City Ry., 1364 

V. Womack, 361, 386, 489 
Flanagin v. Wetherill, 334 
Flanary v. Wood, 388, 1344 
Flanders v. Canada, A. & P. S. S. Co., 
85a 

V. Tweed, 233 



2862 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Flannery v. Anderson, 293, 310 

V. B. & 0. R. R., 380, 388 
Flannigan v. Stauss, 1335 
Flash, The, 843 

Flavin v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R., 1342 
Fleckner v. Bank, 336 
Fleckton v. Spicer, 1012, 1022 
Fleddermann v. St. Louis Transit Co., 

1270 
Fleet V. HoUenkemp, 368 
Fleetham v. Therres, 945 
Fleetwood v. Bamett, 640a, 641 
Fleischmann v. Samuel, 254a, 496 
Fleishman v. Southern Ry., 873 
Fleming v. Bailey, 467 

V. Baltimore & O. R. R., 927 

V. Bank of New Zealand, 171o 

V. Beck, 113, 646 

V. Chicago, etc., R. R., 1110, 1154 

V. Grigg, 734 

V. Lobel, 1367 

V. Loughren, 1345 

V. Lunsford, 657 

V. Newport Ry., 1096 

V. Potter, 279c 

V. Robertson, 278 

V. R. R., 1163 

V. Shenandoah, 41 

V. Sherry, 934, 934a 

V. Tolee, 676 

V. Wilmington & W. R. R., 1164 
Flentham v. Steward, 789 
Fletcher v. Auburn & S. R. R., 1182, 
1183 

V. Brown, 917 

V. Burrows, 451 

V. Button, 1010 

V. Derrickson, 789 

V. Dyche, 397, 402, 408, 419 

V. Gillespie, 618 

V. Great Western Ry., 1085 

V. Harmon, 1069 

V. Jackson, 808 

V. Jacob Dodd Packing Co., 170o, 
192 

V. Rylands, 33 

V. Tayleur, 164, 1329 
FUck V. Wetherbee, 191, 768 
Flickinger v. Omaha Bridge, etc., Co., 
1154c 



Flinn v. Barber, 301 

V. Flinn, 301c 
Flint V. Clark, 107d, 451 

V. Douglass, 918 

V. Gauer, 1251 

V. Lyon, 1040, 1060 

V. Norwich & W. R. R., 860 

V. Steadman, 966, 981 
Flint & P. M. R. R. v. Detroit, etc., 
R. R., 1152a 

V. Gordon, 1154a 
Flint & Walling Mfg. Co. v. Beckett, 

121d 
Florence v. Pattillo, 763 
Florence Cotton Co. v. Louisville Bank- 
ing Co., 306 
Florence E. & W. N. R. R. v. Pember, 

1165 
Florence E. D. & W. V. R. R. v. Shep- 
herd, 1148 
Florence M. Co. v. Daggett, 618 
Florence Oil & Refining Co. v. Farrar, 

762 
Florence Wagon Wks. v. Salmon, 413 
Flori V. St. Louis, 139 
Florida Athletic Club v. Hope Lumber 

Co., 762 
Florida, C. & P. R. R. v. Foxworth, 
573a, 678 

V. Sullivan, 574a 
Florida N. R. R. v. Southern Supply 

Co., 647b 
Florida R. & N. Co. v. Webster, 368 
Florida Southern R. R. v. Brown, 1110 

V. Parsons, 932 
Floumoy v. Lyon, 237, 682a 
Flowers v. Smith, 383a 
Floyd V. Hamilton, 373a 

V. Mann, 7356 

V. U. S., 614 

V. United States, 617 
Floyer v. Edwards, 606c 
Fludyer v. Cocker, 288, 1025 
Flureau v. Thomhill, 1001 
Flynn v. Kings County El. R. R.,- 
1208 

V. Trask, 209, 992 

V. Union S. & G. Co., 686 
Flynn, In re, Slid 
Flynt V. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry., 107d 



TABtE OF CASES 
[References Are to sections] 



2863 



Fobes V. Rome, W. & O. R. R., 1183, 

1184, 1193, 1194 
Focht V. Rosenbaum, 425 
Focke V. Blum, 497& 
Fodges V. Fries, 222 
Foeller v. Heintz, 657 
Foels V. Tonawanda, 221& 1355 
Fogarty v. Finlay, 559 
Fogg V. Hill, 1295 
Fogle V. Delmas, 302o 
Foley V. Everett, 1354 

V. Foley, 304 

V. Forty-second St. M. & S. N. A. 
Ry., 2436 

V. Houston, B. & T. Ry., 1334 

V. McKeegan, 413, 1010 

V. Manufacturers' & B. I. Co., 722 

V. Martin, 365, 1334 

V. Northrup, 368 

V. Southwestern Land Co., 502, 989 
Folk V. Graham, 975 
Folkes V. Chadd, 1291 
FoUansbee v. Adams, 636d, 741 
FoUett V. Jewett, 448d 
FoUiott V. Hunt, 6556 
Folmar v. Carlisle, 302 
Folmsbee v. Amsterdam, 1112a 
Folsom V. Apple River L. D. Co., 36a, 
191, 937 

V. Clemence, 84, 856 

V. McDonough, 419 

V. Marlette, 310a 

V. Parker, 992 

V. Plumer, 343 

V. Underhill, 483 
Folwell V. Providence Journal Co., 448d, 

451 
Folz V. Tradesmen's T. & S. F. Co., 678 
Fomin v. Oswell, 818 
Fondavilla v. Jourgensen, 185 
Fontaine v. Baxley, 40, 156, 607 

V. Schulenberg & B. L. Co., 999A; 
Fooks V. Homer, 302 
Foos V. Sabin, 753 
Foot V. Tracy, 451 
Foote V. American Product Co., 484 

V. Blanchard, 301, 308 

V. Burnet, 959 

». Cincinnati, 999d 

V. Lorain R. R., 1154a, 1166e, 1174 



Foote V. Merrill, 502, 503, 933, 934 

V. Sprague, 420 

V. Van Zandt, 692 
Forbes v. American Mut. L. Ins. Co., 
729 

V. Aspinall, 713 

V. Boston & L. R. R., 853 

V. Hunter, 644 

V. Loftin, 226/, 4866 

V. Manf. Ins. Co., 711 

V. Parker, 81 

V. Thomas, 439d 
Force v. Elizabeth, 343, 346 

V. Sawyer Boos Mfg. Co., 1237 
Ford V. Atlantic C. L. R. R., 107a 

V. Charles Warner Co., 380 

V. Cheever, 358 

V. Chicago & N. W. R. R., 95, 924a 

V. Fargason, 370, 603 

V. Hixon, 324a 

V. Illinois ■ Refrigerating Constr. 
Co., 2126 

V. Ingles Coal Co., 419 

V. Jones, 47 

V. Keith, 807 

V. Lincoln County Comrs., 1151, 
1168 

V. Loomis, 237, 6851 

V. Monroe, 570 

V. Oliphant, 762, 765, 777 

V. Santa Cruz R. R., 924 

V. Schliessman, 1266 

V. Schliessway, 70 

V. Tirrell, 308a 

V. Williams, 58, 226c 
Ford H. L. Co. v. Clement, 618 
Fordham v. Thompson, 685j, 685A; 
Fordyce t». Easthope, 673a 

V. McCants, 575, 1367 

V. Manuel, 1342 

V. Nix, 1342 

V. Peper, 821 
Fore V. Western N. C. R. R., 1110, 

1166 
Foreman v. Western U. T. Co., 8946 
Forey v. Western Stage Co., 664a 
Forgie v. Henderson, 37 
Forhmann v. Consolidated Traction 

Co., 380 
Forke v. Homann, 1042 



2864 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Forked Deer Pants Co. v. Shipley, 666 
Forman v. Forman, 343 

V. Miller, 674 
Forney v. Geldmacher, 124 
Forrest v. Buchanan, 171 

V. Collier, 683 
Forst V. Rothe, 70 
Forstall v. Louisiana Planters' Assoc, 

346 
Forster v. Forster, 326 
Forsyth Boulevard, In re, 1151 
Forsyth v. Dickson, 549, 557, 692 

V. Hastings, 673o 

V. Mcintosh, 982 

V. Mann, 618, 734 

V. Palmer, 58, 565 

V. Wells, 503, 935 

V. Wilcox, 1148 
Fort V. Orndorff, 209, 608, 6466, 991 

V. Saunders, 496, 497 

V. Union Pacific R. R., 86a 
Fort Covington v. United States & C. 

R. R., 932 
Fort Pitt Gas Co. v. Evansville Con- 
tract Co., 435a 
Fort Scott, W. & W. Ry. v. Lightbum, 
484, 490 

V. Tubbs, 932 
Fort Smith A. & S. Co. v. Nedry, 1354 
Fort Wayne v. Hamilton, 932, 1148 
Fort Wayne E. L. Co. v. Miller, 606o 
Fort Worth v. Howard, 217, 1123, 1143 
Fort Worth Ry. v. Smith, 1266 
Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. v. Bell, 1347 

V. Flynt, 942 

V. Hogsett, 937a 

V. Hyatt, 574 

V. Ikard, 852 

V. Morrison, 56 S. W. 931; 574d 

V. Morrison, 123 S. W. 621 ; 1270o 

V. Morrison, 129 S. W. 1157; 1270 

V. Richards, 854 

V. Travis, 43fc, 1307 

V. Walker, 67 

V. White, 310 
Fort Worth & N. O. Ry. v. Smith, 48i, 
380, 929 

V. Wallace, 866, 937a 
Fort Worth & R. H. St. Ry. v. Hawes, 
486a 



Fort Worth & R. G. Ry. v. Bowen, 
1357 

V. Downie, 1123 

V. Garvin, 1149 

V. Kime, 1367 

V. Wilkinson, 1367 
Fort Worth, et al. v. Williams, 1348 
Fortescue v. Kings County Lighting 

Co., 932 
Fosdick V. Greene, 107d, 519 

V. Van Husan, 343 
Foss V. Heineman, 7356 

V. Norrifl, 567 
Fossum V. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 

924o 
Foster v. Adams, 756 

V. B. I. Crooker Co., 1348 

V. Baer, 762 

V. Boston, 1177 

V. Brooks, 4945 

V. Chamberlain, 527 

V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 1348 

I). Chicago R. R., 1152 

V. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry., 
161, 863 

V. Dow, 839 

V. Dupre, 312 

V. Elliott, 101 

V. Equitable Ins. Co., 725 

V. Fletcher, 931 

V. Foster, 970 

V. Gressett, 1012o 

V. Kennedy, 1027 

V. Miranda, 587 

V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 115 Mo. 165, 
21 S. W. 916; 1355 

V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 128 S. W. 36; 
67a 

II. Napier, 691c 

V. Pierson, 956 

V. Preston, 819 

V. Rodgers, 762 

V. Scoffield, 475 

V. Stafford Nat. Bank, 685 

V. Thompson, 959, 981 

V. Weaver, 83, 503 

V. Wise, 692y 
Poster Lumber Co. v. Arkansas Valley 

& W. Ry., 1123 
Foster-Milburn Co. v. Chinn, 448c 



TABLE OF CASES 
[Bef erencea are to sections] 



2865 



Fotheringham v. Adams Ex. Co., 49, 

1330 
Foulger v. Newcomb, 1271 
Fmilkes v. Nashville & D. R. R., 5706 
Fountain v. West, 448a 
Fourth Nat. Bank v. City Nat. Bank, 
1031 

V. Mayer, 682, 682a, 683 

V. Noonan, 836 
Foust V. Gregg, 704, 708 
Fowle V. New Haven & N. Co., 1110 

V. New Haven & N. R. R., 95, 1112 

V. Ward, 1256^ 
Fowler v. Armour, 665 

V. Baltimore & O. R. R., 316, 334 

V. Bott, 999e 

V. Com., 692i 

V. Davenport, 317 

V. Des Moines & K. C. Ry., 95 

I). Fowler, 451 

V. Gilman, 80 

V. Old North State Ins. Co., 722, 
920 

V. Pauly, 766 

V. Payne, 1057 

V. Stonum, 78 

V. Strickland, 702, 801 

V. Waller, 667 
Fowlkes V. Southern Ry., ISO, 226j 

V. Webber, 1258 
Fox V. Baltimore & 0. R. R., 1171 

V. Boston & M. R. R., 119, 164 

V. Brissac, 988a 

V. Chicago, S. P. & K. C. R. R., 
1270a 

V. Davenport Nat. Bank, 814 

V. Davis, 460 

V. Everson, 768 

V. Harding, 130, 194, 613 

V. Hartford, etc., R. R., 346 

V. Hay ward, 842 

V. Jones, 424a 

V. Kitton, 636d 

V. Knickerbocker Engr. Co., 1220, 
1229 

V. Longly, 3016 

V. Mountjoy, 685jjr 

V. Oakland Consol. St. R. R., S73a, 
575, 1367 

V. Oriel Cabinet Co., 685A 

180 



Fox V. Poor Ridge & Sugar Creek Turn- 
pike Road Co., 153a 

V. St. John, 86c, 486o 

V. Stevens, 376 

V. Stockton, C. H. & A. Works, 
766, 767 

«. Wray, 440 

V. Wunderlich, 387, 1249, 1254 
Foxall V. Barnett, 241, 463 
Foxcroft V. Nagle, 340c 

V. Nevens, 802 
Foy V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 853 
Foye V. Dabney, 667 
Frain v. Metropolitan L. I. Co., 730 
Fralick v. Presley, 527 
Fraloff V. New York, C. & H. R. R. R., 

244, 317 
Francis v. Brock, 1330 
France v. Gaudet, 1216, 163, 198, 250, 

497, 506 
Franchot v. Leach, 1024 
Francis v. Castleman, 302a 

V. Rucker, 700 

I). St. Louis T. Co., 864 

0. Schoellkopf, 65, 948, 1025, 1203 

V. Western U. T. Co., 876, 894 
Franck v. Stout, 623 
Frank v. Colhoun, 271 

V. Manhattan M. & Dispensary, 
668 

V. Morrison, 295 

V. Tatum, 374 
Frank Parmelee Co. v. Wheelock, 1358 
Franke v. St. Louis, 1367 
Frankel v. Stem, 682 
Frankfort v. Kendrick, 1358 
Frankfort & K. R. R. v. Windsor, 1295 
Frankfort & V. T. Co. v.. Hulette, 171o 
Franklin v. Cam,pbell, 916 

V. Jackson, 932 

V. Louisville & N. R. R., 152 

V. Schermerhom, 1366 

V. Smith, 203 

V. Southeastern Ry., 574 
Franklin County v. Layman, 337 
Franklin C. Co. v. McMillan, 502, 935 
Franklin F. I. Co. v. HamiU, 720 
Franklin Ins. Co. v. Sears, 818a 
Franz v. Hillerbrand, 363 
Fraser v. Berkeley, 487a 



2866 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] ■ 



Fraser v. Buffalo, 482a 

V. Echo, M. & S. Co., 190 

V. Little, 677, 678 
Frawick v. Martin-Brown Co., 361 
Fray t». Voules, 103 

Frazer v. Bigelow Carpet Co., 309, 318, 
321 

V. Supervisors of Peoria, 966 
Frazier v. Clark, 608 

V. Fredericks, 531 

V. Laughlin, 693 

V. Lomax, 1275 

V. St. Louis Smelting & Refining 
Co., 172a 
Fred Krug B. Co. v. Healey, 76 
Fred W. Wolf Co. v. Galbraith, 742a 
Frederick v. Shane, 1131 

V. Willoughby, 758 
Fredonia Gas Co. v. Bailey, 614 
Freeborn v. Norcross, 538 
Freedle v. North Car. R. R., 1129, 1148 
IVeehold Loan Co. v. McLean, 325 
Freeland v. Edwards, 302a 

i>. Muscatine, 932 

V. Pennsylvania R. R., 1120 
Freelove v. Gould, 929, 943 
Freeman v. Aylor, 657 

V. Carter, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 571; 
675 

V. Carter, 81 S. W. 81; 580a 

V. Cleary, 1354 

V. Clute, 190 

V. F. P. Harbaugh Co., 778 

V. Field, 191, 937 

V. Fogg, 633a, 636i 

V. Freeman, 310a, 311 

V. Harwood, 519 

V. Hyett, 1031 

V. Illinois C. R. R., 5706 

V. Luckett, 493 

V. McElroy, 1367 

V. Mercantile M. A. Assoc, 113 

V. Mireles, 4866 

V. National Benefit Society, 732 

V. Ortiz, 1355 ' 

V. People, 677 

V. Sayre, 924, 932 

V. Strobehn, 107a 

V. Tinsley, 449 

V. Underwood, 76 



Freeman v. Venner, 439 

Freeman's Bank v. Rollins, 805 

Freer v. Cowles, 527 

Freese v. Crary, 107a , 

V. Tripp, 378, 386, 1254, 1256 
Frei v. Vogel, 77, 531, 6916 
Freidenheit v. Edmundson, 127a, 347, 

360 
Freligh v. Piatt, 1053 
Fremont, E. & M. V. R. R. v. Bates, 
1165, 1171 

V. French, 1347 

V. HarUn, 942, 1110 

V. Lamb, 1167 

v. Leslie, 1374 

V. Marley, 316, 318, 937, 1293 

V. Meeker, 11656 

V. Root, 335 

V. Whalen, 1110, 1141 
French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 
1126 

V. Bait, 98 

V. Connecticut R. L. Co., 182, 948 

V. French, 304 

V. Fuller, 74, 931 

V. Grindle, 704 

V. Kennedy, 339a 

V. Lowell, 1147 

i), McCready, 6856 

V. Milwaukee, 1172a 

V. Parish, 805 

V. Ramge, 109, 199 

V. Snyder, 545 

V. Vining, 214a, 765 

V. Wilkinson, 1309 

V. Willet, 554 
Fresh v. Cutter, 364 
Freund v. Murray, 32 
Frey, The, 599 
Frey v. Drahos, 77 

V. Fitzpatrick-Cromwell Co., 3406 
Freyman v. Knecht, 755, 762 
Frick V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ry., 574 
Frick Co. v. Falk, 2126, 764 
Frick Coke Co. v. Painter, 1142 
Friedenstein v. United States, 753 
Friedenwald v. Baltimore, 1148 
Friedland v. McNeil, 648a 

V. Myers, 167, 984a 
Friedlander v. Pugh, 614 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections]' 



2867 



Friedly v. Giddings, 366, 1343 
Friedman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 
1334 

V. Horn, 171a 
Friedrichs v. Belt Co., 1177 
Friel v. Plumer, 467 
Friend v. Dunks, 1256 

V. Green, 531a 

V. IngersoU, 483 

V. Pittsburgh, 337 
Friend & T. L. Co. v. Miller, 157, 742a 
Fries V. Watson, 334 
Frigstad v. Great Northern Ry., 1326 
Frink v. Coe, 368 

V. Schroyer, 485 

V. Southern Exp. Co., 302a, 678 

V. Tatman, 734 
Frisbee v. Hoffnagle, 1053 

V. Marshall, 70, 86a 
Frisbie v. Rosenberg Bros. & Co., 755 
Frrsia, The, 587, 588 
Frith V. Chicago, D. & M. Ry., 95 
Fritts V. New York & N. E. R. R., 195 
Fritz V. Hobson, 91, 924, 1194 

u. Pusey, 970, 976 

V. Watertown, 1261 
Frobisher v. Fifth Ave. Transp. Co., 

1270a 
Frohreich v. Gammon, 164a, 767 
Frohs V. Dubuque, 486 
Fromm w. Ide, 225 

V. Sierra Nevada S. M. Co., 517 
Front St. M. & O. R. R. v. Butler, 1067 
Frost V. Foote, 415 

V, Jordan, 237, 682a 

V. Knight, 758 

V, Mixsell, 692e 

V. Tarr, 606a 

V. Willard, 78 

V. Winston, Slid 
Frothingham v. Everton, 812) 814, 822 

V. Morse, 492, 518 
Fruin-Bambrick Construction Co. v. 

Ft. Smith & W. R. R., 419 
Fry V. Bennett, 386 

V. Dubuque & S. Ry., 172, 484 

V. Great Northern Ry., 1350 

V. Hillan, 171, 483 

V. Leslie, 334 
Frye v. Maine C R. R., 130, 194 



Fuchs V. Koerner, 206, 207, 667 
Fuhrman v. Interior Warehouse Co., 

768 
Fuhry v. Chicago City Ry., 1364 
Fulda V. Caldwell, 449 
Fulkerson v. Eads, 106 

V. George, 447 
FuUam v. Stearns, 103 
Fuller V. Atlanta, 1108, 1110 

V. Brown, 655c 

V. Chamberlain, 1279 

V. Chicopee Mfg. Co., 1166d 

V. Curtis, 121d, 151 

V. Dean, 451 

v: Eddings, 1169 

V. Fenner, 443, 1335 

V. Fuller, 31 Id 

V. Jackson, 1270a 

V. Mfg. Co., 1119 

V. Mt. Vernon, 1110 

V. MulhoUan, 976 

V. Reed, 651 

V. Rice, 651, 660, 662 

V. Robinson, 1338 

V. Ruby; 999c 

V. Wing, 692fc 
FuUerton, The, 1357 
FuUerton v. Fordyce, 214a 

V. Miller, 681a 
FuUman v. Cummings, 99, 101 
Fulmore v. St. Paul City Ry,, 1363 
Fulsome v; Concordj 41, 860, 485 
Fulton w. Dover,- 1148 

V. Fletcher, 688a 

V. H&ffemnger, 674 
Fulton County v. Amorous, 1154o 
. Fultz V. Davis, 278 

V. Wycoff, 195, 441 
Fulweiler v. Baugher, 975 
Funk V. Buck, 331 

V. Creswell, 972 

V. Dillon, 432a 

ti. Punk, 856 

V. H. S. Kerbaugh, 379 

V. Hendricks, 517a 

V. Voncida, 974, 979 
Funke v. Allen, 753 
Fuqua v. Gambill, 464 

V. Massie, 674 
Furber v. McCarthy, 678 



2868 



TABLE OF CASES 
[Rrferenoes are to sections] 



Furbush v. Goodwin, 1159 
Furlong v. Cooney, 906, 910 

V. Polleys, 246, 734, 739 
Furman ». Brooklyn Heights R. R., 
1354 

V. Elmore, 959 
Furman, St., Matter of, 1146, 1149 
Furnas v. Durgin, 789, 962, 972, 974 
Fumess, Withy & Co. v. Hall, 856 
Furnish v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 102 

Mo. 669; 1355 
Furnish v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 102 Mo. 

438; 48, 486a 
FurnisB v. Ferguson, 975 

V. Hudson River Railroad, 1131 
Furstenburg v. Fawsett, 617 
Fury V. White, 684o 
Fush V. Egan, 565a 
Fussell V. Heard, 497^ 



G. A. Kelly Plow Co. v. London, 665, 

666, 667 
Gaar Scott & Co. v. Lyon, 535, 565 
Gabler v. McChesney, 857 
Gabriel v. Akinsville Pressed Brick Co., 

615 
Gaddis v. Lord, 683 
Gadsden v. Georgetown Bank, 685j, 
685fc 
V. Howe F. & C. Co., 742 
Gaerrett v. Winterich, 2146 
Gaertner v. Bues, 988a 
Gaffey v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 

647c 
Gaffney v. Hayden, 663, 673o 
Gage V. Lewis, 789 
V. Harvey, 1255 
V. McSweeney, 340 
V. Parmelee, 310a 
V. Thompson, 334 
Gagnon v. Klauder-Weldon D. M. Co., 
1357 
V. Molden, 633e 

V. Sperry & Hutchison Co., 164, 
182 
Gahagan v. Aerometer Co., 1357 
Gahan v. Western U. T. Co., 894 
Gahn v. Broome, 717 



Gaines v. New Orleans, 6 Wall. 642; 
904 

V. New Orleans, 17 Fed. 29; 307, 
343, 904, 911 

V. Poor, 803 
Gainesville H. & W. Railroad v. Hall, 
1123 

V. Waples, 11656 
Gainsford v. Carroll, 744 
Gaither i>. Bland, 762 

V. Blowers, 487o 
Galbraith v. Chicago A. I. Works, 645 

». Walker, 334 
Gale V. Corey, 340a 

V. Dean, 1008, 1012, 1018 

V. Leekie, 193 

V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 
1332 
Gale S. H. M. Co. v. Moore, 767 
Galena & C. U. R. R. v. Rae, 842, 854 
Galena & S. W. R. R. v. Barrett, 1051 

V. Birkbeck, 1165 
GaJesburg v. Higley, 1326 

V. Rahn, 219 
Galesburg R. R. v. Miboy, 1171o 
Galigher v. Jones, 513, 745 
Gall V. Gall, 664a, 6736 
Gallagher v. Baird, 734 

V. Bowie, 43h 

V. Burke, 988 

V. Kingston Water Co., 941, 1146 

V. The Yankee, 5996 
Gallamore v. Olympia, 484 
Galliano ». Pierre, 270 
Galligan v. Sun Printing & Pub. Assoc, 
856 

V. Woonsocket St. R. R., 486c 
Gallo V. Brooklyn Sav. Bank, 236 

V. McAndrews, 416 
Gallon V. House of Good Shepherd, 

1336 
Galloway v. Courtney, 448(i 
Galium V. Seymour, 313a 
Gallup ». Perue, 314 
Galsworthy v. Strutt, 418, 420 
Gait V. Chicago &. N. W. Ry., 95, 

924a 
Galveston ». Barbour, 572 
Galveston C. R. R. v. Miller, 12866 

V. Posnainsky, 1326, 1355 



TABLE OF CASES 



2869 



[References 

Galveston City & S. F. R. R. v. Bock, 
1165 

V. Eddins, 1165 
Galveston County v. Galveston Gas 

Co., 303 
Galveston Electric Co. v. Dickey, 1348 
Galveston, H. & H. R. R. ti. Bohan, 

1357 
Galveston, H. & N. Ry. v. Murphy, 
1356 

V. Newport, 1356 

V. Olds, 575, 1367 
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. Abbey, 
1356 

V. Arispe, 1367 

V. Ball, 844, 851 

V. Bean, 1359 

V. Becht, 932 

V. Bernard, 1356 

V. Borsky, 226Z, 937 

V. Butshek, 1216 

V. Cherry, 1354 

V. Clark, 47 

V. Coker, 1363 

V. Collins, 1357 

V. Croskell, 1350 

V. Davis, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 468; 
575, 580 

V. Davis, 27 Tex. Qv. App. 279; 
1367 

V. Dehnisch, 1356 

V. Donahoe, 380 

V. Dromgoole, 317 

V. Dunlavy, 387, 1149 

V. Garcia, 1354 

V. Garrett, 171a, 1354 

V. Haas, 941 

V. Hanson, 1354 

V. Harris, 580ffl 

V. Henry, 308a 

V. Home, 318 

V. Hynes, 1356 

V. Johnston, 316 

V. Karrer, 842 

V. Kinnebrew, 865 

V. Le Gierse, 1263 

V. Leonard, 1306 

V. Matzdorf, 1353 

V. Miller, 1367 

V. Mitchell, 1367 



are to sections] 

Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. Nass, 
1354 

V. Norsky, 83 

V. Parr, 937 

V. PairiBh, 1355 

V. Perry, 1367 

V. Pfeuffer, 1159 

V. Pigott, 575 

V. Pitts, 1356 

V. Power, 576 

V. Rubio, 45 

V. Sanchez, 1359 

V. Sanders, 1352 

V. Silegman, 852 

V. Still, 180o 

V. Stoy, 1354 

V. Thompson, 843a, 856 

V. Tuckett, 852 

V. Turner, 872 

V. Vaughan, 318 

V. Waldo, 1354 

V. Ware, 237, 12866 

V. Wamecke, 933, 934 

V. WilliEuns, 1297 

V. Wiseman, 222, 865 

V. Worth, 1360 

». Young, 1349 
Galvin v. Gualala M. Co., 930o 

V. Tibbs, 383 
Galyon v. Ketchen, 65Sc 
Gamard v. Hart, 685ji 
Gambill v. Cargo, 387 

V. Schmudc, 366 
Gamble v. Cuneo, 793o 

V. Mullin, 132 

V. Wilson, 531o, 532 
Gambrill v. Schooley, 446, 671 
Gammage v. Alexander, 308 
Gammell v. Skinner, 302, 308a, 324 
Gammon v. Abrams, 308, 314 

V. Howe, 407, 417 
Gamard v. R. C. & B. R. R., 86c 
G&an V. Chicago Great Western R. R., 

854 
Ganong v. Green, 82, 497/ 
Ganscm v. Madigan, 753 

II. Tifft, 265, 994 
Ganssly v. Perkins, 361, 1254 
Ganter v. Atkinson, 69 
Gantt V. American Central Ins. Co., 728 



2870 



TABLE OP CASES 
{References are to sections] 



Garard v. Manufacturers' C. & C. Co., 

1348 
Garbaccia v. Jersey City H. & P. Ry., 

1367 
Garbaczewski v. Third Ave. R. R., 

485 
Garcin v. Pa. Furnace Co., 414 
Garcia v. Gunn, 538 
Garden v. Houston Bros., 366 
Gardere v. Blanton, 933, 934 
Gardiner v. McDermott, 689 
Gardner v. Armstrong, 1023 

V. Baer, 1368 

V. Bamett, 325 

V. Boothe, 527 

V. Brookline, 1155, 1168, 1295 

V. Brown, 633 

V. Cooper, 684o 

V. Deeds, 636c, 752 

V. Field, 244, 431, 433 

V. Granniss, 911 

V. Grove, 789 

V. Heartt, 3 Den. 232; 73 

V. Heartt, 2 Barb. 165; 32 

V. Letson, 968 

V. Lovegren, 930o 

V. Minea, 364, 365, 366, 367 

V. Newburgh, 1107 

V. Niles, 676 

V. Ninety-nine Gold Coins, 599c 

V. The Roycrofters, 634 

V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 363 

V. Southern Ry., 851 
Garfield v. Huls, 1066 
Garfield & P. C. Co. v. Pennsylvania 

C. & C. Co., 857 
Gariteei). Baltimore, 184, 927 
Garland v. Aurin, 70 

V. Garland, 304 

V. Wholeham, 386 
Garland County v. Hot Spring County, 

337 
Garneau v. Omaha Printing Co., 310 
Gamer v. Noard, 673a 
Garoni v. Compagnie Nationale, 1356 
Garr, Scott & Co. v. Young, 762 
Garrard v. Dawson, 313a, 317 

V. Dollar, 1024 

V. Tuck, 922 
Garraux v. Greenville, 1115 



Garret ;;. Stuart, 964 
Garretson v. Becker, 473 

V. Brown, 76 
Garretson v. Clark, 111 U. S. 120; 1233, 
1234, 1243 

V. Clark, 15 Blatch. 70; 1233* 
1243 
Garrett v. Logan, 236 
. V. Railroad, 1116 

);. Sewell, 125o, 363o, 364, 366 

V. Stuajt, 603, 762 

V. Western U. T. Co., 83 la. 257, 
-49. N. W. 88; 880 

V. Western U. T. Co., 92 la. 449, 
58 N. W. 1064; 881 

V. Winterich, 224 

V. Wood, 3 Kan. 231; 533 

V. Wood, 55 App. Div. 281;. 948 
Garretty v. Brazell, 655c 
Garrick v. Florida Cent. & P. R. R., 

377a, 584 
Garrigan v. Kennedy, 1265 

V. Thompson, 1254 
Garrison v. Robinson, 448c 
Garrity v. Boston, 1112a 
Garthley v. Seattle Electric Co., 1360 
Gartley v. Pec^le, 303 
Gartner v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 
70,95 

V. Richardson, 417 
Garvey v. Camden & A. R. R. Co., 
1289 

V. Fowler, 1257 

V. Wayson, 457, 458 
Gas Bank v. Desha, 302 
Gas Light Co. v.- Colliday, 944 

V. Memphis, 337 

V. Rome, W. & O. R. R., 910, 914 

V. St. Louis, 311c 
Gaskell v. Morris, 755 
Gaskin v. Runkle, 438 

V. Wales, 419 
Gaskins v. Davis, 66, 934 
Gassely v. Humphries, 445 
Gasway v. A. & W. P. R. R., 380 
Gate City Cotton Mills v. Rosenau 

Hosiery Mills, 752 
Gates V. Bekins, 46a 

V. Chicago & A. Ry., 937a 

V. Comstock, 107 Mich, 546; 317 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2871 



Gates V. Comstock, 113 Mich. 127; 
930a, 933, 1298 

V. Davenport, 668 

V. Kansas City B. & T. Ry., 1116 

V. Meredith, 448 

V. Northern P. R. R., 136 

V. Parmley, 407, 1016 

V. Parrott, 531a 

V. Reynolds, 1027 

V. Rifle Boom Co., 499, 503, 934 

V. School District, 667 

V. Union Bank, 340c 
Gathwright v. Callaway County, 647a 
Gatling v. Commissioners, 1031 

V. Newell, 734 
Gattis V. Kilgo, 444 
Gatton V. Tolley, 914 
Gatzow V. Buening, 43j 
Gaulden v. Shehee, 1027 
Gauntlett v. Whitworth, 1295 
Gaus V. Hughes, 929 
Gauthin v. Green, 740 
Gavin v. Ball, 417 

V. Buckles, 964 

V. Com., 1169 
Gay V. Dare, 627a 

V. Gardiner, 331a 

V. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., 1360 

V. Rooke, 302a 

V. Winter, 573 
Gay's Gold, 272 

Gay Mfg. Co. v. Camp, 408, 415, 620a 
Gaylor v. Hunt, 559 
Gaynor v. Clements, 1326 
Gayton v. Day, 200 
Gazelle, The, 33 Fed. 301; 595 
Gazelle, The, 2 W. Rob. 279; 30, 592, 

593 
Gazelle & Cargo, The, 614, 858 
Gazette P. Co. v. Morss, 667 
Gear v. C. C. & D. R. R., 217 

V. Railroad, 1148 

V. Shaw, 685e 
Geary v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 67a 
Gee V. Lancashire & Y. Ry., 146, 152, 

157, 158, 166, 740 
Gehl V. Milwaukee Produce Co., 753, 

755 
Geiger v. Cawley, 418 

V. Payne, 637, 639, 1339 



Geiger v. W. M. R. R., 412 

V. Worthen & A. Co., 1367 
Geisberg v. Mutual B. & L. Assoc, 

1331 
Geisek v. Crescent M. I. Co., .723a 
Geiser Mfg. Co. v. Holzer, 766 
Geiser, T. M. Co. v. Farmer, 85 
Geiss V. Hardware Co., 752 
Geld V. Adams Exp. Co., 851 
Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 346 
Gelston v. Hoyt, 336 
Gem Knitting Mills v. Empire P. & 

B. Co., 1042 
General F. I. Co. v. Carolina & N. W. 

Ry., 119 
Gen. George G. Meade, The, 687 
General L. & P. Co. v. Washington 

Rubber Co., 614 
General M- I- Co. v. Sherwood, 718 
General Proprietors v. Force," 1256fe 
General Underwriting Co. v. Stillwell, 

968 
Genet v. Brooklyn, 1128 

V. Delaware & H. C. Co., 603 

V. Kissam, 325 
Geneva v. Peterson, 1138 
Genin v. IngersoU, 343, 345 
Gennings v. Norton, 86a 
Genoa v. Woodruff, 337, 346 
Gens V. Western U. T. Co., 896 
Gensburg v. Marshall Field & Co., 

496, 5166, 1297 
Gentles v. Finck, 85a 
Gentry v. Kelley, 246 

V. Richmond & D. R. R., 942 
Genung v. Baldwin, 487a 
George v. Bischoff, 688 

V. Cahawba & M. R. R., 613, 
614 

V. Fisk, 926 

V. Hesse, 777, 1030 

V. Lane, 611 

V. Law, 1326 

v. Peckham, 946 
George and Richard, The, 135, 699 
George B. Swift Co. v. Dolle, 425 

V. Gaylord, 1367 
George R. Barse Live Stock, Com- 
mission Co. V. Adams, 531o 

V. McKinster, 533, 535 



2872 TABLE 

[References 

George W. Eoby, The, 103 Fed. 328; 

596a 
George W. Roby, The, 111 Fed. 601; 

598 
George Washington, The, 588 
Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 
946 

«;. Groff, 482, 484, 485 

V. Kelly, 748 
Georgetown, B. & L. Ry. v. Doyle, 
127o 

i). Eagles, 127a 
Georgetown, W. G. E. & P. Co. v. 
Forwood, 1355 

V. Neale, 67a 
Georgia v. Bond, 451 

V. Kepford, 126(i, 444 
Georgia Cent. R. R. v. Bond, 578 

V. Dorsey, 150 
Georgia P. R. R. v. Fullerton, 318, 

435 
Georgia R. R. v. Augusta 0. Cd., 753 

V. Hayden, 856 

V. Olds, 372, 380 

V. Pittman, 578, 581 
Georgia R. R. & B. Co. v. Benton, 490 

V. Berry, 942 

V. Eskew, 1342 

V. Gardner, 115 Ga. 954; 363 

V. Gardner, 118 Ga. 723; 233 

V. Garr, 583 

V. Oaks, 1306 

V. Smith, 306 
Geor^a R. & E. Co. v. Baker, 125 Ga. 
562; 865 

V. Baker, 1 Ga. App. 832; 42, 
43/ 

V. Davis, 359 

V. McAllister, 212 
Georgia S. & F. Ry. v. Ransom, 1342 
Gerard v. Cowperthwait, 676 

V. Gateau, 682 
Gerbert v. Trustees, 1009 
Gerdes v. Christopher & S. A. I. & F. 

Co., 1262 
Gerken v. Plimpton, 1349 

V. Ruppert, 468 
Gerkins v. Kentucky Salt Co., 383c, 

935 
GerU V. Poidebard Silk Mfg. Co., 107d 



OF CASES 

are to sections] 

Germain v. Union School Dist., 419, 

644, 657 
Germain Fruit Co. v. J. K. Armsby Co., 

762 
German v. German, 301c 
German-American Title & Trust Co. v. 

Citizens' Trust & Surety Co., 679a 
German Ins. Co. v. Everett, 722 
German Nat. Bank ti. Beatrice Nat. 

Bank, 700o 
German Savings Bank v. Citizens' Nat. 

Bank, 302a 
German Theological SdioolK. Dubuque, 

214b 
German U. B. & S. F. Assoc, v. Send- 

meyer, 627o 
Germann v. Crescioni, 448a 
Gerock v. Western U. T. Co., 46a, 894d 
Gerow v. Liberty, 948 
Gerrish v. Edson, 555 

V. New Market Manuf. Co., 64, 
66, 101 
Gerson v. Slemons, 153a 
Gerst V. St. Louis, 316 
Gerwig v. W. J. Johnston Co., 363a 
Gest V. Cincinnati, 332 
Getchell & M. L. & M. Co. v. Peterson, 

678 
Gettwerth v. Teutonia Ins. Co., 301, 

724 
Getty V. Hudson River R. R., 1182 

V. Rountree, 1060 
Getz V. Philadelphia & R. R. R., 1157, 

1169 
Getzelson v. Bernstein, 639 
Geveke v. Grand Rapids & I. R. R., 485 
Ghent v. Boyd, 334 
Gholson V. Brown, 688a 
Giaccomini v. Bulkeley, 184 
Gibboney v. R. W. Wayne & Co., 1041 
Gibbons v. Bente, 636c 

V. Missouri Pacific R. R., 1159 
Gibbs V. Bartlett, 689a 
V. Bryant, 304 
V. Bull, 555 
V. Champion, 1007 
V. Chase, S5, 76 
V. Chisolm, 345 
V. Cruikshank, 540 
V. Fremont, 301 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2873 



Gibbs V. Gildereleeve, 856a 

V. Jemison, 1008 

V. Poplar Bluff L. & P. Co., 1358 

V. Ranard, 755 

V. Tunaley, 1368 
Gibert v. Peteler, 1017 

V. Washington, C. V. M. & G. S. 
R. R. R., 346 
Gibler v. Terminal R. R. Assoc, 171o 
Giblin v. Mclntyre, 41, 226/, 481, 485 
Gibney v. Lewis, 43t, 47 

V. St. Louis Transit Co., 67, 1360 

V. Turner, 614, 615 
Gibson v. Boulton, 974 

t). Carlin, 644, 660, 662, 1067 

V. Cincinnati Enquirer, 335 

V. Delaware & H. C. Co., 112 

V. East Tenn. R. R., 865 

V. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 1343 

V. Fischer, 189 

p. Humphrey, 54 

V. Hutchins, 904 

V. Marquis, 1027 

V. Norwalk, 1149 

V. Perry, 999c 

V. Richart, 973 

V. Shehan, 808a 

V. Wheldon, 614 

V. Whip Pub. Co., 107d, 610, 664 
Giddings v. Sears, 834 
Giese v. Schultz, 47, 639 
Gieseke v. Johnson, 801 
Giesy v. Cincinnati, W. & Z. R. R., 1155 
Giffen v. Barr, 377o 

V. Lewiston, 47 
Giffert v. West, 775 
Giffin V. Martel, 54 
Gifford V. Ferguson, 977 

V. Waters, 834c 
Gilbert v. Bulkley, 966 

V. fiurtenshaw, 349, 1325 

V. Campbell, 127 

V. Cherry, 1293 

V. Grubel, 611 

V. Kennedy, 69, 198, 221, 224, 927 

V. Peck, 53 

V. Rushmer, 968, 980 

V. Savannah, Grif&n & N. A. R. R., 
65, 1130 

V. Taylorj 301c 



Gilbert v. Wiman, 784, 793 
Gilbert El. Ry., In re, 1192 
Gilbertson v. Richardson, 124 
Gilchrist v. Lumberman's Mining Co., 
842 

V. Parrtidge, 1042 

V. Weil, 999y 
Gilchrist, The, 597a 
Gildersleevev. Overstolz, 134, 365, 988o 
Gile V. Stevens, 64, 66, 1130 
Giles V. Dugro, 970, 973, 975 

V. Eagle Ins. Co., 714 

V. O'Toole, 185, 607a, 984, 1293 
Gileson v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. R., 

1342 
Gilhooley v. Washington, 999c 
Gilkey, The, v. The Beta, 589 
Gill V. Johnson-Brinkman Com. Co., 
737 

V. Patten, 916 

«>. Rochester & P. R. R., 575 

V. Staylor, 673d 

V. Vogler, 659 
Gillam v. Hogue, 124 
Gillard v. Brittan, 1042 
Gillaspie v. Citizens' Bank, 914 

V. Hagans, 993 
Gillen v. Minneapolis, S. P. & S. S. M. 

Ry., 1342 
Gillespie v. Brookljm Heights R. R., 47 

V. Creswell, 793a, 801 

V. Mayor, 341 

V. Thomas, 999d 

V. Torrance, 1040 
Gillespie, In re, 700 
Gillet V. Maynard, 3016, 1012a 

V. Mead, 475 

V. Van Rensselaer, 304 
Gellett V. Kinderhook, 942 

V. Moody, 363a 

V. Rippon, 805 

V. Western R. R. Corp., 316, 438 

V. Whiting, 523 

V. Young, 425 
Gillette v. Goodspeed, 76 
Gilley v. Williams, 909a 
Gilliam v. Canaday, 940 

V. Globe Tailoring Co., 432a 
Gillies V. Wofford, 317, 535 
Gilligan v. New York & H. R. R., 486c 



2874 



Table oB" cases 

[References are to sections] 



Gilligan v. Providence, 1154a 

V. Robb, 43h 

V. Waterford, 673d 
Gillilan v. Rollins, 410 
Gillingham v. Dempsey, 844 
Gillis V. Cobe, 657 

V. Space, 667 
GiUon V. Boddington, 866 
Gilman v. Andrews, 5166 

V. Brown, 366, 385, 933 

V. Gilman, 911, 913 

V. Hall, 661 

V. Haven, 956 

V. IlUnbis & M. T. Co., 906 

V. Lowell, 452 

V. McClatchy, 364, 1335 

V. Noyes, Hid, 125a 

V. Vaughan, 310a 
Gilmore v. DriscoU, 932, 939 

V. Mathews, 1254 

». Pittsburgh, etc., R. R., 1151, 
1152 

V. Taylor, 1326 

V. Tuttle, 324a 

V. Wale, 363a 
Gilmour v. Hall, 419 
Gilpin V. Conseque, 295, 312, 313o, 319, 

734 
Gilreath v. Allen, 353, 361, 377 
Gih-oy, In re, 1169 
Gilson V. Collins, 1066 

V. Wood, 432a 
Gingles v. Caldwell, 762 
Gingras v. Desilets, 360, 372 
Giordano i;. Manhattan Ry., 1207 
Girard v. Moore, 361, 665o 

V. Taggart, 636d, 751, 756 
Girdlestone v. Porter, 911 
Gist V. Alexander, 270 

V. M'Guire, 6853 
Gittings V. Winter, 505 
Givens v. Berkley, 385 

V. Van Studdiford, 924a, 947, 948 
Givhan v. Dailey, 672 
Glacius V. Black, 659 
Gladys City O. G. & M. Co. v. Right of 

Way of Oil Co., 935 
Glanders v. Graff, 446 
Glascock V. Ashman, 692i 

V, Chicago & A. R. R,, 854 



Glascock V. Hays, 83, 527 
Glaser v. Cumisky, 999/ 
Glasful V. Northern Pac. Ry., 778 
Glasgow V. Hood, 665 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 214a 
Glasgow Union Ry. v. Hunter, 1090, 

1102 
Glaspell V. Northern Pac. R. R., 1030 
Glaspie V. Glassow, 614, 615 
Glaspy V. Cabot, 246 
Glass V. Garber, 96 
Glasscock v. Shell, 638c 
Glasse v. Stewart, 1009 
Glaucus, The, 589 
Gleason v. Briggs, 302a, 311 

V. Chester, 550 

V. Morrison, 492a 

V. Pinney, 279c 

V. Smith, 657 
Gleaton v. Fulton B. & C. Mills, 407 
GledhiU W. P. Co. v. Baltimore & O. 

R. R., 164 
Gleeson v. Virginia Midland Ry., 119 
Glen Jean R. R. v. Kanawha R. R., 931, 

932 
Glendenning v. StaMey, 1167 
Glenn v. Mathews, 959 

I). Schaffer, 519, 737 

V. Thistle, 973 

V. Whipple, 973 
Glennon v. Lebanon Mfg. Co., 1066 
Glenogle, The, 589 
Glenwoad v. Phillipps, 69 
Glezen v. Rood, 107d 
GUck V. Wm. Home Co., 426 
Glidden v. Cincinnati, 1117, 1165o 

V. Street, 316 
Globe Ace. Ins. Co. v. Helwig, 731 
Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Co. O. 

Co., 159 
Clock V. Howard & W. C. Co., 1012a 
Gloucester v. Eschbach, 678 
Glover v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 
45a 

V. Henderson, 834c 

V. Holmes, 334 

V. Hutson, 774 

V. London & S. W. Ry., 126a 

V. McGaffey, 685 

V. Manhattan Ry., 1200 



Table of cases 

[References are to sections] 



2875 



Glover v. North Staffordshire Ry., 
1078, 1093, 1096 

V. Rochester G. I. Co., 302, 724 

V. Western U. Tel. Co., 371a 
Glovinsky v. Cunard Steamship Co., 

873 
Glow V. Yount, 536 
Glucina & F. H. Goss Brick Co., 1357 
Gluck V. Baltimore, 999d, 1157 
Glucose Sugar Refining Co. v. Flinn, 

664 
Gniadck v. Northwestern Imp. & Boom 

Co., 2146 
Gobble V. Linder, 417, 1020 
Godard v. Fredericton Boom Co., 189 
Godbey v. Bluefield, 1144 
Goddard v. B^en, 546 

V. Barnard, 644 

V. Binney, 751 

V. Bulow, 303, 310 

V. Enzler, 577 

V. Foster, 314 

V. G. T. Ry., 42, 380 

V. Westcott, 638, 6386, 638c 
Godeau v. Blood, 44, 47, 484 
Godfrey v. India Wharf Brew Co., 991 

V. Moser, 312 

V. White, 310o 
Godkin v. Bailey, 1031 
Godsall V. Boldero, 729, 1034 
Godwin v. Francis, 239o, 835, 836, 837, 
838 

V. McGehee, 341 

V. Taenzer, 504 

V. Wihnington & W. R. R., 435 
Goebel v. Hough, 182, 988a, 9906 

V. Pomeroy Bros. Co., 667 
Goebeler v. Wilhehn, 377 
Goesling v. Gross, 822 
Goetz V. Ambs, 22 Mo. 170; 1345 

ti. Ambs, 27 Mo. 28; 363o, 366, 388, 
1326 
Goetzkow Bros. Co. v. Andrews, 163 
Go Fun V. Fidalgo Island Canning Co., 

416 
Goff V. Hawks, 1010 

V. Miller, 704 

V. Rehoboth, 303, 310, 314 
Gkiins V. Moberly, 1355 

V. Western R. R., 1326 



Gold V. Bissell, 42 

V. CampbeU, 372, 461, 462, 463 
«. Ives, 1039 
Gold Hunter, The, 317, 844, 
Goldberg v. Besdine, 992 
V. Dobbertine, 449 
V. Weinberger, 667 
Golden v. Knapp, 98 

V. Spokane & I. E. R. R., 1367 
Golden C. M. Co. v. Repson C. M. Co., 

636d 
Golden Gate Lumbw Co. ». Sahr- 

bacher, 659 
Golden Gate Mill, etc., Co. v. Joshua 

Hendy Mach. Works, 335 
Golden Grove, The, 594 
Golden Rule, The, 589 
Colder v. Lund, 483 
Golding V. WilUams, 1334 
Goldsboro v. Moffett, 618 
Goldsborough v. Baker, 416 
Goldschmid v. New York, 932 
Goldsmith v.. Goldsmith, 301c 
V. Hand, 655, 656, 657 
j«.v Henderson, 854 
V. Holland Trust Co., 179, 622 
V. Joy, 384, 487o 
Goldstein v. Asen, 988 
V. Godfrey Co., 614 
V. MiUer, 363 
Goldston V. Wade, 162 
GoUbart v. Sullivan, 462 
GoUer v. Fett, 503, 935 
Goltra V. Penland, 170a 
Gombert v. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 

482a 
Gomez V. Scanlan, 462, 681o 
Gonty, Inre, v. Manchester, S.&L. Ry., 

1093 
Gonzales v. De Funiak H. T. Co., 682a 
Gonzales College v. McHugh, 660, 662 
Good V. Caldwell, 301 

V. Grit Pub. Co., 448d, 451 
Goodall V. Thurman, 637, 639 
Goodbar v. Lindsley, 232, 565c, 685 
Goodbread v. Ledbetter, 449, 451 
Goodchap v. Roberts, 325 
Gooden v. Moses, 622 
Goodhart v. Pennsylvania R. R., 67, 
181, 482, 484, 485a 



2876 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Goodhart v. Rastert, 343 

Goodhue v. Western U. T. Co., 894d 

Goodin v. Cincinnati & W. C. Go., 1171 

V. Southern Ry., 152 
Gooding v. Shea, 73 
Goodkind v. Rogan, 164o 
Goodloe V. Clay, 304 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1349 

V. Rogers, 121, 121d 
Goodman v. Floyd, 532 

V. Missouri R. R., 316 

V. Pocock, 667 

V. Wolf, 1007 
Goodno V. Oshkosh, 41, 47, 180, 226/, 

481, 485, 1326, 1330 
Goodnow V. Litchfield, 304 

V. Plumbe, 304 

V. Willard, 103, 547 
Goodpaster v. Porter, 1024 
Goodrich v. Burlington C. R. & N. Ry., 
486c 

V. Church, 566 

V. Dorset Marble Co., 866 

V. Foster, 545 

V. Hubbard, 613, 636o, 6366, 636^, 
636fe 

V. Starr, 554 

V. Thompson, 816 
Goodrum v. Carroll, 692 
Goodsell V. Hartford & N. H. R. R., 

5706 
Goodson V. Stewart, 930 
Goodtitle v. North, 907 

V. Tombs, 901, 907 
Goodwin v. Davis, 304, 801 

V. Mass. M. L. I. Co., 729 

V. Morse, 1060 

V. Wilbur, 778 
Goodwine v. Evans, 1148, 1154, 1171 

V. State, 692e 
Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. «. Selz, 

Schwab & Co., 423 
Googins V. Gilmore, 81 
Gordon v. Anthony, 1232 

V. Brewster, 90, 206, 666 

V. Bruner, 1055 

V. Butts, 202 

V. Commissioners of Highways, 
1138 

V. Constantine Hydraulic Co., 132 



Gordon v. Grand Rapids & I. R. R.> 
933 

V. Hall, 917 

V. Jenney, 536 

V. Kansas City Southern Ry., 1350 

V. Kennedy, 1277 

V. Longest, 1285 

V. Norris, 752, 753 

V. Northern Pac. Ry., 1270a 

V. Ogden, 1285 

V. Parker, 276 

V. Potter, 668 

V. Sanborn, 625 

V. Victoria, 335 
Gore V. Brazier, 922, 962 

V. Buck, 302a 

V. Worthington, 901 
Gorey s>. Kelly, 1249 
Gorgas v. Phila., H. & P. R. R., 144 
Pa. 1; 1130, 1X65 

». Phila., H. & P. R. R., 215 Pa. 
501; 253 
Gorgas, The, 593 
Gorham v. Eastchester El. Co., 933 

V. Kansas CXty & S. Ry., 86c, 1355 

V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 575 
Gorham Co. v. United E. & C. Co., 618 
Goring v. Fitzgerald, 4Z9g 
GormuUy & Jeffery Mfg. Co. v. Catha- 
rine, 497^ 
Gorman v. Bellamy, 660 

V. Hand Brewing Co., 1367 

V. Marsteller, 929 

V. Southern Pac. Co., 865 

V. Sutton, 447 
Gorton v. Harmon, 578 
Gosa V. Milwaukee L. H. & T. Co., 1148 

V. Southern Ry., 359 
Gosdin v. Williams, 932 
Goslin V. Corry, 86 

V. Hodson, 1066 
Gosman, In re, 338 
Goss V. Dysant, 774 

V. Goss, 2216 
Gossett V. Railroad Co., 1117 
Gottsberger v. Smith, 69^' 
Gottschalk v. Jungmann, 1031 
Gough V. Farr, 637 

V. State, 1247 
Gould V. Bishop Hill Colony, 331, 420 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2877 



Gould V. Emerson, 310a 

V. Hudson River R. R., 6 N. Y. 
522; 1182 

V. Hudson R. R. R., 12 Barb. 616; 
1108, 1115 

V. Merrill Ry. & L. Co., 435o 

0. Oliver, 717 

V. Weed,, 449 
Gould Const. Co. v. Childera, 1367 
Goulding v. Hewitt, 106 
Gould's Mfg. Co. V. Cowing, 1243 
Goulet V. Asseler, 81 
Gourdier v. Cormaek, 69, 71 

V. Thorp, 1067 
Gourdin v. Read, 1284 

V. Trenholm, 807a 
Gove V. Watson, 55, 494, 1261 
. Governor v. Allen, 692 

». Barr, 692i 

V. Cobb, 692d 

V. Pearoe, 692a 

V. Raley, 692i 
Governor & Co. of British C. P. Manuf . 

V. Merideth, 1108 
Governor of B. C. P. Mfgrs. v. Mere- 
dith, 1107 
Govin i;. DeMiranda, 317, 493o 
Gowen v. Gerrish, 411 
Gower v. Carter, 331 

V. Saltmarsh, 407, 415 
Gowland v. De Farria, 286 
Grabenheimer v. Blum, 440 
Grable v. Margrave, 352, 376, 385 
Grace v. Dempsey, 466 

V. McArthur, 1335 
Grace Girdler, The, 587 
Grace & Hyde Co. v. Strong, 584o, 1367 
Gracy v. Potts, 340b 
Grade Crossing Comrs., In re, 1169 
Graeber v. Derwin, 482 
Graeme v. CuUen, 346 
Graessle v. Carpenter, 932, 933, 938 
Graeter v. De Wolf, 677 
Graf V. Law, 648 
Graff V. Blumberg, 667 

V. Illinois Steel Co., 1355 
Grafton v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. R., 

1152o 
Grafton Bank v. Flanders, 819 

V. White, 556 



Grafton & G. R. R. v. Foreman, 1144 
Gragg V. Richardson, 983 
Graham v. Baker, 956 

V. Bardin, 759 

V. Bickham, 678, 679 

V. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 303 

V. Chrystal, 309 

V. Connerville v. N. C. J. R. R., 
1174 

V. Consolidated Trac. Co., 574, 
1367 

V. Dyer, 981 

V. Eiszner, 2125 

V. Frazier, 734 

V. Fulford, 1254 

V. Geneva Lake C. Mfg. Co., 1222, 
1244 

V. Graham, 1020 

V. Hackwith, 1007 

V. Jackson, 751 

V. Leslie, 959, 961 

V. McCoy, 622 

V. McCreary, 565a 

V. Maitland, 244, 824 

V. Mattoon City Ry., 1303, 1363 

V. Merchant, 324a 

V. O'Callaghan, 531 

V. Pacific R. R., 366, 387, 1326 

V. Peat, 931 

V. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R., 1175 

V. Piano Mfg. Co., 1230 

V. Rookford, 1347 

V. St. Charles St. R. R., 380 

V. State, 693 

V. Swigeit, 688 
, V. WilUams, 310 

V. Wilson, 1052 

V. Woodson, 309 
Grainger v. Hill, 42 
Grams V. Murphy, 680 
Grand Avenue Railroad v. Citizens' 

Raihoad, 1150 
Grand Haven v. United States F. & 

G. Co., 692d 
Grand Lodge v. Knox, 1053, 1055 
Grand Lodge A. 0. U. W. v. Cleg- 
horn, 677 
Grand Rapids v. Bennett, 1152a 
Grand Rapids, City of, v. Bennett, 
1165 



2878 



Grand R. & B. C. R. R. v. Van Dusen, 

613, 614, 636re 
Grand Rapids & I. R. R. v. Heisel, 
1110, 1165 

V. Horn, 1148 

V. Weiden, 1169 
Grand Rapids Booming Co. v. Jarvia, 

71, 1116, 1154a, 1157 
Grand Rapids Savings Bank v. Warren, 

301a.- 
Grand Tower Co. v. Phillips, 246, 425, 

603, 738, 739, 742, 753 
Grand Tronc C. E. v. Black, 630 
Grand T. Ry. v. Beckett, 67a 

V. Central Vermont Co., 3406, 346 

V. Jennings, 67o, 574a 

V. Vermont Central R. R., 311/ 
Grandin v. Reading, 671 
Granger v. City of Syracuse, 1128 
Granite State, The, 243a, 592, 595 
Grannis v. St. Paul & Chicago Ry., 

1148 
Grant v. Astle, 1276 

V. Button, 1073 

V. Edwards, 3116 

V. Egyptian, 214 

V. Elliot M. F. I. Co., 725 

V. Healey, 275 

V. Herald Co., 368 

V. King, 317, 493 

«.; Lawrence, 803 

V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 942 

V. Willey, 639a 

V. Wolf, 924 
Grant County v. Lake Coimty, 337 
Grant Park v. Trah, 1138 
Grantham v. Severs, 431 
Grantier v. Austin, 975, 982 
Grasselli v. Lowden, 418 
Grasser & Brand Brewing Co. v. Bog- 

ers, 6956 
Grattan v. Suedmeyer, 171o 
Grau V. McVicker, 213 
Gravel v. Clough, 5166 
Gravenstine'S Estate, 305 
Graver v. ShoU, 99 
Graves v. Baltimore & N. Y. Ry., 436 

V. Barnes, 3116 

V. Berdan, 999c 

V, Brownson, 984 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 

Graves v. Dash, 31, 700 



V. Glass, 6476, 647c 

V. Moore, 237, 238 

W.Otis, 1108 

V. Rivers, 6386, 639 

V. Saline Co., 337, 339 

V. Spier, 777 

V. Waller, 19 Conn. 90; 1277 

V. Waller, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 452; 345 
Gray v. Bass, 821 

V. Briscoe, 6 Bush. 687; 330 

V. Briscoe, Noy, 142; 975 

V. Brooklyn Union Pub. Co., 448c 

V. BuUard, 1268 

V. Case School of Applied Science, 
3eic 

V. Central R. R., 157 N. Y. 483; 
313 

V. Central R. R., 89 Hun, 477; 312 

V. Crosby, 400, 420 

V. District of Columbia, 337 

V. Elzroth, 449, 451 

V. Granger, 1032 

V. Hall, 734 

V. Harris, 33 

«;. Henry County, 1296 

V. Knoxville, 1117 

V. Linton, 366, 988a 

V. McLean, 684 

V. Manhattan R. R., 11986 

V. Meek,= l024 

V. Missouri' R. P. Co., 317, 844 

V. Murray, 623, 672, 817 

V. New Jersey Cent. R. R., 312 

t). PhilUps, 577 • 

V. Portland Bank, 519, 746 

V. Rdllo, 1032 

V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. R., 852 

V. St. Paul City Ry., 1367 

V. Sampers, 377 

V. State, 338 

V. Stevens, 432o 

V. Telegraph Co., 894 

V. Van Amringe, 314 

e. Wain, 841 

V. Washington Water Power Co., 
47, 484 

V. Waterman, 125a, 383a 927 
Gray Eagle, The, 587 
Graybill v. DeYoung, 443 



TABLE OP CASB& 
[References are to sections] 



2879 



Graybill v. Warren, 301c 

Gray-Meek P. B. Co. v. McNaUy, 1357 

Grays Harbor Boom Co. v. Lownsda,le, 

253, 1161 
Grays Harbor Commercial Co. v. Con-. 

tinental Nat. Bank, 819 
Grayson v. Wilkinson, 814, 831 
Greasley v. Higginbqttom, 128 
Greasly v. Codling, 35 
Great Lakes Towing Co. v. Kelley, 593 
Great Northern Ry. v. Shepherd, 873 
Great W. P. Co. v. Tucker, 618 
Great Western Ry. v. Ackroyd, 1172a 

V. Miller, 380 

V. Redmayne, 152, 856 
Greaves v. Newport, 682a 
Grebert-Borgnis v. Nugent, 161, 740, 

742 
Grecian Monarch, The, 1330 
Greeley v. Stilson, 497 
Greeley, St. L. & P. Ry. ». Yeager, 
358 

V. Yount, 293 
Greely v. Bartlett, 834 

V. Tremont Insurance Gompfiny, 
717 
Green v. Ansley, 1023 

V. Batson, 1053 

V. Bell, 992 

V. Biddle, 906, 908, 916, 954 

V. B. & L. R. R., 251a, 844 

V. California, 1115 

V. Catawba Power Co., 172o 

V. Chicago, 1138 

V. Qarke, 88 

V. Craig, 347, 366, 372 

V. Davies, 105 

V. Bales, 991, 992 

V. Eden, 999A 

V. Edick, 83 

V. Fall River, 1147 

V. Parmer, 499 

V. Farmers' Consol. Dairy Co., 
603, 610 

V. Garcia, 317 

V. Gilbert, 672 

V. Haley, 6555 

V. Hudson R. R. R., 579 

V. Hulett, 665 

V. Irving, 979 



Green v. McCracken 1299 

V. Mann, 190, 221, 226n, 992 

V, Middlesex R. R., 1309 

V. Pennsylvania R. R., 486 

V. Plank, 1293 

V. Price, 418 

V. Quisenberry, 685fc 

V. Shoemaker & Co., 43ft 

V. Sizer, 278 

V. South Bound R. R., 1174 

V. Southern C. Ry., 578 

V. Southern Express Co., 1328 

V. Southern Pac. Co., 578 

V. Spencer,- 637, 639 

V. Sperry, 53 

V. Stacy, 310a 

V. Stephens, 55 

V. Sun Co., 74 

V. Weaver, 106 

V. Williams, 183, 189, 984 

V. Witte, 762 
Green; BayA' M. C. Co. v. Kaukauna" 

W. P. Co., 941 
Green-Wheeler Shoe Co. v. Chioagp,:, 

R. I." &-P. Ry., 119, 1196, 119c 
Greenbaum v. Martinez, 229 

«. Taylor, 1295 
Greenberg v. Western Turf Ass'n., 385 
Greene v. Allen, 1054 

V. Bateman, 750 

V. Creightonj 980a 

V. Goddard, 179, 622 

V. Linton, 672, 1039 

V. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. R., 
1195 

V. Tallman, 969, 973, 979, 980a, 
981 

». Waggoner, 227 
Greeney v. Pa. Co., 363a, 364, 365, 366 
Greenfield v. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 

933 
Greenfield Bank v. Leavitt, 55, 494c, 

519 . 
Greenfield Savings Bank v. Simons, 316, 

828 
Greenhaw v: Holmes, 326 
Greening v. Wilkinson, 508 
Greenish v. Standard Sugar Refinery, 

341 
Greenleaf v. Cook, 1053 



2880 



TABLE OF CASES 



[References 



Greenleaf v. Kellogg, 345 

V. McColley, 040 

V. Stockton C. H. & A. Works, 
411 

V. Yale Lock Mfg. Co., 1222 
Greenley v. Brooks, 769 
Greenly v. Hopkins, 303 
Greensboro v. McGibboney, 107a 
Greensborough v. Young, 1108 
Greenup v. Stoker, 91, 639a 
Greenvault v. Davis, 964 
Greenville & Columbia R. R. v. Part- 
low, 364, 373, 1148 
Greenwald v. Ins. Co., 723o 
Greenway o. Taylor County, 485, 1355 
Greenwell v. Ross, 613, 858 
Greenwood v. Davis, 614, 636/ 

V. The Fletcher, 689 

V. Hoyt, 1012 

V. King, 576 

V. Pierce, 1030 
Greenwood County v. Kansas City, 

etc., R. R., 1167 
Greer v. Fontaine, 917 

0. Great Northern Ry., 1357 

V. Latimer, 3146 

V. Louisville & N. R. R., 1306 

V. Mayor, 317 

V. New York, 72 

V. Powell, 493a 

V. Tweed, 407, 419 

V. Vamell, 134 

V. White, 368 
Gregg V. Bank, 515 

V. Fitzhugh, 516c, 745, 747 

V. Baltimore, 217, 1151 

V. Northern R. R., 1162 
Gregg's Case, 675c 
Gregory v. Brooks, 126d 

V. Chambers, 241 

V. Coleman, 1258 

V. The Duke of Brunswick, 1277 

V. McDowel, 738 

V. New York, L. E. & W. Ry., 485 

V. R. R., 580a 

V. Sewing Mach. Co., 301 

V. Slaughter, 1349, 1355 

V. Spieker, 632 

V. Williams, 443 

V. Woodbury, 540 



are to sections] 

Gresham v. Taylor, 191, 937 

Gress Lumber Co. v. Coody, 316, 319 

Gressman v. Morning Journal Assoc. 

384 
Greve v. First Div. S. P. & P. R. R., 

1175 
Grey v. Grant, 350 
Greymouth, P. E. R. & C. Co. v. 

Mclvor, 67, 67o 
Gribble ». Ford, 308a 
Grice o. Noble, 608 

V. Scarborough, 970, 976, 978 
Grider v. Tally, 692^ 
Gridley v. Capen, 794 
Grier v. Ward, 226c, 384 

V. St. Louis, M. B. T. R. R., 119 
Griesheimer v. Botham, 987 
Grieve v. North Jersey St. Ry., 1367 
Griffen v. Sprague Electric Co., 607 
Griffey v. Kennard, 908 
GriflSn ». Bonham, 3116 

«;. Brown, 241 

i>. Colver, 30, 145, 1716, 176, 190 

V. Gorman, 8l9 

». Levee Com., 692/ 

V. Martel, 1296, 1298 

V. Miner, 659 

V. Ogletree, 614 

V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R., 1149 

V. Regan, 922 

V. Reynolds, 975 

V. Roanoke R. & L. Co., 4S9d 

V. Shreveport, etc., R. R., 1123 

V. Southern Ry., 366 

«. Underwood, 692i 
Griffing Bros. Co. v. Winfield, 87, 620, 

636ff 
GriflSth V. Baltimore, etc., R. R., 335 

V. Burden, 257 

V. Missouri Pac. R. R., 1348 
Griffiths V. Perry, 628 
Griggs V. Day, 136 N. Y. 152; 256 

V. Day, 158 N. Y. 1; 107a, 511, 512 

V. Detroit & M. R. R., 973 

V. Ganford, 312 

V. Griggs, 303 
Grigsby v. Day, 256 
Grill V. General I. S. C. Co., 368 
Grimes v. Blake, 345 

V. Bowerman, 467 



TABLE OF CASES 



2881 



[References 

Grimes v. Hagood, 304 

V. Reese, 1070 

V. Watkins, 317 

V. Wilson, 908 
Grimested v. Lofgren, 3836 
Grimmelman v. Union Pac. R. R., 580a 
Grimshaw v. Bender, 700 
Grindle v. Eastern Express Co., 168, 

212, 623, 817, 856o 
Grinnell v. Western U. T. Co., 875, 876 

V. Wells, 471 
Gripton v. Thompson, 377a 
Grisell v. Noel Brothers Flour Feed Co., 

673d 
Griser v. Schoenborn, 385 
Grisham v. Bodman, 55, 565a 
Grissler v. Powers, 777 
Grissom V. Sorrell, 1027 

V. Hofius, 1364 
Grist V. Hodges, 956, 1258 
Griswold V. Chandler, 692i 

V. Haven, 493 

V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 172 

V. New York I. Co., 710 

V. Sabin, 1023 

V. St. Louis, etc., R. R., 1110 

t). Union Mut. Ins. Co., 714 
Griveaud v. St. Louis Cable & W. Ry., 

482 
Groat V. Gillespie, 682 

V. United Ry., 1270a 
Groesbeck v. Harris, 973 
Groff V. Philadelphia, 1120 
Grommes v. St. Paul Trust Co., 999o 
Gronan v. Kukkuck, 47, 487o, 1270 
Groover v. Warfield, 76, 753 
Grosbeck v. Harris, 981 
Grose v. Hennessey, 762, 774 
Grosjean v. Galloway, 1027 
Gross V. Davis, 807, 8076, 808 

V. Hays, 370 

V. Heckert, 984, 984a 

V. Hochstim, 641 

V. Kierski, 774 
Grossman v. R. R., 1117 
Grosvemor v. Cook, 678 

V. Ellis, 319 
Grotenkemper v. Harris, 579 
Grotton v. Glidden, 487 
Grout V. Cooper, 914 

181 



are to sections] 

Grout V. Townsend, 964 
Grove v. Bush, Q85g 

V. Wallace, 685i 

V. Yonell, 988 
Grover & B. S. M. Co. v. Bulkley, 664 
Groves v. Sentell, 341 
Growbarger v. United States F. & G. 

Co., 681a, 692i 
Grubb V. Burford, 996 
Grubbi v. Grubbi, 305 
Grubbs v. Pence, 638, 6386 

V. N. S. Home Ins. Co., 722 
Gruber v. Baker, 439a 
Grugan v. Philadelphia, 1150, 1168 
Gruman v. Smith, 228e, 512, 828 
Grand v. Pendergast, 842 

V. Tucker, 334 

V. Van Vleck, 378, 
Grundy ». Grundy, 3016 

V. Young, 685sr 
Guadelupo y Calvo Mining Co. v. 

Beatty 673c 
Guarantee Co. v. Mechanics' Savings 

Bank & Trust Co., 301 
Guarantee T. & S. D. Co. v. E. C. Drew 
Inv. Co., 934 

V. Holsell, 933, 934 
Gubbitosi v. Rothschild, 1372 
Guengerech v. Smith, 34 la. 348; 385 

V. Smith, 36 la. 687; 386 
Guenther v. Taylor, 734, 742a 
Guerard v. Rivers, 969 
Guernsey v. Carver, 636ff 

V. Phinizy, 334 

V. Shellman, 234 
Guerry v. Kerton, 1330 
Guess V. Stone Mountain Granite Co., 

1123 
Guest V. Macpherson, 359, 377, 386 
Guetzkow V. Andrews, 740, 770 
Guice V. Crenshaw, 734 

V. Harvey, 444 
Guignon v. First Nat. Bank, 311/ 
Guild V. Guild, 229 

Guildford v. Anglo-French S. S. Co., 
370 

V. Cornell, 685y 
Guille V. Swan, 128 
Guillou V. Farnshaw, 753, 755 
Guin V. Moultrie, 1138 



2882 TABLE 

[References 

Guinn v. Iowa & S. L. Ry., 331a 

». Ohio River R. R., 1144 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 722 
Guinotte v. Chouteau, 964 
Guiteman v. Davis, 275 
Guiterman v. Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. 

S. Co., 852, 1298 
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Bagby, 214o 

V. Barber, 162 

ti. Beall, 570 

I). Booth, 171o 

V. Boyce, 1367 

V. Brown, 1354 

V. Butler, 854 

V. Calhoun, 316 

V. Campbell, 229 

V. Carter, 937 

V. Chinski, 856 

V. Clark, 70 

V. Compton, 75 Tex. 667; 581 

V. Compton, 38 S. W. 220; 856a 

V. Coulter, 852 

V. Craft, 171, 1261, 1265 

V. Cusenberry, 86 Tex. 525; 75 

V. Cusenberry, 5 Tex. Civ. App 
114; 937o 

V. Delancy, 1367 

V. Dorsey, 1349 

V. Dunham, 221 

V. Dunlap, 316, 317 

V. Dunman, 1012a 

V. Duvall, 1367 

V. Eddins, 846 

V. Evansich, 4866 

V. Finley, 573a, 577, 578 

V. Fuller, 1143 

V. Gilbert, 854 

V. Gillespie, 852 

V. Graves, 316 

V. Gray, 324a 

t). Grisom, 86c 

V. Haskell, 937, 942 

V. Hartley, 88 

V. Hayter, 43ft 

V. Helsley, 942, 947 

V. Hepner, 95 

V. Hodge, 161, 843a 

V. HoUiday, 318 , 

V. Hume, 843o, 852 

V. Humphries, 324a 



OF CASES 
are to sections] 

Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. V. Jackson, 667, 
675 

V. Jagoe, 317, 318, 937a 

V. Johnson, 54 Fed. 474; 316 

V. Johnson, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 254; 
1306, 1367 

V. Keith, 432a, 438 

V. Levy, 45o, 894, 896 

V. Loonie, 881, 882, 895 

V. Luther, 43y, 1342 

V. Lyons, 1151 

V. McCarty, 316, 856 

V. McCormick, 865 

t>. McFadden, 380a 

V. McGowan, 937 

V. McMannewitz, 223 

V. McMurrough, 75, 21^c, 220, 
938 

V. Mangham, 1306 

V. Martin, 843 

V. Matthews, 937a 

V. Milan, 1167 

V. Moore, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 603; 
1307 

V. Moore, 39 S. W. 987; 1342 

V. Nelson, 856a 

V. Nicholson, 937 

V. Overton, 42, iSg, 860 

V. Patterson, 1297 

t). Pettit, 854 

V. Pool, 937 

V. Reed, 225,. 948 

V. Reggan, 937a 

V. Richards, 948, 1165c 

V. Royall, 1367 

V. Sain, 1342 

V. St. John, 1342 

V. Sauter, 43*:, 1355 

V. Simonton, 201 

V. Southwick, 573, 578 

V. Stanley, 852 

V. Trott, 43/ 

V. Wards, 412 

V. Warner, 1356 

V. Wedel, 318 

V. Wilson, 876 

V. Younger, 580, 583 
Gulf Stream, The, 588 
Gulf, C. & L, I. Ry. V. Nelson, 856a 
Gulf P. L. Co. V. Brymer, 937, 937a 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2883 



Gulf, W. T. & P. Ry. V. Holzheuser,43/i;, 
484, 485 

V. Staton, 852 
Guli V. West, 1023 
Gulliver v. Drinkwater, 920 

V. Fowler, 995 
Gumb V. Twenty-third St. Ry., 483 
Gunderson v. Northwestern Elevator 

Co., 575, 1367 
Gundy v. Nye-Schneider-Fowler Co., 

580 
Gunel V. Cue, 789 
Gunn V. Burghart, 244, 495 

V. Head, 343 

V. Howell, 341 

V. MiUer, 334 
Gunotte v. Chouteau, 975 
Gunter v. Astor, 182, 470 

V. Beard, 979, 980a, 981 

V. Cleyton, 548 
Gurdon & Ft. S. Ry. v. Calhoun, 1358 
Gurley v. MacLennan, 828 
Gurr V. W. U. T. Co., 109 
Gusdorif V. Duncan, 363a, 378 
Gussow V. Beinson, 416 
Gustafson v. Rustenleyer, 1027 

V. Wind, 1263 
Guston V. Jose, 933 
Guthman v. Castleberry, 1057 
Guthrie v. Pugsley, 975, 976, 981 

V. Russell, 980 

V. Stockton, 999o 

V. Wickliffe, 295, 334 
Gutney v. Grand Trunk Ry., 873 
Gutschneider v. Pirosnick, 6336 
Gutta Percha & R. M. Co. v. Benedict, 
301 

V. Cleburne, 762 
Guttner v. Pacific Steam Whaling Co., 

76 
Gutzweiler v. Lachman, 911 
Guy V. Cahley, 822 

V. Doak, 631a 

V. Franklin, 4, 334 
Guyandot v. Ry. Co., 1149a, 1155 
Guyer v. Davenport, R. I. & N. W. R. 

R,., 1109 
Guyon v. Serrill, 1229 
Gwaltney v. Southern Timber Co., 69, 
76, 363a 



Gwin V. Barton, 692i 
V. Breedlove, 269 
Gwinn v. Whitaker, 334 
Gwynn v. Citizens Tel. Co., 383c 
Gyger v. Courtney, 685j 

H 

H. D. Taylor Co. v. Niagara Bedstelad 

Co., 752 
H. D. Wetmore & Co. v. Henry, 734 
H. F. Diinock, The, 243, 420a 
H. G. HoUoway & Bro. v. White- 
Dunham Shoe Co., 157 
H. G. Vogel Co. V. Lockport Glass Co., 

3146 
H. P. Phillips & Co. V. Pruitt, 1364 
H. T. Smith Co. v. Minetto-Meriden 

Co., 617 
Haag V. Cooley, 451 
Haas V. Dudley, 218, 972 

V. Hudmon, 734 

V. Kansas City, F. S. & G. R. R., 
856 

V. Powers, 1337 

V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 482o 
Habeler v. Rogers, 753 
Habenocht v. Lisak, 755 
Haberman v. Gasser, 387 
Haberzettle v. Trinity & B. V. Ry., 152 
Hack V. Dady, 43h, 43i 

V. Noiris, 307 
Hackenburg v. Shaw, 411 
Hacker v. Heiney, 47, 446 

V. Blake, 973 

V. Johnson, 6916 
Hackett v. B. C. & M. R. R., 55, 848 

V. Richards, 1275 

V. Smelsley, 347, 1255 

V. Wisconsin Cent. Ry., 1306, 1367 
Hackney v. Delaware & A. T. & C. Co., 

574o 
Haddane Gr. Co. v. Brooklyn H. R. R., 

734 
Hadden v. Metropolitan El. R. R., 1208 

V. Southern Messenger Service, 154, 
370 
Haddock v. Taylor, 1028, 1030 
Haden v. Sioux C. & P. R. R., 482, 485 

V. Swepston, 681a 



2884 TABLE 

[References 

Hadley v. Ayers, 310 

V. Baxendale, 144, 152, 1018 

V. Insurance Co., 725 

V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 
879 
Hadsell v. Hancock, 238 
Haehl v. Wabash R. R., 377a, 380, 584 
Haff V. Pilling, 734, 737 
Haffke v. Coffin, 407 
Hafner Mfg. Co. v. Lieber L. & S. Co., 

734 
Hagaman v. Moore, 1148, 1293 
Hagan v. Providence & W. R. R., 360, 
380 

V. Rawle, 161 

V. Riley, 86a, 240 
Hagar v. England M. M. I. Co., 714, 
716 

V. Norton, 492a 
Hager v. Blake, 330, 343 
Hagerty v. Nashua Lock Co., 663, 673o 
Haggan v. Posley, 81 
Haggard v. Algona Ind. School Dist., 

1117, 1148, 1154 
Haggart v. Morgan, 679 
Haggin v. Price, 615 
Hagood V. Aikin, 334 

V. Blythe, 676 
Hahiat v. Codde, 637 
Hahl V. Brooks, 1027 
Hahn v. Bettingen, 81 Mmn. 91; 638c 

V. Bettmgen, 84 Minn. 512; 637 

V. Concordia Society, 426 

V. Cotton, 99, 101 

V. Cummings, 1027 

V. Horstman, 186, 407, 411, 413, 
419 

V. St. Louis, K. C. & C. R. R., 854, 
856 
Haigh V. De la Cour, 713 
Haight V. Hoyt, 50 Conn. 583; 1326 

V. Hoyt, 19 N. Y. 464; 1027 

». McVeagh, 311 

V. Pine, 301c 
Haile v. Hill, 536a 

V. Texas & P. Ry., 43/, 43A 
Haine v. Dunlap, 109 
Hainer v. Lee, 535 
Haines v. Pearson, 57^ 

V. Schultz, 353, 397, 360, 378, 380o 



OF CASES 
are to sections] 

Haines v. Stilwell, 303 

V. Tucker, 753 

V. Young, 646a 
Hair v. Barnes, 183 

V. Little, 317, 1279 
Haish V. Pollock, 913 
Haislip V. Wilmington, etc., R. R., 

1148, 1165a 
Haist V. Bell, 618, €44 
Haitt V. Allen, 294 
Halbert v. State, 692/ 
Halcomb v. Stubblefield, 565c 
Haldeman v. Berry, 1042 

V. Jennings, 411 
Hale i;. Hall, 677 

V. Hess, 613, 617, 636a 

V. James, 922 

V. New Orleans, 331a, 962 

V. San Bernardino V. T. Co., 367 

i;. Thomas, 675c 

V. Trout, 613, 615, 752 

V. Washington Ins. Co., 718 
Hales V. London & N. W. Ry., 162, 

226c, 856 
Halestrap v. Gregory, 148 
Haley v. Dorchester M. & F. I. Co., 726 

V. Mfg. F. & M. I. Co., 725 

V. Solvay Process Co., 1359 
Halfif V. O'Connor, 414 
Halfpenny v. Bell, 1031 
Hall V. Bramell, 531a 

V. Brooks, 549 

V. Cadillac, 1216, 1270a 

V. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry., 1371 

V. Clark, 1053 

V. Crowley, 419 

V. Gushing, 692^ 

V. Dean, 967, 973 

V. Deaton, 69 

V. Delaplaine, 959, 1007, 1008 

V. Edrington, 637 

V. Farmers' & C. S. B., 302a 

V. Gale, 970, 975 

V. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry., 573a 

V. Germain, 1306 

V. Gould, 999/ 

V. Hall, 42 Ind. 586; 807a, 1258 

V. Hall, 8 Vt. 156; 334 

I/. Horton, 984, 984a 

V. Iluckins, 301 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2885 



Hall V. Jordan, 336 

V. Manson, 486 

V. Middleby, 414 

V. Nash, 785 

V. Nix, 80o 

V. North Pass. C. R. R., 1367 

V. Northern & Southern Co., 636d 

V. Northwest Lumber Co., 1348 

V. Ocean Ins. Co., 711 

V. Pierce, 753 

V. Rising Sun Ins. Co., 716 

V. Scott, 345 

V. Smith, 689 

V. South Carolina Ry., 363o 

V. Stem, 1239 

V. Stewart, 193b 

V. Storrs, 823 

V. Tillman, 110 N. C. 220; 533, 535, 
536, 538 

V. Tillman, 115 N. C. 500; 691a 

V. Virginia, 302 

V. Western U. T. Co., 888 

V. White, 686 

V. Wiles, 1227, 1229 

V. York, 1011 
Hall, The, 595 
Hall's Appeal, 1047 
Hallack v. Johnson, 1353 
Hallack Lumber & Manuf . Co. v. Gray, 
. 497c 
Hallam v. Telleren, 331 

V. Todhunter, 1028 
Hallett V. Novion, 295 

V. Taylor, 1012 

V. Wylie, 999c 
Halliday v. Holgate, 80, 259 
Hallidie Mach. Co. v. Hayden-Coeur 

d'Alene Irr. Co., 12866 
HalUgan v. Wade, 999d 
Hallock V. Becher, 804, 806, 1261 

V. Franklin County, 1160 

V. Mnier, 443 

V. Slater, 413 
Halloway v. Lacy, 673/ 
Hallowell v. Guntle, 451 
Hallum V. Dickinson, 335 
Halness v. Anderson, 1332, 1339 
Halsey v. Bird, 821 

V. Hurd, 734 

V. Lehigh V. R. R., 74, 926 



Halsey v. Woodruff, 1279 

Halstead v. Nelson, 172o, 234, 443, 444 

V. Sigler, 933 

V. VandaUa R. R., 1161 
Halsted v. Meeker, 3116 
Halsted Lumber Co. v. Sutton, 734, 

742 
Halwerson v. Cole, 841 
Ham V. Goodrich, 651 

V. Hill, 789 

V. Railway, 1148 

V. Salem, 1161 

V. Wisconsin, 1154, 1165 
Hamaker v. Coons, 1011 

V. Schroers, 407, 415 
Hambleton v. Veere, 91, 1276, 1277 
Hambly v. Delaware, M. & V. R. R., 

615 
Hambrick v. Wilkins, 760 
Hamburg-Amer. S. Co. v. Baker, 1350 
Hamburg Bank v. George, 516 
Hamer v. Hathaway, 296, 317, 496, 517 

V. Kirkwood, 293, 334 

V. McFarlin, 451 

V. Rigby, 330 
Hamerlynck v. Banfield, 366 
Hamill v. Foute, 834c 
Hamill, The, 592 
Hamilton v. Bark Kate Irving, 852 

V. Cunningham, 811, 819 

V. Cutts, 804, 956 

«;. Des Moines & K. C. Ry., 932, 
933 

V. Freary, 991 

V. Finnegan, 753 

V. Ganyard, 313a, 734 

V. Grangers' L. & H. Ins. Co., 1042 

V. Great Falls St. Ry., 1360 

V. Kirby, 734 

V. Lau, 79, 82 

V. Legrange, 341 

V. Love, 633/, 666 

V. McPherson, 212, 227 

V. Magill, 162, 770 

V. Marsh, 556 

V. Maxwell, 682 

V. Mayor, 35 

V. Moore, 425 

V. N. Y. El. R. R., 1182, 1201 

V. Oil Co., 9999 



2886 TABLE 

[References 

Hamilton v. Overton, 416 

V. Phillips, 83o 

V. Pittsburg, B. & L. E. R. R., 
1163, 1166, 1169 

V. Pittsburgh, C. C. & S. L. Ry., 
485a 

V. Smith, 48, 49, 458, 459 

V. State, 685 

V. Third Ave. R. R., 53 N. Y. 25; 
383a, 864, 865 

V. Third Avenue R. R., 35 N. Y. 
Super Ct. 118; 367 

V. Thirston, 673b 

V. Van Rensselear, 325 

V. Ward, 556 

V. Western N. C. R. R., 164, 842 

V. Woodworth Ry., 486 
Hamilton, The, 597o 
Hamilton College i;. Stewart, 6066 
Hamilton County v. Rape, 1117 
Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Halsted, 83a, 

439A; 
Hamlett v. Tallman, 3406 
Hamlin v. Great Northern Ry., 42, 46o, 
862, 863 

V. Race, 665 
Hammacher v. Wilson, 1222 
Hammat v. Russ, 927 
Hammatt v. Emerson, 1040, 1052 
Hammer v. Breidenbach, 413 

V. Caine, 4866 

V. Nevill, 339a 

V. Schoenfelder, 164, 740 
Hammerslough v. Hackett, 956, 973 

V. Kansas City B. L. & S. Assoc, 
237 
Hammersmith & C. Ry. v. Brand, 1090, 

1098 
Hammond v. Beeson, 615, 6476 

V. Bussey, 146, 156, 157, 162, 238, 
773 

V. Hammond, 310 

V. Hannin, 1006, 1011 

V. Harvard, 1123 

V. Port Royal & A. Ry., 932 
■ V. Schiff, 67a 

V. SoUiday, 101 

V. Starr, 684 

V. Sullivan, 363, 943 
Hammond O. & D. Co. v. Feitel, 647c 



OF CA^ES 

are to sections] 

Hamner v. GrifiSth, 645, 549 
Hamond v. Holiday, 1038 
Hamor v. Water Co., 1152 
Hamory v. Pennsylvania, M. & S. R. 

R., 263 
Hampton v. Jones, 43^ 

V. Kansas City, 1140 

». Speokenagle, 836 
Hampton & B. R. R. v. Sizer, 235a, 540 
Hampden Paint Co. v. Springfield, etc., 

R. R., 1151 
Hampton Stave Co. v. Gardner, 1012 
Hanauer v. Bartels, 317, 538 

V. Woodruff, 278 
Hance v. Burke, 55 
Hanchett v. Gardner, 691a 

V. Haas, 1363 
Hancock v. Frankhn Ins. Co., 269 

V. Gomez, 819 

V. Hazzard, 692/ 

V. Hubbell, 98, 109 

V. Stephens, 451 

V. Western U. T. Co., 46a 
Hand v. Armstrong, 326 

V. Baynes, 844 

V. Church, 314 
Handforth v. Maynard, 936 
Handley v. Chambers, 295, 1010 
Handy v. Draper, 301o 

V. Johnson, 42 
Haney v. New York, 1348 

V. Garton, 915 

V. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. R., 1123 

V. Marshall, 1018 

V. Pinckney, 1306 
Hanford v. Howard, 325 
Hankey v. Philadelphia Co., 1142 
Hankins v. 'Majors, 1028 
Hanley v. Crowe, 302a 

V. Sutherland, 1272 
Hanlon v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 1353 
Hanly v. Davis, 497/ 
Hanmer v. Wilsey, 53, 56 
Hanna v. Harter, 738 

ti. International Petroleum Co., 
681o 

V. Mills, 6226, 756 

V. Phillips, 908 

V. Sweeney, 359 
Hannan v. Connett, 493a, 496 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



^88.7 



Hanners v. McClelland, 451 
Hannibal & 8. J. R. R. v. Martin, 47 

V. Swift, 873 
Hannibal Bridge Co. v. Schd,ubacher, 

1168 
Hannon v. O'Dell, 6916 
Hano V. Simons, 762 
Hanover F. I. Co. v. Brown, 725 

V. Lewis, 23 Fla. 193; 1272 

V. Lewis, 27 Fla. 219; 724 

V. Lewis, 28 Fla. 209; 302 
Hanover Nat. Bank «?. American D. & 

T. Co., 76, 531o ' 
Hanover R. R. v. Coyle, 180, 482a 
Hanover W. Co. v. Ashland I. Co., 

947 
Hanrahan v. Pox, 1167 
Hansard v. Menderson Clothing Co., 

667 
Hansbrough v. Peck, 414, 659 
Hanse v. New Orleans M. & F. I. Co., 

717 
Hansen v. Erickson, 673/ 
Hanselman v. Kegel, 535 
Hansen v. Gaar, 762 
Hansford v. Payne, 5706 
Hansley v. Jamesville & W. R. R., 859 
Hanson v. Buckner, 965 

V. European & N. A. R. R., 380, 
1328 

V. Fowle, 41, 47, 226/, 481 

V. Johnson, 1339 

V. Lawson, 1297 

V. Urbana & C. E. S. Ry., 489, 1370 
Hanson & Parker v. Wittenberg, 162 
Hanson H. Keyes, The, 587, 588 
Hanuu v. Williams, 665, 673/ 
Hany v. Great N. Ry., 868 
Happy V. Prichard, 482, 483, 484 

V. Prickett, 308a 
Haralson v. Walker, 684 
Harbison v. Vaughan, 334 
Harbor Trustees v. Oswald, 1093 
Hard v. Palmer, 302o 
Hardaway-Wright Co. v. Bradley Bros., 

6476 
Hardee v. Howard, 407 
Hardeman v. Turner, 909o 

V. Williams, 1369 
Harder v. Harder, 950 



Hardie-Tynes M^g- Co. v. Eastern C. 

0. Co., 762 
Hardie-Tynes F. & M. Co. v. Glen 

Allen Oil Mill, 419 
Hardiman v. Mayor, 6556 
Hardin v. Carrico, 692a 

V. Funk, 1148 

V. Kennedy, 125a 

V. Newell, 620 
Harding v. Carter, 259, 817 

V. Cowing, 270 

V. Larkin, 238, 959, 981, 982, 983 

V. New York, L. E. & W. R. R., 
481 

V. Townshend, 67a 
Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Adams, 226, 

734 
Hardy v. Bern, 675d 

V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 1359 

V. Lancashire Ins. Co., 301 

V. Nelson, 962, 982 

V. Thomas, 1279 

V. United States, 612 
Hare v. Bedell, 1023 

V. Fury, 913, 914 

V. Grant, 802 

V. Marsh, 385 

V. Parkersburg, 752a 
Harger v. Edmonds, 1043, 1293 

V. Jenkins, 667 

V. McMains, 374 
Hargis v. Mayes, 688a 
Hargous v. Ablon, 763 

V. Lahens, 705 
Hargrave ». Creighton, 275 
Hargreaves v. Kimberly, 93, 1293 
Hariston v. Sale, 674 
Barker v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry., 
1354 

V. Dement, 76 
Harkins v. Pullman P. C. Co., 574o 
Harlan v. Brown, 266 

». Ely, 823 
Harlan County v. Hogsett, 1151 
HarlesB v. Southwest Mo. Electric Ry., 

43/ 
Harley v. Stapleton, 807 
Harlow v. Marquette, H. & O. R. R., 
1109 

V. Thomas, 967, 970, 975, 979 



2888 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Harman v. Bannon, 1061 

V. Cundiff, 360, 364, 377, 385, 445 

». Harman, 917 

V. Sanderson, 1060 
Harmon v. Callahan, 226m 

V. Collins, 689a 

V. Harmon, 377, 1305 

V. Goodrich, 78, 529 

V. L. N. O. & T. R. R., 95 

V. Old Colony R. R., 486 

V. Omaha, 1123 
Harmont v. Sullivan, 9996 
Harmony v. Bingham, 419 
Harness v. Steele, 462 
Harnish v. Miles, 330 
Harper v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 
1326 

V. Columbus Factory, 1061 

V. Detroit, 95, 1109 

V. Dotson, 774, 1060 

V. Ely, 301, 346 

V. Lenoir, 1172a 

V. Miller, 163 

V. Ray, 674 
Harper Furniture Co. v. Southern Ex- 
press Co., 165 
Harr v. Ward, 459 
Harralson v. Stein, 734, 1059 
Harrell v. HiU, 1128 
Harrelson v. W. U. T. Co., 894d 
Harreson v. Ely, 372 
Harries v. Edmonds, 858 
Harriman v. New Nonpareil Co., 1293 
Harrington v. Bean, 962, 970 

V. County Commissioners, 1160 

V. Fall River Iron Works, 655c 

V. Gies, 667 

V. Glenn, 334 

V. Hoggart, 31 le 

V. Lee, 1050 

V. Murphy, 968, 973, 980a 

V. Snyder, 1063 

V. Stratton, 1040, 1050 

V. Stromberg-Mullins Co., 1257 

V. Witherow, 1272 . 
Harrington-Wiard Co. v. Blomstrom 

Mfg. Co., 608 
Harriott v. Plimpton, 130 
Harris v. Clap, 301, 678 

V. Cleghorn, 988a 



Harris v. Columbia & L. Co., 164, 742 

V. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 506o 

V. Eagle Fire Co., 710 

V. Eldred, 58, 493a 

V. Fargo, 157 

V. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., 613 

V. Gaspee F. & M. Co., 725 

V. GosUn, 999ft 

V. Grant, 497/ 

V. Great Western Ry., 851 

f. Harris, 651 

V. Jaffray, 1259 

V. Jex, 3406 

V. Kerr, 109 

V. Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry., 1325 

V. Mercur, 304 

I). Miller, 416 

V. Murfee, 549, 692t 

V. Newell, 962 

V. Packwood, 851 

V. Panama Railroad, 58 N. Y. 660; 
246 

V. Panama R. R., 5 Bosw. 312; 846 

V. Philadelphia, 1171 

V. Puget Sound El. Ry., 1367 

V. Rand, 841 

V. Rodgers, 734, 737 

V. Rupel, 1328 

V. Scher, 1371 

V. Schuylkill E. S. R. R., 1142, 
1163, 1171 

V. Smith, 535, 540 

V. Snyder, 414 

V. Theus, 426 

V. Tumbridge, 828 

V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 
876 

V. Zanone, 377 
Harris, In re, 598 
Harris' Appeal, 257 
Harris County v. Donaldson, 419 
Harris Lumber Co. v. Morris, 368 
Harris Manuf. Co. i;. Marsh, 753 
Harrisburg v. Crangle, 1154a 
Harrisburg, The, 570, 599 
Harrisburg, C. & C. T. R. R. v. Cumber- 
land County, inid 
Harrisburg E. L. Co. v. Goodman, 535 
Harrisburg S. & L. Assoc, v. United 
States F. & G. Co., 692a 



TABLE OF CASES 



2889 



, [References 

Harrison v. Adamson, 932 

V. Allen, 1325 

V. Argyle Co., 1257 

V. Berkeley, 1255 

V. Brega, 66, 8186 

V. Chappell, 536 

V. Charlton, 5166, 631a 

V. Clarke, 610 

V. Ely, 357, 360 

V. Glover, 1299 

V. Handley, 310 

V. Harrison, 508, 745 

V. Ilgner, 539 

V. Iowa, etc., R. R., 11656 

V. Kiser, 932 

B. McGehee, 495 

V. Missouri P. Ry., 435 

V. Pennsylvania Co., 865 

V. Perea, 303 

V. Redden, 170 

V. Sutter St. R. R., 574a, 1367 

V. Swift, 637a 

V. Weir, 212 

V. Western U. T. Co., 366 

V. Wright, 678, 679 

V. Young, 1171a 
Harrison Co. v. Bjme, 655 
Harrison Wire Co. v. Hall & W. H. 

Co., 734, 735a 
Harriss v. Sneeden, 109 
Harrod v. Bissoti, 47 
Harrodsburg Water Co. v. Harrods- 

burg, 312 
Harrow v. Ryan, 691a 
Harrow School v. Alderton, 100, 950 
Harrow Spring Co. v. Whipple Harrow 

Co., 742 
Hart V. Blake, 55 

V. Blum, 494c 

V. Brand, 340 

V. Brown, 930o 

V. Cascade Timber Co., 1348 

V. Charlotte, C. & A. R. R., 368, 
380, 483 

V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 933 

V. Direct U. S. C. Co., 897 

V. Dorman, 339a 

«;. Evans, 1261 

V. Georgia R. R., 170 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1270 



are to sections] 

Hart V. Miller, 228? 

V. National M. A. Assoc, 732 

V. Pennsylvania R. R., 851 

V. Skinner, 4945 

V. Spalding, 844 

V. Tobias, 531a 

V. Wabash S. R. R., 95 

V. Western U. T. Co., 891 
Haxten v. Loeffler, 1012 
Harter v. Whitebread, 448 
Hartford v. Franey, 692e 
Hartford, The, v. Rideout, 588 
Hartford & Salisbury Ore Co. v. Miller, 

966, 977 
Hartford Deposit Co. v. Calkins, 2146 
Hartford F. I. Co. v. Cannon, 722 

V. Landfare, 724 

V. Peebles Hotel Co., 723 
Hartford I. M. Co. v. Cambria Min. 

Co., 935 
Hartford Ins. Co. v. Haas, 725 
Hartford L. I. Co. v. Hope, 386 
Hartford Mill Co. v. Hartford T. W. 

Co., 644 
Hartland v. General Exchange Bank, 

207, 666, 834c 
Hartley v. Herring, 443 
Hartley State Bank v. McCorkell, 537 
Hartman v. Dobar, 1299 

V. Morning Journal Assoc, 1335 

V. Pittsburgh Incline Co., 171a 

V. Rogers, 671, 674 

V. TuUy P. L. Co., 924, 924o 
Hartman's Estate, In re, 312 
. Hartmann v. Burtis, 682o 

V. Hoffman, 682 
Hartnett v. Baker, 618 
Hartpence v. Rodgers, 480o, 1338 
Harts V. Wendell, 689a, 691a 
Hartsell v. Masterson, 667 
Hartshorn v. Burlington, C. R. & N. 
R. R., 331o, 1148, 1154 

V. Bjrme, 311 

ti. Chaddock, 932, 939 

V. Cleveland, 979, 980 

V. Worcester, 1119 
Hartsock v. Mort, 1007 
Hartwell v. Young, 6736 
Hartz V. St. Paul & S. C. R. R., 924, 
924o, 947 



2890 



TABLE OF CASES 



Hartzell v. Crumb, 1012 
Harvard v. Grouch, 1141 
Harvery u. Terre H. & I. R. R., 851 
Harvey v. Baldwin, 695 

V. Connecticut & P. R. R. R., 162, 
842, 843 

V. Detroit F. & M. I. Co., 711 

V. Georgia, S. & F. R. R., 65 

V. Grand Trunk Ry., 842 

V. Hamilton, 312 

V. Lackawanna, etc., R. R., 1142 

V. Mason, C. & F. D. R. R., 95, 99, 
109 

V. Morse, 497& 

B. News Pub. Co., 1347 

V. Sides, 932 

V. Snow, 902 

V. Thomas, 930 

V. Turner, 820 

V. United States, 610, 614 
Harwood v. Bloomington, 1138 

V. Lee, 109, 968 

V. Tappan, 645 
Hasbrouck v. Tappen, 400, 417 

V. Winkler, 83 
Hase V. Seattle, 1360 
Haselmeyer v. McLellan, 1328, 1330 
Haskell v. Bartlett, 331o 

V. Brown, 1070 

V. Hunter, 734 

V. McHenry, 763 

V. Mitchell, 1296 
Haskell Comity Bank v. Bank of Santa 

Fe, 88 
Haskins v. Rhode Island Co., 1347 

V. Scott, 618 
Haslam v. Galena & S. W. R. R., 1149 
Hass V. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 1367 
Hassam v. Safford, 934 
Hassard-Shord v. Hardison, 734 
Hasselbusch v. Mohmking, 974 
Hassell v. Long, 692d 

V. Nutt, 669 
Hastay v. Bonness, 504, 934 
Hastie v. De Peyster, 304 
Hastings v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 
942 

». Crunckleton, 950 

V. Johnson, 334 

V. Stetson, 47, 450 



[References are to sections] 

Hastings v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 
302 

V. Wiswall, 343, 345 

V. Farmers' & M. B., 305 
Hatch V. Cincinnati, etc., R. R., 1155, 
1166 

V. Fuller, 47, 86c, 473 

V. Luckman, 937 

V. Vt. Central R. R., 35, 1108, 
1115 
Hatchell v. Kimbrough, 135, 927 
Hatcher ». Andres, 973 

V. Kelly, 343 
Hatcher v- Pelham, 493 
Hatchett v. Gibson, 1066 
Hatfield v. Central R. R., 42, 947, 948, 
1195 

». Holloway, 12866 

V. Lasher, 448d 

V. St. Paul & D. R. R., 1309 
Hathaway v. Lynn, 411 

V. Osborne, 121d 
Hatheway v. CUff, 687 

V. F. R. Nat. Bank, 80 
Hathome v Stinson, 99 
Hatry v. Painesville, etc., R. R., 1154c 
Hatt V. Evening News Assoc, 377 
Hatterman v. Thorupson, 294 
Hattin v. Chapman, 637, 639 
Haubner v. Milwaukee, 1110 
Haufler v. PubUc Service Ry., 1216 
Hauk V. Brownell, 777 
Hauptman v. Catlin, 650 
Hauralian v. Mayor of Baltimore, 932 
Hauxhurst v. Hovey, 301, 305 
Havana, R. & E. R. R. v. Walsh, 1328 
Havemeyer v. Cminingham, 222, 741 
Havemeyer v. Havemeyer, 43 N. Y. 
Super. Ct. 506; 632 

V. Havemeyer, 45 N. Y. Super. 
Ct. 564; 200 

V. Paul, 331 
Haven v. Beidler Mfg. Co., 109 

V. Foster, 306 

V. Grand Junction R. R., 3016, 304 

V. Wakefield, 167, 645, 984, 984a 
Haverner, The, 694 
Havens v. Hartford & N. H. R. R. R., 
107a, 1272 

V. Lathene, 692/ 



T'ABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2891 



tlaverly v. Elliott, 559&, 691(f 

V. R. R., lUd 
Haverstick v. Erie Gas Co., 229 
Havilah, The, 589, 592 
Haviland v. Chase, 358 

V. Parker, 226c, 435, 435a 
Hawes v. Knowles, 41, 358 

V. O'Rdelly, 482 

V. Wooicock, 273 
Hawk V. American News Co., 448a 

V. Anderson, 1258 

V. Pine L. Co., 614 

V. Ridgway, 42, 387 
Hawkins v. Citizens' Investment Co., 
302 

V. Coulthurst, 603, 623 

V. Deitz, 2,126 

V. Front St. Cable Ry., 44, 486 

V. Gilbert, 656, 659 

V. Globe Printing Co., 448d 

V. Hersey, 497(7 

V. Hoffman, 873 

V. Kansas City H. P. B. Co., 493a 

V. Kemp, 1023 

V. King, 909a 

V. L., etc., Assoc, 339a 

V. Merritt, 1007, 1012a 

V. Minor, 305, 340c 

V. Mitchell, 338 

V. Potter, 979 

V. Ridenhour, 334 

V. Sciet, 349 
Hawkinson v. Olson, 704 
Hawley v. Barker, 335 

V. Belden, 618 

V. Corey, 607 

V. Dawson, 312 

V. Forsheim, 645 

V. Tesch, 341 

V. Warner, 78, 691a, 6916 
Hawman v. McLean, 1027 
Hawn V. Banghart, 50, 477 
Haws V. Stanford, 449 
Hawthorne v. McArthur, 685d 

V. Siegel, 71, 127a, 189, 226ff, 927, 
9906, 1304 
Hawyer v. Bell, 254a 
Hay V. Cohoes Co., 33, 1111 

V. Commonwealth, 1151 

V. LeNeve, 588 



Hay V. Reidj 448c 

V. Short, 1049 

V. Williams, 742a 
Haycraft v. Creasy, 100 
Haycroft v. Walden, 768 
Hayden v. Albee, 86a 

V. Anderson, 77, 531a, 6916 

V. Bartlett, 317, 493 

i;. Demets, 753 

V. Florence Sewing Machine Co., 
188, 1330 

V. Hefferan, 334 

V. Madison, 656 
Hayes v. Atlanta, 1169 

V. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 64 la. 
753; 331a 

V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 131 
Wis, 399; 1367 

V. Cooley, 119, 151 

V. Gross, 655c 

V. Massachusetts L. I. Co., 257, 259 

V. Moynihan, 991 

V. O'Reilly, 483 

V. Ottawa, Oswego & F. R. V. R. 
R., 1130 

V. Phelan, 1248 

V. Porter, 543 

V. Seaver, 802 

t). Sease, 487a 

V. Tibbits, 4Md 

V. Wabash R. R., 169a 

V. WeUs, Fargo & Co., 844 
Haymond v. Saucer, 640a 
Hayner v. Cowden, 360, 384a, 385, 445 
Haynes v. Connelly, 107a 

V. Duluth, 1148 

V. Harper, 1052 

t>. Knowles, 467 

V. Leland, 44Sd 

V. Maine Cent. R. R., 1359 

V. Sinclair, 472 

V. Stevens, 982, 983 

V. Tenney, 667, 684 

V. WatendUe & O. St. Ry., 485, 
1306 

V. Worthington, 999e 
Hays V. Askew, 363 

V. Borders, 469 

V. Creary, 47, 461, 462 

V. Crist, 937 



2892 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to Bections] 



Hays V. H. G. N. R. R., 380 

,j. Riddle, 76, 78 

V. South Easton, 1142 

V. Wilkinsburg & E. P. S. Ry., 619 

V. Williams, 311 

V. Wilstach, 688a 

V. Windsor, 540 
Haysler v. Owen, 644, 657, 1066, 1067 
Hayter v. Moat, 1277 
Haythorn v. Lawson, 443 
Hayward v. Cain, 67a, 345 

V. Ellis, Slid 

V. Leonard, 650, 657 

V. Newton, 1368 
Haywood v. Bering Coal Co., 1347 

V. Foster, 448c 

V. Hamm, 378 
Hayworth v. Haldeman, 667 
Haxton v. Kansas City, 86c 
Hazard v. Durant, 311a, 3116 

V. Israel, 351, 378 

V. New England M. I. Co., 718 
Hazard Powder Co. v. Volger, 486a 
Hazelet v. Holt County, 305 
Hazelett v. Woodruff, 982, 983 
Hazelrig v. Hutson, 1016 
Hazeltine v. Mosher, 934a 
Hazelton v. Carolus, 257 

V. Valentine, 796 
Hazen v. Casey, 85c 

V. Lyndonville Bank, 1256(2 
Hazelton v. Week, 363, 929o 
Hazlip V. Austin, 647c 
Hazzard v. Duke, 294 
Head v. Georgia P. Ry., 46, 47, 865 

V. Green, 776 

V. Levy, 103 

V. Porter, 1230a 
Heald v. Hendy, 310 
Healdsburg v. Mulligan, 692/ 
Healey v. Ballentine, 486 
Healy v. Fallon, 3146 

V. Hoy, 1367 

V. Hutchinson, 4975, 567, 684 

V. Newton, 688 

V. Protection M. F. I. Co., 334 
Heard v. Bowers, 413 

V. Hicks, 691c 

V. Holman, 196, 592, 593 

V. James, 503, 534 



Heard v. Lodge, 802 

V. Middlesex Canal, 1147 
Heame v. De Young, 382 

V. Keath, 807a 
Heam v. McDonald, 935a 
Heartt v. Kruger, 822 

V. Rhodes, 339a 
Heartz v. Klinkhammer, 363a 
Heaston v. Colgrove, 1046 
Heater v. Pearce, 109 

V. R. R., 486c 
Heath v. Gay, 302a 
V. Haile, 73 
V. Lent, 565(i, 682 
V. Postal T. C. Co., 208a 
V. Wells, 962 
Heaton v. Timmons, 975 

V. Wright, 451 
Heaton B. F. Co. v. Macdonald, 1237 
Heatwole v. Gorrell, 413, 415 
Heaver v. Lanahan, 636c 
Heavilon v. Kramer, 205 
Hebb V. Welch, 643 
Hebe, The, 597a 
Hebert v. Kingston Lumber Co., 1356 

V. Weil, 419 
Hebner v. Sun Ins. Co., 712a 
Hecht V. Brandus, 667 
V. Harrison, 109 
V. Metzler, 53, 1027 
Heck V. Bulkley, 685i 

V. International S. P. Co., 1354 
V. Shener, 1031 
Heckmann v. Pinkney, 425 
Heckscher v. M'Crea, 211, 858, 1024, 

1034 
Hecla Powder Co. v. Sigua Iron Co., 148 
Hedden v. Griffin, 439c 
Heddles v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 47, 

484, 1356 
Hedger v. Union Ins. Co., 722 
Hedges v. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1347 
V. West Shore R. R., 1151, 1152 
Hedin v. Minneapolis, M. & S. Inst., 

440 
Heer v. Warren-Scharf Asphalt Paving 

Co., 181, 1355 
Heermance v. James, 48 
Hefferlin v. Karlman, 310 
Heffron v. Brown, 671 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2893 



Heffron v. Gage, 334 

Hefley v. Baker, 361, 364, 365, 368, 373 

Hefford v. Alger, 678 

Hefner v. Hesse, 685? 

Hege V. Newsom, 762 

Heger v. De Groat, 307, 919, 920 

Heiberger v. Missoxiri & Kansas Tel. 

Co., 1347 
Heidelbaugh v. People's Ry., 483, 484, 

485 
Heidenheimer v. Ellis, 295, 308 
Heidiman-Benoist Saddlery Co. v. 

Schott, 531 
Heidt V. Minor, 692a, 692? 
Heilbron v. St. Louis S. W. Ry., 95, 

924a, 1123 
Heilbroner v. Douglass, 516c 

V. Hancock, 222, 858 
Heilmen v. Pruyn, 768 
Heim v. Wolf, 667 
Heiman v. Schroeder, 302 
Heimburg v. Ismay, 1011 
Heimsworth v. Anderson, 226/ 
Heine v. Meyer, 655c 
Heinel v. People's Ry., 482, 484, 485 
Heinemann v. Heard, 740, 825 
Heines v. Kiehl, 762 
HeinmuUer v. Abbott, 495 
Heinrich v. St. Louis, 1149 
Heintz v. Caldwell, 484 
Heinz v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 1367 

V. Roberts, 426 
Heim v. M'Caughan, 372, 862, 868 
Heiser v. Mears, 636c, 758 

V. Loomis, 1269 
Heisler v. Heisler, 1338 
Heiss V. Milwaukee & L. W. R. R., 1115 
Heissler v. Stose, 307 
Helberg v. Nichol, 824a 
Helbling v. Alle^eny Cemetery Co., 

942 
Helbum v. Mofford, 999c 
Helena v. Brule, 685, 685j 
Helena Gas Co. v. Rodgers, 573a 
Helfrich v. Meyer, 682a, 683 
Helland v. Bridenstine, 358 
Hellen v. Ardley, 678 

t>. Metropolitan R. R., 334 
Heller v. Alvarado, 332 
V. Meis, 695 



Hellman v. Merz, 302a 

V. Spielman, 548 
Helm V. Anchor F. I. Co., 1326 

V. Gridley, 556 
Helmer v. Colorado, S. N. O. & P. R. 

R., 1123 
Helmkampf v. Wood, 685j, 685ra 
Helms V. Western U. T. Co., 894c 
Helton V. Alabama Midland R. R., 485a 

V. Asher, 970 
Helvenstein v. Higgason, 973 
Heman v. Compton HUl Imp. Co., 660, 

662 
Hemenway v. Washington W. P. Co., 

1353 
Hemmenway v. Fisher, 597a, 698 
Hemminger v. Western Assur. Co., 

6556 
Hemmingway Manuf. Co. v. Council 

Bluffs Canning Co., 752 
Hempstead v. Des Moines, 52 la. 303; 
11120 

V. Des Moines, 63 la. 36; 95 

V. New York C. R. R., 846 
Hempsted v. Cargill, 1151 
Hencke v. Johnson, 973 
Henckler v. County Court, 692i 
Henckley v. Hendrickson,- 750 
Henderhen v. Cook, 673a 
Henderson v. Bank of Hamilton, 153a 

V. Cansler, 410 

V. Chaires, 921 

V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 1334 

V. Clayton, 1347 

V. Coleman, 927, 930 

V. Coover, 692fc 

V. Davenport, 901 

V. Davis, 310 

V. Desham, 326 

V. Fox, 447, 1327 

V. Hamilton, 345 

V. Henderson, 979 

V. HoUind, 515 

V. Jennings, 750 

V. Laurens, 345 

V. Lexington, 1149, 1169 

V. McClain, 1123, 1138« 

V. McGuder, 1337 

V. McReynolds, 1369, 1370 

V. Maid of Orleans, 852 



2894 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Henderson v. Minneapolis, 1108 

V. Murphree, 415 

V. Nichols, 408 

V. New York C. R. R., 95, 1146, 
1154, 1185, 1190 

V. O'Haloran, 120 

V. Reeves, 695a 

V. Sevey, 240 

V. Squire, 240, 999^ 

V. Stiles, 674 

V. Sun M. I. Co., 723 

V. Weidman, 436 

V. Western M. & F. Ins. Co., 722 

V. White, 1363 

V. Winstead, 1138o 
Henderson & Nashville R. R. v. Dick- 

erson, 1138o 
Henderson-Boyd Lumber Co. v. Cook, 

412 
Henderson B. R. R. v. Dechamp, 1165 
Henderson City Ry. v. Lockett, 368 
Henderson Cotton Mfg. Co. ». Lowell 

Mach. Shops, 308, 310 
Handle v. Geiler, 482, 484, 487a 
Hendler v. Quigley, 377a 
Hendricks v. Evans, 499 

V. Fowler, 490 

V. Franklin, 700 

V. Spring VaUej^ M. & I. Co., 935 

V. Western U. T. Co., 876 
Hendrickson v. Anderson, 206, 667 

V. Dwyer, 59 

V. Kingsbury, 372, 386 
Hendrie v. Neelon, 246, 739 
Hendrk v. Jefferson Co. Sav. Bk., 6336 
Hendry v. Irvine, 735c 

V. Squier, 993 
Heneky v. Smith, 360 
Henn v. Horn, 383, 448o 
Hennepin County v. Jones, 692/ 
Hennessy v. Metzger, 419 
Kennies v. Vogel, 1326 
Henning v. Van Hook, 1039 

V. Van Tyne, 335 

V. Western U. T. Co., 379 

V. Withers, 959 
Hennion o. Jacobus, 301c 
Henry v. Davis, 229, 410, 687 

V. Dubuque R. R., 1148, 1167 

V. Ferguson, 6916 



Henry v. Flagg, 345 

V. Hand, 803 

V. Hobbs, 156, 762 

V. Klopfer, 486a 

ti. Mitchell, 131 

V. North American R. C. Co., 257 

V. Norwood, 451 

V. Pittsburgh & A. Bridge Co., 
1108 

V. Prendergast, 579 

V. Risk, 310 

V. Roe, 302a 

V. Rutland & B. R. R., 673e 

V. Sioux City & P. Ry., 1355 

V. Thompson, 331 

V. Ward, 334 
Henry Buck, The, 432o, 438 
Henry Hall Sons Co. v. Sundatrom & 

Stratton Co., 932 
Hensen v. Beebe, 608 
Henshaw v. Bsink 6f Bellows Falls, 497 
Hensley v. Orendorff, 531, 1298 
Henson v. Taylor, 363a 
Hentig v. Collins, 688a 

V. Reddin, 909a, 915 
Hentz V. Long Island R. R., 1182, 1185 

V. Mt. Vernon, 1334 
Hepburn v. Griswold, 269 

V. Dunlop, 3016 

V. Sewell, 317, 533 
Hepp V. Ducros, 325 
Heppe V. Johnson, 692e 
Herbener v. Crossan, 458, 459 
Herberger v. Orr, 416 
Herbert v. Easton, 278 

V. Ford, 1062 

V. Hardenbergh, 1259 

V. Hillman, 1006 

v. Rainey, 932 

V. S. & Y. Ry., 331 

V. Stanford, 613 
Herbst v. The Asiatic Prince, 599a 
Hercules, The, 590 
Hercules Iron Works v. Elgin J. & E. 

Ry., 1171 
Herd v. Thompson, 627o, 753 
Herdie v. Young, 375, 534, 933 
Herefordshire Banking Co., In re, 302a 
Herfort v. Cramer, 777, 1027 
Hergcrt v. Union Ry., 1270o 



TABLE OF CASES 
IReferences are to Sections] 



2895 



Herkimer Man. & H. Co. v. Small, 627 
Herman v. Drinkwater, 1288 
Hermann v. Allen, 685c, 12866 
Hermann, The, 593 
Herndon v. Harrisson, 966 

V. Venable, 1012a 
Hernsheim v. Newport, N. & M. V. Co., 

119 
Herold v. Manhattan R. R., 1208 
Heron v. Hartford Ins. Co., 722 
Herpolsheimer v. Christopher, 984 
Herreshoff v. Tripp, 363a, 364, 914, 920 
Herrick v. Moore, 973 

V. Wixom, 1303 
Herrin & S. R. R. v. Nolte, 1167 
Herring v. Armwood, 133, 164 

V. Chesapeake & W. Ry., Il9 

«. Gage, 1236, 1245 

V. Jester, 473, 475 

V. Metropolitan Bd. of Wks., 1093 

V. Pollard, 1012o 

V. Skaggs, 762, 766 

V. Tomlin, 607 
Herriter v. Porter, 856 
Herrman v. East St. Louis, 1130 
Herron v. De Bard, 973 

y. Jones & Laughlin Co., 932 

V. Western U. T. Co., 888 
Hersey v. Fosdick, 311/ 

V. Ins. Co., 1301 

V. Walsh, 256 
Hersh v. Ringwalt, iiSd 
Hershey v. Hershey, 345 
Hertzog v. Hertzog, 959, 1006, 1020 

V. Ins. Co., 725 
Hespen v. Union Pac. R. R., 435, 1296 
Hess V. Sparks, 364, 377 
Hess' Estate, 311c 

Hesse v. Colmnbus, S. & H. B. Co., 
180a 

V. Imperial E. L. H. & P. Co.,1266 
Hessing v. McClosky, 565 
Hester v. Knox, 228 
Hetzel V. Baltimore & O. R. R., 170a, 

331o 
Hewes v. Germania Fruit Co., 312, 753, 

755 
Hewett », Chadwick, 324o 
Hewins v, London Assur. Corp., 723o, 
724 



Hewitt V. John Week Lumber Co., 3146, 
315 

V. Miller, 763 

I). Pennsylvania R. R., 486a 

V. Pioneer-Press Co., 448c 

V. Pittsburg, etc., R. R., 1142 
Hewlett V. Ragsdale, 461, 462, 463, 464 
Hewson-Herzog Supply Co. v. Minne- 
sota Brick Co., 734 
Hexter v. Knox, 63 N. Y. 561; 167, 186, 
209, 645, 991, 992 

V. Knox, 39 N. Y. Super. Ct. 109; 
984 
Hey V. Collman, 948 

V. Hawkins, 438 

t>. Wyche, 999i 
Heydon & Smith's Case, 76 
Heyer v. Carr, 431 

V. Cunningham Piano Co., 667 
Heyman v. Landers, 685{r, 696 
Heyn v. Philips, 834a 
Heyheinan v. Blake, 1112a 
Heynes v. Dixon, 678 
Heys V. Tmdall, 829 
Heyward v. Cuthbert, 921 

«. 'Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 1187 
Heywood v. Hartshorn, 3406 

V. Heywood, 279c, 999o 
Hibbard ». Clark, 1031 

V. Foster, 75 

V. McKindley, 685 

V. Stewart, 55 

t>. W.U.Tel. Co., 109,888 
Hibbert v. Bayley, 832 
Hibemia B. & T. Co. v. Smith, 981 
Hibert v. Lang, 1031 
Hickam v. Hickam, 673c 
Hickey v. Baird, 109 

V. Brinkley 426 

V. Welch, 43i, 1266, 226/, 363a 
Hickhorn v. Bradley, 193a 
Hickman «. City of Kansas, 1140 

V. Haynes, 737, 763 
Hickok V. Adattis Co., 166 

ti. Buck, 78 

I). W. E. Adams Co., 642 
Hicks V. Blakeman, 917 

V. Deemer, 439a 

V. Foster, 233, 234, 444 

V. McBride, 689a 



2896 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Hicks V. Mareco, 288 

V. N. A. & H. R. R., 67a 

V. Swift Creek M. Co., 363a, 930 
Hidden v. Jordan, 3406 
Hiedenheimer v. Johnson, 303 
Higgins V. Breen, 665 

V. Dublin, 1104 

V. Lee, 1067 

V. Los Angeles G. & B. Co., 932 

V. L. N. O. & T. R. R., 360, 372, 
1342 

V. Mansfield, 680 

V. New York, L. E. & W. R. R., 939 

V. Sargent, 287, 288 

V. Whitney, 60 
Higginson v. Air, 340c 

V. Weld, 407, 413, 842 
High V. Berret, 778 
High Bridge Lumber Co. v. United 

States, 1110, 1116 
Highes V. Wickcliffe, 678 
Highland A. & B. R. R. v. Matthews, 
95, 947 

V. Robinson, 380 
Highley v. First Nat. Bank, 333 
Highway Commissioners v. Sangamon, 

1154 
Hignett v. Norridgewock, 1347 
Hilboume v. County of Suffolk, 1147 
Hilbrant v. Simmons, 451 
Hildebrand v. American Fine Art Co., 
673/ 

V. Standard Biscuit Co., 576 
Hildreth v. Fitts, 1298, 1302 

V. Hancock, 388 

V. Western U. T. Co., 8815 
Hile V. Davison, 973 
Hilfrich v. Meyer, 361 
Hill V. Bishop, 1070 

V. Boston, H. T. & W. R. R., 851 

n. Butler, 956, 973 

V. Canfield, 493a, 499 

V. Carr, 679 

V. Chipman, 6365, 734 

V. Cooper, 908 

V. Durand, 339a 

V. Featherstonhaugh, 1038 

V. Fitzgerald, 569 

V. Forkner, 109 

V. Gleiiwood, 1347 



HiU V. Golden, 976 

V. Goodchild, 1279 

V. Hooper, 6736 

V. Hunt, 303 

V. Kimball, i3h, 43i 

V. Larro, 76 

V. Leigh, 618 

V. Loomis, 60 

V. Maupin, 637, 639 

V. McKay, 739, 753 

V. Meyers, 914 

V. Montgomery, 372 

». Mudd, 431 

V. N. O. O. & G. W. R. R., 380 

V. Packard, 834 

V. Parsons, 156 

V. Place, 3405 

V. Smith, 32 Vt. 433; 519, 746 

V. Smith, 34 Vt. 535; 734 

V. South Staffordshire Ry., 289 

V. Starin, 1356 

V. Thomas, 685A, 685A; 

V. Turner, 556 

V. Union Ry., 1369 

V. Winsor, 121d, 139 
Hillebrant v. Brewer, 493 
Hillerbrand v. May Mercantile Co., 

1353 
Hillhouse v. Mix, 83 
Hilliard, In re, 3116 
Billiard Flume Co. d. Woods, 515 
Hillman v. Baumbach, 383c, 910, 929a 

». Edwards, 565a 
Hills V. Home Ins. Co., 1302 
Hillyard v. Crabtree, 657, 660, 662 
Hilsdale C. & C. Co. v. Pa. R. R., 

143 
Hilton V. Jesup Banking Co., 171o 

V. St. Louis, 331a 

V. State, 335 

V. Sylvania & G. R. R., 493 

V. Woods, 501, 935 
Hilton & D. L. Co. v. Ingram, 1348 
Himely v. Rose. 336 
Himes v. Pittsburg, 1142 
Himmelman v. Oliver, 331a 
Hinchchffe v. Koontz, 667 
Hinchey v. Koch, 531, 533, 536 
Hinckley v. Beckwith, 186, 190, 226ff, 
228, 319, 992 



Table of cases 



2897 



[References 
Hinckley v. Kreita, 688 

V. Pittsburg B. S. Co., 608, 613, 
617, 636o, 636/, 752 

V. West, 676 
Hinde v. Liddell, 161, 208a, 226^, 434 

V. Smith, 822 
Hindman v. First Nat. Bank, 778 
Hine v. New York EI. R. R., 1154a 
Hiner v. Richter, 1016, 1028 
. Hines v. Shumaker, 1335 
Hindry v. The Priscilla, 599c 
Hinds V. Barton, 318 

V. Hinds, 692j 
Hingham v. United States, 1179a 
Hink V. Sherman, 358 
Hinkle v. Davenport, 446, 451 

V. Holmes, 688a 
Hinkson v. Morrison, 691 
Hinman v. Borden, 556 

V. Goodyeat, 324a 

V. Heyderstadt, 934, 937 

V. Judson, 82 . 
Hinrichs v. New Orleans, 999<i 
Hinsdell v. Weed, 1067 
Hinsman v. N. Y. Mutual Ins. Co., 841 
Hinson v. Hampton, 673/ 

V. Smith, 226/, 506o 
Hinton v. Eastern Ry., 1334 

V. Sparkes, 414 
Hintz V. Crauper, 445 
Hiort V. London & N. W. Ry., 494o 
Hire p. Kinsley, 1148 
Hiroux w. Baum, 1347, 1354 
Hirsch v. Feeney, 460 
Hirschkovitz v. Pennsylvania R. R., 

1367 
Hirsh V. Press Pub. Co., 618 
Hirt ». Hahn, 618, 644 
Hirth V. Indianapolis, 1108 
Hise V. Western U. T. Co., 883 
Hiscock V. Fulton, 301c 
Hisler ». Carr, 633 
Hitchcock V. Anthony, 182, 1936 

V. Bank, 819 

V. Harrington, 921 

V. Hunt, 2126, 764 

V. Libby, 934 

V. Supreme Tent of Knights of 
Maccabees, 633 
Hitchins v. Frostburg, 1110 

182 



are to sectionsj 

Hitchens v. Hitchens, 921 

V. Sussex School Dist., 665 
Hitchings v. Maryville, 1270, 1270o 
Hitchner v. Ehlers, 1251 
Hitchman V. Whitney, 472 
Hitchner v. Ehlers, 36a 
Hitson V. Hurt, 171 
Hitt V. Allen, 293 
Hively V. Webster County, 1367 
Hixon V. Cupp, 681a, 692 

t). Hixon, 276, 281, 424a, 635 
Hixt's Case, 19, 394, 605 
Hlubek V. Pinske, 459 
Hoadley v. International Paper Co., 
577 

V. Northern T. Co., 119, 139 

V. Watson, 234, 366 
Hoag V. M'Ginnis, 401 
Hoagland v. Forest Park Highlands 
Amusement Co., 361 

V. Moore, 660 

V. Schenck, 301c 

V. Segur, 301, 418 
Hoard v. Des Moines, 1108 

V. Gamer, 814, 819 
Hoare v. Allen, 340c 
Hoback v. Kilgores, 1018 
Hobart v. Penny, 695 
Hobart Lee Tie Co. v. Keck, 1348 
Hobbs V. Bland, 762 

V. Davis, 121d 

V. London & S. W. Ry., 30, 42, 46a, 
146, 150, 859, 867 

V. Middleton, 681a 

V. Riddick, 1039 
Hobit V. Bloomington, 337 
Hoblins v. Kimble, 1258 
Hoblit V. Bloomington, 179 
Hoboken Printing, etc., Co. v. Kahn, 

451 
Hobson V. Lord, 717 

V. Philadelphia, 1120 

V. Thelluson, 547 

V. Trevor, 675c 
Hochhalter «. Manhattan R. R., 1194 
Hochfiter v. De La Tour, 213, 636d, 754 
Hockerslnith v. Hanley, 162, 739 
Hocking v. Hamilton, 636d 

Li. Windsor Spring Co., 1359 
Hocutt V. W. U. Tel. Co., 212a 



2898 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



,947 



,982 



Hodd V. Tacoma, 1306, 1363 
Hodgdon v. Hodgdon, 334 
Hodge V. Quiry, 311/ 

V. Shaw, 93 
Hodges V. Fries, 185, 984, 984a 

V. Hodges, 304 

V. Holeman, 302a 

V. King, 423 

V. Litchfield, 1017 

V. Parker, 310a 

V. Phinney, 921 

V. Pine Product Co., 

V. Thayer, 966 

V. Wilkinson, 774 
Hodgins v. Hodgins, 959, 
Hodgkins v. Dunham, 766 

V. Moulton, 1040, 1046 

V. Price, 307, 909, 909a, 987 

V. Robson, 999(i 
Hodgson V. Bell, 786, 789 

V. Millward, 364 

V. Sidney, 439 

V. Wood, 789 
HodsoU V. Stallebrass, 86c 

V. Goodale, 246, 496 
Hoe V. Sanborn, 762, 1040 
Hoefler v. McGlinchy, 3016 
Hoehle v. Allegheny Heating Co., 133 
Hoertz v. Marrett, 973 
Hoey V. Felton, 129, 200 
Hoff V. Baum, 999e 
Hoffeditz v. Railroad, 1110 
Hoffman v. JEtna, Ins. Co., 722 

V. Bloomsburg & S. R. R., 1149 

V. Bosch, 959, 983 

V. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 205 

V. Insurance Co., 726 

V. King, 11 Id 

V. Kirby, 976 

V. Mill Creek Coal Co., 92ia, 932 

V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 
1367 

V. Northern Pac. R. R., 865 

V. Rib Lake Lumber Co., 1355 

V. Union Ferry Co., 226b, 589 

V. Western M. & F. I. Co., 722 
Hofnagle- v. New York C. & H. R. R. 

R., 126d 
Hogau V. Atlantic Elevator Co., 492& 

V. Cregan, 473, 476 



Hogan V. Kellum, 58, 545 

V. Shuart, 762 

V. Thorington, 772 

V. Titlow, 673/ 
Hoge V. Norton, 198, 682 
Hogg V. Cardwell, 777, 1060 

V. Emerson, 1216, 1228 

V. Hensley, 921 

V. Pinckney, 98 

V. Zanesville Canal, etc., Co., 295, 
316 
Hogle V. New York Central & H. R. 

R. R., 214 
Hohenthal v. Watson, 531 
Hohmanv. Chicago, 1121, 1169 
Hohorst V. Hamburg-American Packet 

Co., 1215 
Hoit V. Stratton Mills, 929 
Hoitt V. Holcombe, 805 
Holaman v. Marsh, 1042 
Holbrook v. Griffis, 947 

V. Sims, 325 

V. Tobey, 418 

V. Young, 1057 
Holbum V. Neal, 1326 
Holcomb V. Norman, 485 

V. Rawlyns, 911, 924, 931 

V. Wyckoff, 695 
Holden v. Freeman's Sav. & Tr. Co., 
327 

V. Lake Co., 182, 941 

i;. New York C. R. R., 303, 854 

V. Peace, 310a 

V. Rutland R. R., 859 
Holdfast V. Shepard, 75 
HoUhan v. City of New York, 337 
Holister v. Union Co., 1108 
Holland v. Brooks, 1328 

V. Brown, 673, 573a, 588 

V. Makepeace, 798 

ti. San Antonio, 926 

V. Seven Hundred, etc.. Tons of 
Coal, 856 

V. Worley, 253 
Holland Torpedo Boat Co. v. Nixon, 

425 
HoUenback v. Dingwell, 224 
HoUenbeck v. Berkshire R. R., 570& 

V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 1356 

V. Johnson, 119 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2899 



Holler V. Western U. T. Co., 894c 
HoUeran v. Bagnell, 573 
HoUerbach & M. C. Co. v. Wilkins, 617 
Holies V. Carr, 679 
Holley V. Mix, 1279 

V. Torrington, 1112a, 1163 
Holliday v. Cohen, 682 

V. Marshall, 312, 314o, 999 
Hollingsworth v. Atkins, 564 

V. Des Moines & St. L. Ry., 1155 

V. Detroit, 346 

V. Funkhouser, 915, 917 

V. Mexia, 961 
HoUins V. Gorham, 1345 
HoUinshead v. Mactier, 655 

V. Von Glahn, 324a 
HoUinshed v. Yazoo & M. V. R. R,, 484 
Hollis V. Chapman, 655c 

V. Western U. T. Co., 885 
HoUister v. Donahoe, 319 

V. Ruddy, 363 
HoUman v. Creagmiles, 968, 979 
Holloway v. Griffith, 641c, 658 

V. Holloway, 685j 

V. Miller, 979 

V. Talbot, 665 

V. Turner, 226c, 436 
Holly V. Floumoy, 527 
Holm V. Jamieson, 789 
Holmes v. Balcom, 241a 

V. Boydston, 762 

V. Carolina C. R. R., 222 

V. Davis, 71 

». Dring, 286 

V. Fuller, 226m 

V. Goodwin, 533 

V. Halde, 180 

V. Holmes, 64 111. 294; 385 

V. Holmes, 12 Barb. 137; 416 

t>. Jones, 121N. Y. 461;377 

V. Jones, 147 N. Y. 59; 451 

V. Jones, 69 Hun, 346; 1327, 1335 

V. Langston, 531a, 6916 

V. Misroon, 310 

V. Rankin, 313 

V. Rhodes, 786 

V. Seaman, 959, 965 

V. Seely, 924, 931 

V. Sinniekson, 982 

V. Standard Oil Co.. 678 



Holmes v. Stummel, 655 

V. Truman, 1237 

V. Weaver, 237, 685j 

V. Weed, 804 

V. Wilson, 91, 949 
Holt V. Hayes, 934 

V. Howard, 310 

V. Sargent, 932 

V. Spokane & P. Ry., 572 

V. United S. L. I. & T. Co., 613, 
616 

V. Van Eps, 375 
Holt Mfg. Co. V. Thornton, 170a 
Holter Lumber Co. v. Fireman's F. I. 

Co., 722 
Holthaus V. Hart, 682a 
Holton V. Butler, 1167 

V. Daly, 573a 

V. Hicks, 486 

V. Taylor, 565a 
Holtzman v. Franklin Ins. Co., 723a 
Holyoke v. Grand T. Ry., 47, 485 
Holzworth V. Koch, 1059 
Hoke E. P. Co. v. Schraubstadter, 1237 
Homan v. Franklin Co., 181 
Homans v. Boston E. Ry., 43d, 43i 
Home F. Ins. Co. v. Fitch, 331 
Home Ins. Co. v. Adler, 302, 726 

V. Baltimore Warehouse Co., 69, 
725 

V. Gibson, 725 

V. Koob, 726 

V. Myer, 301 

V. Patterson, 724 

V. Pennsylvania R. R., 318 

V. Watson, 794 
Home Land & Cattle Co., v McNa- 

mara, 426a 
Home M. F. I. Co. v. Garfield, 723 
Home Savings Bank v. Boston, 1040, 

1042 
Homer v. Shaw, 669 
Homesdale Ice Co. v. Lake L. I. Co., 

734 
Homesly v. Elias, 606a 
Homestead Co. v. Valley R. R., 918 
Homire v. Haltman, 1255 
Hommell v. Gamewell, 800 
Honaker v. How«, 489o 

V. Vesey, 533, 537 



2900 



Hone V. Mutual Safety Ins. Co., 728 
Hong Sing v. Wolf Fein, 988 
Honore v. Lamar F. I. Co., 725 

V. Murray, 307, 999o 
Honsee v. Hammond, 932, 941 
Honsucle v. Ruffin, 777 
Hood V. Hayward, 678 

V. Raines, 612o, 642 

V. Smiley, 655 

V. Smith, 1194 

V. Southern R. R., 1175 
Hoodley v. Watson, 360, 386 
Hooe V. Mason, 841 
Hook ». Stovall, 762 
Hooker v. Hammill, 536 

V. Leslie, 274 

V. Montpelier & W. River R. R., 
252 

V. Newton, 387 

V. Phillippe, 637 

V. Utica and Minden Turnpike 
Road Co., 1187 
Hooks V. Evans, 692, 692fc 

V. Fitzenreiter, 370 
Hoon V. Beaver Valley Traction Co., 

580, 1367 
Hooper v. Armstrong, 1261 

V. Bacon, 2216 

V. Bromley Brothers Carpet Co., 
755 

V. Patterson, 685ot 

V. Sac County Bank, 979 

V. Savannah & M. R. R., 419, 
1133 

V. Smith, 932, 933 

V. Story, 762, 767 

«., Winston, 311c 
Hoopes V. Meyer, 1057 
Hoot V. Spade, 975 
Hooten v. Barnard, 99, 101 
Hootman v. Shriner, 554 
Hoover v. Mowrer, 808a 

V. Peters, 1060 
Hope V. Alley, 98 

Hopedale Electric Co. v. Electric S. B. 
Co., 39 App. Div. 491; 612b 

V. Electric S. B. Co., 96 App. Div. 
344; 610 

V. Electric S. B. Co., 132 App. Div. 
348; 611 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 

Hopkins v. American P. S. Co., 932 



V. Atlantic & St. L, R. R., 86a, 368, 
860 

«;. Beedle, 1277 

V. Butte & M. C. Co., 937 

V. Clark, 671 

V. Contra Costa County, 337 

V. Crittenden, 325 

V. Davis, 107a 

V. Drowne, 377, 1334 

V. Gilman, 997 

V. Grazebrook, 1002 

I). Great Northern Ry., 1098 

V. Halliburton, 695c 
Hopkinson v. Knapp & Spaulding Co., 

575 
Hopkins v. Ladd, 689a, 1272 

V. Lee, 959, 1012 

V. RatUff, 993 

V. Sanford, 227 

V. Towell, 1012 

V. Westcott, 873 

V. Western P. R. R., 947 

V. Yowell, 959 
Hoppaugh V. McGrath, 648a 
Hoppe V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 866, 

172a 
Hopper V. Chicago, etc., R. R., 333 

V. Haines, 493 
Hoppes V. Cheek, 973 
Hopping V. Quin, 1045 
Hopple V. Higbee, 60, 244, 317, 432a, 

1274 
Hopson V. Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry., 

1159 
Hord V. Holtson R. R. R., 932 

V. Trimble, 685A 

V. Western U. T. Co., 879, 883 
Horn V. Batohelder, 656, 657 

V. Bayard, 467 

V. Boise C. C. Co., 1326 

V. Buck, 762 

I). CarroU, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2305; 
614 

V. Carroll, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 839; 208 

V. Hansen, 302o 

V. Western Land Assoc, 667, 834? 
Home V. Allen, 31 le 

V. Midland Ry., 157, 160, 163, 740, 
856a 



TABLE OF CASES 



2901 



[References 

Home V. Walton, 439e, 1027 
Homer v. Beasley, 1010 

V. Flintoff, 397, 399, 413 

V. Lyman, 861a 

V. Wood, 156 
Homey v. Nixon, 222 
Homketh v. Barr, 473 
Hornstein v. Atlantic & G. W. R. R., 

1142, 1149 
Horres v. Chemical Co., 937 
Horst V. Roehm, 758 
Hort V. Norton, 673d 
Horton V. Bauer, 107c 

V. Colwyn Bay & Colwyn Pistrict 
Council, 1102 

V. Cooley, 252, 999e 

V. Cope, 692j 

V. Miller, 9996, 1057 

V. Seattle, 1270a 

V. Tobin, 419 
Hoseth v< Preston Mill Co., 2216, 1348 
Hosford V. Wright, 962 
Hosher v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. 

R. R., 1112, 1140 
Hosking v. Phillips, 932 
Hoskins v. Duperoy, 756 

V. Robins, 945 

V. Scott, 190 
Hoskovec v. Omaha St. Ry., 1354 
Hosley v. Brooks, 451 
Hosmer v. Campbell, 685a 

V. Glovers ville, 1112a 

V. Wilson, 612a, 636(i 
Hossler v. Trump, 664a 
Hostele v. Farmers' Protective Assn., 

941 
Hoster v. Phila., 1109 
Hosty V. Moulton Water Co., 44, 484 
Hot Springs v. WiUiamson, 1123 
Hot Springs R. R. v. Deloney, 43/, 863, 

865 
Hotchkiss V. Auburn R. R., 912, 913 

V. Jones, 375 

V. Oliphant, 453 

V. Piatt, 685e 

V. Whitten, 107(? 
Hough V. Bowe, 58, 226c 

V. Cook, 1203 

V. Harvey, 3116 

V. Kugler, 413 



are to sections] 

Hough V. People's F. I. Co., 725 

V. Young, 107a 
Houghkirk v. Delaware & H. C. Co., 

866, 172a 
Houghteling v. Walker, 307 
Houghton V. Carpenter, 762 

V. Cortelypu, 685 

V. Hager, 310 

V. Kittleman, ^55/, 673e 

V. Lyford, 686 

V. Pattee, 416 
Housberger v. Housj^erger, 929 
House V. House, 982 

V. McKenney, 302a 

V. Marshall, 105Q, 1053 

V. Tennessee F. C, 345 
House Wrecking Co. i). Sonkew, 419 
Househill Co. v. Neilson, 1230 
Householder v. Kansae, 1123 
Houseman v. Merchants' Dispatch 

Transportation Co., 854 
Houser v. Pearce, 12W 
Houser & H. M. Co. v. McKay, 733a, 

754 
Houston V. Bibb, 539 

ti. Bryan, 1334 

V. Cmtcher, 310 

V. Gran, 1248 

V. Jamison, 345 

V. ISforrison, 695a 

V. Mossman, 334 

V. Stames, 762 

V. Wendnagel, 737 

V. Young, 1040 
Houston & G. N. R. R. v. Miller, 486c 
Houston & T. C. R. R. v. A^iderson, 
1266 

V. Berling, 1309 

V. Bird, 1364 

V. Boehm, 41, 47, 180, 481, 485 

V. Bowen, 573a 

V. Bulger, 1353 

V. Burke, 251a, 844 

V. Cheatham, 171a 

V. Cowser, 575, 576 

V. Davenport, 1367 

V. Gee, 482 

V. Girald, 67 

V. Gray, 1354 

V. Hanks, 2216 



2902 I'ABLE 

[References 

Houston & T. C. R. R. v. Hill, 194 

V. Jackson, 316, 854 

V. Kelley, 1356 

V. Lee, 1342 

V. Lemair, 67o 

V. Lindsey, 1262 

V. Loeffler, 573a, 580 

V. Malloy, 620 

V. Maxwell, 171a 

V. Mitchell, 615 

V. MoUoy, 630 

V. Muldrow, 318 

V. Rowell, 1270 

V. Rutland, 577, 1367 

V. Shapard, 47 

V. Shirley, 603 

u. Smith, 842 

V. Weaver, 67a 

V. White, 580a 

V. Williamson, 852 

«. Willie, 485 

V. Wright, 1021a 
Houston B. & T. Ry. v. O'Leary, 126a 

1367 
Houston C. S. Ry. v. Jageman, 865 

V. Medlenka, 1354 

V. Ross, 1347 

V. Sciacca, 1367 

V. Storrie, 324a 
Houston Cotton Oil Co. v. Trammell, 

765 
Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. v. Adams, 63 
Tex. 200; 932 

V. Adams, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 288; 
1261, 1270 

V. Campbell, 843a 

V. Charwaine, 942, 1110 

V. Davidson, 890 

V. McHale, 1367 

V. Richards, 172 

V. Stem, 1222 
Houston Electric Co. v. Green, 1216 

V. Seegar, 482, 484 
Houston I. & B. Co. v. Tiemer^ 739 
Houston L. & L. Co. v. Texas Co., 947 
Houston Printing Co. v. Moulden, 443 
Houston Ry. v. White, 574o 
Hovey v. Brown, 1326 

V. Coy, 689a 

V. Grant, 250 



OP CASES 

are to sections] 

Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 237, 

685 
How V. How, 1306 
Howard v. Adkins, 417, 426 

V. Bank of the Metropolis, 6336, 
633c 

V. Barnard, 1368 

V. Behn, 304 

V. Board of Supervisors, 1149 

V. Burke, 12866 

V. Central of Ga. Ry., 881a 

V. Cooper, 60 

V. Daly, 206, 227, 636d, 636s, 665, 
667 

V. Delaware & H. C. Co., 101 

V. Emerson, 308 

V. Farley, 18 Abb. Pr. 260; 676 

V. Farley, 3 Robt. 308; 345 

V. Francis, 301c 

V. Gobel, 664 

V. Haas, 131 Mo. App. 499; 734 

V. Haas, 139 Mo. App. 591; 540 

V. Hopkyns, 426 

V. Hurst, 965 

V. Johnston, 302 

V. Lamoni, 1134 

V. Lovegrove, 803 

V. Manderfield, 60 

V. Providence, 1148 

V. Stillwell B. Mfg. Co., 153, 190, 
646, 742a 

V. Vaughan-Monnig Shoe Co., 667 
Howard College v. Turner, 636i 
Howard County v. Legg, 573a, 577, 578 
Howard Oil Co. v. Davis, 180a, 485o 
Howard Supply Co. v. Wells, 742a 
Howay v. Going-Northrup Co., 666 
Howcott V. CoUins, 295, 307 
Howe V. Bartlett, 82 

V. Batchelder, 929a 

V. Buffalo N. Y. & Erie R. R.,834 

V. Gibson, 1342 

V. Handley, 533, 689a 

V. Jones, 303 

V. Mackay, 800 

V. Martin, 1027 

V. North, 606 

II. Perry, 450 

V. Ray, 64, 1147 

V. Sutheriand, 821, 823 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2903 



Howe V. Taylor, 692ft 

V. Wade, 834 

V. Weymouth, 148 Mass. 605; 1161 

V. Weymouth, 155 Mass. 439; 941, 
1164 
Howe M. Co. V. Reber, 618 
Howe S. M. Co. v. Bryson, 1716, 633, 

834c 
Howell V. Cheatham, 446 

V. Goodrich, 84 

V. Greaves, 492 

V. Howell, 448 

V. Lansing E. Ry., 484, 1306 

V. Medler, 1067, 1293 

V. Moores, 964, 972 

V. Morlan, 821 

V. Phila. M. I. Co., 711 

V. Rochester Ry., 571a, 575 

V. Scoggins, 233, 234 

V. Young, 86b 
Howells V. North American Transpor- 
tation & T. R. Co., 486o 
Howerton v. Augustine, 1027 
Howery v. Hoover, 497e 
Howes V. Axtell, 405, 1028 

V. Crush, 932 
Howey v. New England Nav. Co., 574a, 

1367 
Howison V. Oakley, 1023 
Howland v. Davis, 824 

V. Howland, 476 

V. Jennings, 325 

V. Oakland C. S. Ry., 1363 

V. Vincent, 32 
Howlet V. Strickland, 1031 
Howlett V. Tuttle, 358 
Howser v. Melcher, 188 
Hoy V. Grenoble, 613, 624 

V. Taliaferro, 973 
Hoye V. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 933 
Hoyle V. Page, 345 

V. Stellwagen, 655b 
Hoyt V. Beach, 334 

V. Fuller, 494, 507 

V. New York, L. I. Co., 729 

». Southern N. E. T. Co., 933 

V. Stratton Mills, 943 

V. Telephone Co., 1163 

V. Western U. T. Co., 883 

V. Wildfire, 206 



Hoyt, The, 587 

Hox V. Quincy, O. & K. C. R. R., 226d 

Hoxie i>. Lincoln, 663, 673a 

Hoxsie V. Empire Lumber Co., 504 

Hubbard v. Belden, 655c, 661, 672 

V. Briggs, 439ft 

V. Callahan, 325 

V. Charlestown B. R. R., 303, 304 

V. Gould, 241 

V. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., 
434 

V. Norton, 970, 975 

V. Rogers, 1042 

V. Shaler, 550 
Hubbardston Lumber Co. v. Bates, 755 
Hubbell V. Meigs, 257, 777 
Hubbly V. Brown, 705, 803 
Hubenthal v. Kennedy, 302a 

V. Spokane & I. Ry., 1261 
Huber v. Beck, 1295 

V. Burke, 1024 

V. Ryan, 991, 992 

V. Teuber, 386 
Hubert v. Groves, 35 
Huckestein v. Allegheny City, 1112a 
Huckins v. Lightner, 537 

V. People's M. F. I. Co., 726 
Huckle V. Money, 348, 350, 365, 372, 

381 
Huddleston v. Kempner, 331 
Hudmon v. Cuyas, 762 
Hudson V. Archer, 107a 

V. Houser, 580 

V. Hudson, 671 

V. Lee, 1034 

V. Northern Pac. R. R., 854 

V. Tenney, 303 

V. Wilkinson, 317 

V. Young, 691c 
Hudson County v. Immerich, 1157 
Huebschmann v. Von Cotzhausen, 915 
Huellmantel v. Huellmantel, 334 

V. Vinton, 497/ 
Hueni v. Freehill, 1326 
Huerzeler v. Central C. T. R. R., 1367 
Hueston v. Mississippi & R. R. B. Co., 

70, 926, 942, 1295 
Huey V. Macon County, 346 
Huff V. Peoria & Eastern R. R., 576, 
584o 



2904 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Huff V. Reilly, 956, 977 
Huffman V. Knight, 856 
Hufford V. Grand Rapids & I. R. R., 

865 
HuftaUn V. Misner, 384 
Huganir v. Cotter, 1027 
Huggard v. Glucose Sugar Refining Co., 
- 175!.. 

Huggeford v. Ford, 538 
HugginsD.iKavanagh, 1247, 1251 

V. South Eastern L. & C. Co., 740 
Hughan v. Grimes, 688a 
Hughes V. Anderson, 373, 924 

V. Austin, 2266 

.«_,. Bray, 7fl2 

V. Cannon, 673/ 

V. Chicago, B. & 0. Ry., 95 

V. Dupdee Mortgsige Trust In- 
vestment Co., 85 

V. Goodale, 692fc 

V. Graeme, 236, 239a, 836 

V. Habor & S. B. & S. Assoc, 1354 

V. Heiser, 35 

V. Hood, 984 

V. Hughes, 692 

V. Louisville & N. R. R., 365, 368 

V. McDonough, 127a 

V. Met. El. R. R., 1207 

V. Miller, 1023 

V. New York El. R. R., 1211 

». Nolte, 637a 

V. Pritchard, 677 

V. Pullman P. C. Co., 873a 

V. Robinson, 193 

V. Smith, 786 

u. Stevens, 1263, 1295 

V. Toledo S. & C. R. R., 672 

V. Wamsutta Mills, 668 

V. Wickcliffe, 685 
Hugo, The, 596 

Huguenot Mills v. Jempson, 753 
Huiest V. Marx, 984 
Huizega v. Cutler & S. Lumber Co., 481 
Hulbert v. New Nonpareil Co., 453 
Hulehan v. Green Bay, W. & S. P. R. 

R., 481, 485 
Hulett V. Fairbanks, 934 
Hulfish V. O'Brien, 973 
Huling V. Henderson, 363a, 366, 373 
Hull V. Angus, 424 



Hull V. Bematz, 497/ 

V. Butler, 334 

V. Harris, 979 
HiiUiuger v. Worrell, 126d 
Hulme V. Brown, 1058 
Hulst V. Benevolent Hall Assoc, 659 
Humaston v. Telegraph Co., 6126 
Humbert v. Mason, 317 
Humboldt L. M. Assoc, In re, 1367 
Himie V. Hale, 614 
Humes v. Proctor, 933 
Humiston v. Wheeler, 999c 
Hummel v. Brown, 283 
Humphrey v. Clement, 270 

V. Hathorn, 549 

V. McClenachan, 959 

V. Michigan United Rys., 860 

V. Phinney, 921, 922 

V. Pope, 4806 
Humphreys v. McClenachan, 975 

V. Morton, 346 

I). Perry, 783 

V. Reed, 1068 

V. Union Ins. Co;, 717 
Humphreysville Co. v. Vermont Copper 

Mining Co., 734, 746 
Ilumphries y. Johnson, 386 
Humphrys v. Knight, 964 
Hundley v. Calloway, 531a 

V. Chadwick, 682 
Huner v. Doolittle, 339a 
Hungerford v. Redford, 534, 934 
Huning v. Chavez, 55a 
Hunneman v. Grafton, 756 

V. Milwaukee, 327 
Hunt V. Amidon, 796 

V. Boonville, 3806 

V. Burton, 685ff 

V. Colbum, 675 

V. Conner, 573a, 577, 580 

V. Crane, 227, 667 

V. D'Orval, 42, 107a 

j;. Haskell, 841 

V. Hoboken L. I. Co., 182a 

V. Iowa C. Ry., 924, 1110 

V. Johnson, 924a, 947, 1006 

V. Jucks, 295 

V. Kile, 572 

V. Marsh, 976 

V. Middlesworth, 966, 1031 



TABLE 

[References 

Hunt V. Missouri, K. & T. R. R., 119 

V. Missouri P. Ry., 1174 

V. Nevers, 302o, 305, 310 

V. Nolen, 975, 981, 1027 

V. Oregon P. Ry., 187, 643 

V. O'Neill, 920 

V. Orwig, 975 

V. Otis Co., 668, 1064 

V. Raplee, 959, 975 

V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. R., 937 

V. Stockton Lumber Co., 339o, 343 

V. Taylor, 70 

V. Test, 612, 834? 

V. Tibbets, 89 

V. Van Deusen, 762 

V. White, 692fc 
Hunt Bros. F. P. Co. v. Cassiday, 1224 

V. Cassidy, 1215 
Hunt Bros Co. v. San Lorenzo Water 

Co., 169a 
Hunter v. Bennett, 467 

V. Britts, 911 

V. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 1169 

V. Farren, 184 

V. Fry, 858 

V. Hatch, 334 

V. Hatfield, 638, 640a 

V. Johnson, 982 

V. Prinsep, 492 

V. Reiley, 1039 

V. Stewart, 1270 

V. Wakefield, 36o 

V. Waldron, 672, 1064 

V. Wetsell, 760 

V. Wood, 302a 
Huntingdon v. Claffin, 664 
Huntingdon & B. T. R. R. & C. Co. ». 

English, 514 
Huntington v. Breen, 41 

V. Lombard, 762o 

V. Ogdensburgh & L. C. R. R., 206, 
667 

V. Rumnill, 831 
Huntington Easy Payment Co. v. Par- 
sons, 222 
Huntley v. Bacon, 234, 352, 359, 564 

V. Lyons, 3016 
Huntoon v. Hazelton, 673a 
Huntress v. Burbank, 341, 684 
Huntsman v. Hendricks, 975, 978 



OF CASES 2905 

are to sections] 

Huntsville v. Erving, 1154c 
Hurd V. Dunsmore, 411, 1025 
V. Gallaher, 538 
V. Hall, 979 

V. Hubbell, 493, 505, 519 
Hurlbut V. Boaz, 459 
Hurlburt v. Dusenbury, 293 
V. Green, 58, 494, 494c, 562 
V. Schillinger, 1237 
Hurley v. Buchi, 191, 768 
V. Jones, 63 
V. Oliver, 614 
Hurlock V. Reinhardt, 549 
Huron Barge Co. v. Tumey, 196, 857 
Hurst V. Coley, 78 

V. Detroit City Ry., 575 
V. Hurst, 396, 416 
Hurt V. Atlanta, 1137 
V. Miller, 228/, 512 
V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 1365 
Hurtin v. Union Ins. Co., 841 
Hurxthal v. St. Lawrence, B. & M. Co., 

620 
Huse V. Alexander, 798 
Hus6 & Loomis Ice Co. v. Heinze, 257 
Huson V. Dale, 452 
Hussey v. ColUns, 793a 
V. Farlow, 275 

1). Manufacturers' & M. Bank, 519, 
736 
Hussner v. Brooklyn City R. R., 1184, 

1193, 1194 
Husten v. Richards, 858 
Huston V. DeZeng, 302 
V. Freemansburg, 43^ 
V. Twin & C. C. T. R. R., 1260 
V. Wickersham, 910, 911 
Hutcheis v. Cedar Rapids & M. C. Ry., 

486a 
Hutchings v. Ladd, 853 
Hutchins v. Buckner, 533 
V. McCann, 704 
V. Munn, 685/ 
V. Roundtree, 981 
V. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry., 573o 
V. Wade, 302 
B!utchinson v. Granger, 1261 
V. Hutchinson, 537 
V. International & G. N. Ry., 1149 
V. Mt. Vernon W. & P. Co., 633e 



2906 TABLE 

[References 

Hutchinson v. Parker, 932 

V. Reid, 756 

V. Schimmelfeder, 98 

V. Snider, 607 

V. Stern, 43g 

V. Van Cleve, 483 

V. West. J. & S. R. R., 573 

V. Wetmore, 659 

V. Wheeler, 452 
Hutchinson First Nat. Bank v. Wil- 
liams, 241 
Hutchison v. Maysville, 942 
Hutt V. Bruckman, 1051 

V. Hickey, 614, 642 
Hutton V. Williams, 1023 
Huyck V. Andrews, 970 
Huyett-Smith Manuf . Co. v. Gray, 760 
Hyama v. Bamberger, 497c 
Hyatt V. Adams, 376, 570, 570a 

V. Wait, 301 

V. Washington, 685fc 
Hyde v. Brown, 334 

V. Ehner, 535 

V. Jamaica, 2267re 

V. Kiehl, 435, 437 

V. Mechanical Refr. Co., 620 

V. Middlesex, 1166& 

V. Stone, 295, 317 

V. Teal, 685 
Hyde Park v. Dunham, 1138 

V. Washington Ice Co., 1138 
Hyde Park T. H. E. L. Co. v. Porter, 

95 
Hydes F. T. Co. v. Davidson Coimty, 

1173 
Hydraulic Co. v. Chatfield, 326, 334 
Hydraulic Engineering Co. v. McHaffie, 

160, 165, 740 
Hylton V. Brown, 915 
Hyman v. American Electric Forge Co., 
695 

V. Jockey Club Wine, Liquor & 
Cigar Co., 999c 
Hymes v. Esty, 970, 975 
Hynes v. Manhattan R. R., 11986 

V. Packard, 976 

V. Patterson, 241 
Hysell V. Sterling Coal & Manuf. Co., 

655c 
Hyslopj). Finch, 1138 



OF CASES 

are to sections] 

Hyslop V. Staig, 355 

Hysore v. Quigley, 373, 373o, 990 



I.deS.».W.deS.,42 

laeger v. Metcalf, 1317 

lasigi V. Shea, 492a 

Icely V. Grew, 1026, 1034, 1044 

Ickenroth v. St. Louis Transit Co., 363a 

Idaho & W. N. R. R. v. Nagle, 1165a 

Idaho P. T. C. Co. v. Oregon S. L. R. R., 

1152a 
Idaho Western Ry. v. Columbia Con- 
ference, 1294 
Iddings V. Equitable Gas Co., 999A; 
Ideal Wrench Co. v. Gavin Mach. Co., 

762 
Ihl V. 42d St. R. R., 171a, 574, 575 
Her V. Baker, 251 
Ilion Nat. Bank, In re, 311/ 
Illingworth v. Greenleaf, 1296 
Illinois, The, 597a 

Illinois & S. L. R. R. & C. Co. v. Cobb, 
69,74 

V. Decker, 182, 1304 

V. Ogle, 502, 935 
Illinois V. St. L. R. R. v. Switzer, 1160a 
Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Abemathy, 1326 

V. Adams, 332 

V. Armstrong, 363 

V. Baches 580 

V. Barron, 481, 573 o, 579 

V. Bentz, 578 

V. Bogard, 851 

V. Chicago, 156 111. 98; 1171 

V. Chicago, 169 111. 329; 1138 

V. Cobb, 64 111. 128; 162, 220, 850, 
856a 

V. Cobb, 68 111. 53; 363a, 364, 366 

V. Commissioners of Highways, 
11520 

V. Copeland, 873 

V. Cole, 484 

V. Crudup, 576 

V. Cunningham, 1328 

V. Davidson, 180, 485a 

V. Davies, 1332 

V. Dodds, 363 

V. Doss, 125a, 226, 226d 



TABLE OF CASES 
{References are to sections] 



2907 



Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Downs, 1347 
V. Ebert, 1330 
w. Elliott, 1123 
V. Ferrell, 1154c 
V. Finnigan, 5066 
V. Gilbert, 1367 
V. Gortikov, 222, 366, 865 
V. Hammer, 379, 380 
V. Handy, 873o 

V. Haynes, 122 S. W. 210; 942 
V. Haynes, 64 Miss. 604; 316 
V. Heisner, 121d 
V. Holt, 862 

V. Hopkinsville Canning Co., 152 
V. Hoskins, 930 
V. Houchins, 1364 
V. Johnson, 67 111. 312; 1328 
V. Johnson, 123 111. App. 300; 1367 
V. Le Blanc, 503, 935 
V. Lence, 368 
V. Lockard, 1110 
V. Mayes, 1352 
V. Minor, 860 
V. Nelson, 59 lU. 110; 490 
V. Nelson, 97 S. W. 757; 152 
V. Nelson, 127 S. W. 520; 942 
V. Ogle, 363a 
V. Owens, 854 
V. Pearson, 863 
V. Pendergrass, 5706 
V. Poston, 212, 219 
V. Price, 1357 
V. Prickett, 67a 
V. Reid, 872 
V. Seamans, 125a 
V. Siddons, 43/ 
V. Slater, 575 

V. Smith, 110 Ky. 203; 924a, 1138a 
V. Smith, 132 Ky. 732; 1353 
V. Stewart, 130 111. App. 197; 1355 
V. Stewart, 63 S. W. 696; 368, 

1356 
V. Tandy, 1347 
V. Turrill, 335, 1244 
V. Watson, 1367 
V. Welch, 1325 
V. Weldon, 577 
ti. Whiteaker, 573 
f. Wilbourn, 85c 
V. Wilson, 1336 



Illinois, I. & M. R. R. v. Borms, 1130 
V. Easterbrook, 1138 
V. Freeman, 1165c 
V. Ring, 1166 
Illinois Land & Loan Co. v. Bonner, 964 
Illinois Mut. F. I. Co. v. Andes Insur- 
ance Co., 720, 728 
Illinois Railroad v. Spence, 681 
Illinois S. & R. R. v. Western U. T. Co., 

881a 
Illinois Steel Co. v. Paige, 1367 

V. Ryska, 482 
Illinois Surety Co. v. Garrard Hotel 

Co., 419 
Illinois Tel. News Co. v. Maine, 1149 
Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Bur- 
lington, 416 
Illinois Valley Ry. v. Haremski, 1358 
Imbescheid v. Old Colony R. R., 331a, 

1151 
Imboden v. Etowah & B. B. Co., 64 
Imel V. Van Deren, 6916 
Imhoff V. Richards, 1298 
Imlay v. Union Branch R. R., 1112a 
Imler v. City of Springfield, 1110 
Imperial C. & C. Co. v. Port Royal C. 

& C. Co., 613, 742a 
Imperial F. I. Co. v. Murray, 725 
Imperial Hotel Co. v. H. B. Claflin Co., 

294 
Imperial R. S. v. Steinfeld Bros., 752 
Importers, & Traders Insurance Co. v. 

Christie, 999fc 
Independent Brewing Ass'n v. Burt, 

162 
Independent Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 271 
Independent M. I. Co. v. Agnew, 723a 
Independent School Dist. v. McDon- 
ald, 692e, 692/ 
Independent T. Y. M. B. Assoc, v. So- 

mach, 610 
Indian M. J. C. Co. v. Ashville I. & C. 

Co., 734 
Indiana & I. C. Ry. v. Scearce, 626 
Indiana, B. & W. Ry. v. Allen, 1149, 
1177 
V. Koons, 84a 
Indiana Canning Co. v. Priest, 617 
Indiana Car. Co. v. Parker, 86c 
Indiana Central R. R. v. Hunter, 1148 



2908 TABLE 

[References 

Indiana, 111. & la. R. R. v. Stauber, 

1166 
Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co. v. 

Jones, 1166 
Indiana Power Co. v. St. Joseph, etc., 
«*> Power Co., 1155 
Indiana Ry. v. Orr, 46 
Indiana Tie Co. v. Phelps, 753 
Indiana U. T. Co. v. Heller, 1342 

V. Ohue, 1363 
Indianapolis v. Gaston, 41, 47, 180, 
226/, 481, 485 
V. Buffer, 1110 
V. Lawyer, 1110 
■0. Marold, 485 
V. Tate, 1110 
Indianapolis & C. T. Co. v. Larrabee, 
1161 
V. Wiles, 1167 
Indianapolis & E. Ry. v. Bennett, 67 
IndianapoUs & M. R. T. Co. v. Reeder, 

486a 
Indianapolis & S. L. R. R. v. Stables, 

41, 44, 47 
Indianapolis & W. Ry. v. Branson, 

1161 
Indianapolis, B. & W. Ry. v. Bimey, 
212, 2266, 226m, 864, 872 
V. Eberle, 95 
V. McLaughlin, 74 
Indianapolis Commercial Club v. Hil- 

liker, 573a, 1367 
Indianapolis, D. & S. Co. R. R. v. Pugh, 

1149 
Indianapolis N. Traction Co. v. Ramer, 

11656 
Indianapolis St. Ry. v. Kane, 1354 

V. Ray, 43/ 
Indianapolis T. & T. Co. v. Beckman, 
1367 
V. Kidd, 226/ 
V. Menze, 486a, 1365 
V. Romans, 1367 
V. Ulrick, 1360 
Indianapolis Terra Cotta Co. v. Mur- 
phy, 646a 
Indianola v. G. W. T. & P. Ry., 416 
Industrial & General Trust v. Tod, 

1298 
Industrial L. Co. v. Bivens, 172o 



OF CASES 

are to Beetionsl 

Industrial Works v. Mitchell, 161, 194, 

742a 
Inflexible, The Swabey, 592, 593 
Ingalls V. Allen, 664 

V. Bills, 226a 

V. Lee, 704 

V. Lord, 256 
Ingels V. Mast, 1231 
Ingles V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1261, 

1270 
Ingersoll v. Campbell, 305 

V. Jones, 474, 476 

V. Musgrove, 1215 

V. Van Bokkelin, 78 
Ingham L. Co. v. Ingersoll, 614 
Ingledew v. Northern R. R., 854 
Inglehart v. State, 681a 
Ingraham v. Parks, 1326 

V. Postell, 301c 

V. Pullman Co., 107(i 
Ingram v. Cox, 689a 

V. Harts, 58 

V. Lawson, 182 

». McComb, 692d 

V. Morgan, 973 

V. Rankin, 317, 493, 497o, 519 

V. Wackemagel, 755 

V. Wishka Boom Co., 942 
Inland Steel Co. v. Harris, 666 
Inman v. Ball, 363 

V. Foster, 446, 451 
Innes v. Milwaukee, 1367 
Insley v. Shepard, 614, 647o 
Insurance Co. v. Brame, 570 

V. Fogarty, 710 

V. Leader, 723a 

V. Mordecai, 713 

V. Thompson, 720, 802 

V. Transportation Co., 113 

V. Updegraff, 725 
Interlaken Land Co. v. Seattle, 11496 
International & G. N. R. R. v. Bajli- 
gethy, 577 

V. Barton, 318 

V. Bell, 1149 

V. Benitos, 937 

V. Boykin, 573o 

V. Brett, 1355 

V. Brice, 1356 

V. Butcher, 1309 



TfABLE OF CASES 



2909 



[References 

International & G. N. R. R. v. Camp- 
bell, 865 

V. Clark, 1355 

V. Cruseturner, 1257 

V. Culpepper, 577 

V. Dalwigh, 1361 

V. Davis, 942 

V. Dimmitt Co. P. Co., 334, 852 

V. Doolan, 863 

V. Duncan, 219 

V. Fickey, 1293 

V. Flores, 872 

V. Foster, 937 

V. Garcia, 380 

V. Gieselman, 95 

V. Greenwood, 363 

V. Hugen, 1355 

V. Jones, 1367 

V. Kindred, 576 

V. Kuehli, 574a, 577 

V. McVey, 99 Tex. 28; 573o, 577, 
580o 

V. McVey, 81 S. W. 991; 1175, 
1367 

V. Miller, 1354 

V. Mitchell, 1307 

V. Morin, 1356 

V. Munn, 1367 

V. Nicholson, 251, 844 

V. Ormond, 1149 

V. Pape, 937 

V. Parish, 852 

V. Poloma, 1355 

V. Ragsdale, 70 

V. Sammon, 862 

V. Sandlin, 1365 

V. Smith, 1263 

V. Startz, 842 

V. Stewart, 171a, 942 

V. Telephone & Tel. Co., 359, 
1344 

V. Terry, 868 

0. White, 1367 

V. Wobdard, 1354 
International B. & T. Co. v. McLane, 

1175 
International Contracting Co. v. 

Nichol, 313 
International Development Co. v. 
Clemans, 968 



are to sections] 

International Harvester Co. v. Iowa 

Hardware Co., 361, 683 
International Nav. Co. v. Atlantic M. 
I. Co., 717 

V. Farr & Barley Mfg. Co., 596a 
International O. T. Co. v. Saunders, 

894 
International T. B. Co. v. Jones, 612 

V. Marvin, 612 

V. Schulte, 612 
International T. C. Co. v. Hanks Den- 
tal Assoc, 1220 
International Trust Co. v. Schumann, 

9996 
Interstate C. R. T. Ry. v. Early, 95 

V. Simpson, 1148 
Interstate Engineering Co. v. Archer, 

742 
Investment Co. v. St. Joseph, 1140 
Inzaga v. Villaba, 606a 
lonides v. Universal M. I. Co., 718 
Iowa Mfg. Co. V. Sturtevant Mfg. Co., 

161, 735c, 742 
Iowa-Minnesota Land Co. v. Conner, 

186 
Ipswich Mill V. County Com'rs, 1149 
Irby V. Wilde, 1261, 1270 
Ireland v. Bowman, 948 

V. Effiott, 487a 
Ireland's Case, 675c 
Irion V. Hume, 684 
Irlbacker v. Roth, 302a 
Iroquois Furnace Co. v. Wilkin Mfg. 

Co., 413 
Ironton Land Co. v. Butchart, 186, 620 
Iron Mountain R. R. v. Bingham, 

1108, 1152a 
Iron R. R. v. Mowery, 1330 
Iron Wks. v. Boling, 155 
Ironton Land Co. v. Butchart, 1295 
Iroquois, The, 1356 
Irrawaddy, The, 596a 
Irrgang v. Ott, 483 
Irvin ti. Hazelton, 335 
Irving V. Greenwood, 641 

V. Hagerman, 76 

V. Manning, 717 

V. Media, 91 

V. Morrison, 1066 

V. Richardson, 7l2a 



2910 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Irwin V. Askew, 1012 

V. Dearman, 471, 474 

V. Dixion, 946 

V. McDowell, 497/, 565 

V. Nolde, 503, 932, 987 

V. Pennsylvania R. R., 574a 

V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. R., 341 
Isaac Newton, The, 3146, 656 
Isaacs V. McLean, 493a 

V. Terry & Tench Co., 752 

V. Wannamaker, 762 
Isenhart v. Brown, 345 
Isham V. Dow, 124 
Islett V. Oglevie, 311 
Isley V. Jewett, 304 

V. Jones, 707 
Isman v. Loring, 439a 
Isom V. Book, 930a, 1261 

V. Mississippi Central R. R., 1139a, 
1151 

V. Rex C. O. Co., 930o 
Israel v. Israel, 449 

V. Jewett, 1152 

V. Reynolds, 789 
Itaska, The, 587, 597a 
Ives V. Carter, 234, 359 

V. Humphreys, 42, 1266, 363a, 364, 
365, 366, 367 

V. Merchants' Bank, 678 

V. Van Epps, 1067 
Iveson V. Moore, 946 
Ivey V. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 1350 

V. McQueen, 933 
Ivinson v. Althrop, 416 
Ivy C. & C. Co. V. Alabama C. & C. 

Co., 502 
Izon V. Gorton, 999c 



J. D. Moran Mfg. & C. Co. v. St. Paul, 

337 
J. E. McMillan Hardware Co. v. Ross, 

535 
J. F. Ball & Bro. L. Co. v. Simms L. 

Co., 934 
J. G. Lindauer, The, 1358 
J. G. Wagner Co. v. Cawker, 419 
J. H. Lichtenstein & Co. v. Fargo, 

169a 



J. I. Case Plow Works v. Niles & S. Co., 

762 
J. I. Case T. Co. v. Souders, 407 
J. L. Hasbrouck, The, 587 
J. M. Ackley & Co. v. Hunter, Benn & 

Co. Co., 975 
J. M. Griffith Co. v. Los Angeles, 656 
J. M. James Co. v. Continental Nat. 

Bank, 153a, 1310a 
J. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. McCann, 171a 
J. T. Stark Grain Co. v. Harry Bros. 

Co., 645 
J. W. Hugus & Co. V. Hardenburg, 1329 
J. Zinsmeister & Bro. v. Rock Island 

Canning Co., 753 
Jack V. M'Kee, 1020 

V. Sinsheimer, 426a 
Jackman v. Doland, 1046 

V. Eastman, 685 
Jackel V. Reiman, 363, 938 
Jacks V. Bell, 489 

V. Dyer, 915 

V. Turner, 337 
Jackson v. Adams, 156 

V. Armstrong, 1027 

V. Baker, 1 Wash. C. C. 394; 820 

V. Baker, 2 Elw. Ch. 471; 413 

V. Bell, 458, 459 

V. Brookins, 1248 

V. Bry, 6916 

V. Campbell, 304 

V. Cleveland, 412 

V. Collins, 777 

V. ConsoUdated Traction Co., 576, 
1367 

V. Emmons, 85c, 92 

V. Evans, 519 

V. Farrell, 997 

V. Glaze, 531, 533, 535 

V. Hall, 121d 

V. Hanna, 976 

V. Hunt, 423 

V. Jones, 750 

V. Julia Smith, The, 844 

V. Kiel, 932, 948 

V. Larche, 685 

V. Law, 3405 

V. Lloyd, 341 

V. Loomis, 909a, 915, 916 

V. Millspaugh, 685Z 



Jackson v. Mott, 762 

V. Nashville, C. & S. L. Ry., 226to 

V. Noble, 1249, 1251, 1266 

V. O'Donaghy, 921 

V. Pesked, 74 

V. Pittsburgh, C. C. & S. L. Ry., 
570 

V. Portland, 1112 

V. Rochester, 1286b 

V. St. Paul City Ry., 1364 

V. Schmidt, 363 

V. Shields, 3116 

V. Smith, 683 

V. Stanfield, 182 

V. Steamboat Rock Independent 
School District, 667 

V. Stetson, 447 

V. Todd, 75 

V. Turrell, 73 

V. Walton, 570 

V. Watson & Sons, 164o 

V. Wells, 489, 1309 

V. Williams, 1123 

V. Wood, 307, 914, 919 
Jackson Agricultural Iron Works v. 
Hurlbut, 158 N. Y. 34; 22Qd, 852 

V. Hurlbut, 36 N. Y. Supp. 808; 
134a 
Jackson Co. v. Waldo, 1140 
Jackson Electric Ry., L. & P. Co. v. 

Lowry, 363a 
Jackson, F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Walle, 301 
Jackson Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 340c 
Jacksonville v. Lambert, 948, 1326, 

1328 
Jacksonville & S. R. R. v. Kidder, II6O0 
Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Batchis, 1261 

V. Bowden, 574a 
Jacksonville M. P. R. & N. Co. v. 

Hooper, 999i 
Jacksonville, M. W. & S. E. R. R. v. 

Cox, 1177 
Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. v. Adams, 
1175 

V. Carrison, 1326 

V. Lockwood, 95, 924a 

V. Peninsular L. T. & M. Co., 224, 
318 
Jacob t).. Louisville, 1138a 
Jacob Tome Inst. v. Crothers, 932 



TABLE OF CASES 

[References are to sections] 

Jacobs V. Adams, 306 
V. Ballenger, 339a 



,2911 



V. Daugherty, 689a 

0. Hoover, 487 

V. L. & N. R. R., 368, 380, 385 

V. Mandel, 618 

V. Robb, 131 

V. Sire, 370, 387, 637a 

V. Tutt, 873 
Jacobsen v. Dalles P. & A. N. Co., 226? 

V. Rothschild, 1356 

V. United States Gypsum Co., 316 
Jacobson v. Anderson, 681a 

V. Dalles P. & A. N. Co., 587, 588 

V. Le Grange, 671 

V. Ppindexter, 229 
Jacobus V. Congregation, etc., 359 

V. Monongahela Nat. Bank, 237, 
565, 565a 
Jacoby v. Stark, 637a, 638 
Jacot V. Emmett, 339 
JacqueUn v. Morning Jovu^al Assoc, 

1335 
Jacques v. Bridgeport H. R. R., 180 

V. Parks, 1336 
Jaffray v. King, 667 
Jakobson v. Springer, 590, 599 
James v. Adams, 753, 755 

V. Allen County, 90, 665, 666 

V. Biddington, 638 

V. ElUott, 1027a, 1053 

V. Hayes, 1345 

V. Hodsden, 226e, 652 

V. Kibler, 999/ 

V. Lamb, 979 

V. Long, 789 

V. Morgan, 606c 

V. Oakland Trac. Co., 1358 

V. Richmond & D. R. R., 573a, 
1372 

V. State, 678 

V. Tutney, 530 

V. Western U. T. Co., 889 
James A. Dumont, The, 593, 597a 
James H. Rice Co. v. Penn P. G. Co., 

636c, 636y 
James McNeil & Bro. Co. v. Crucible 

Steel Co., 932 
James River & Kanawha Co. v. Turner, 
1130, 1148 



2912 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Jameson v. Bartlett, 685^ 

V. Dulaney, 685^ 

V. Kent, 531o, 1293 

V. Midland Ry., 200, 856o 

V. Sweeney, 857 
Jamieson v. New York & R. B. Ry., 

318, 319 
Jamison v. Ellsworth, 990e 
Jandt V. South, 540 
Jansen v. Ball, 634 

V. Hilton, 793 

:;. Minneapolis & S. L. R. R., 44, 
860, 1342 
January v. Martin, 3406 
Jaqua v. Headington, 407, 416, 1020 
Jaquith v. Hudson, 408, 418 
Jarrett v. Martm, 1031 
Jarvis V. Manhattan B. Co., 439^ 

V. Manlove, 487o 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1352 

V. Rogers, 78 

V. Sewall, 795 
Jason, The, 596a 
Jasper v. Puraell, 3836, 384a 
Jassoy V. Horn, 294 
Jaudes v. Fisher, 645 
Jay V. Almy, 461, 464 
Jayne v. Loder, 1331 
Jean v. Sandiford, 316 
Jebsen v. E. & W. Ind. Dock Co., 66, 

857 
Jefcoat V. Gunter, 988 

». Knotts, 69, 373, 932 
Jefferies v. Allen, 921 
Jeffers v. Easton, 774, 987 

V. Johnson, 18 N. J. L. 382; 681a 

V. Johnson, 21 N. J. L. 73; 793 
Jefferson v. Adams, 386 

V. Bishop of Durham, 950 

V. Hale, 493 
Jefferson City Savings Assn. v. Morri- 
son, 303, 305 
Jefferson Co. v. Arrghi, 1067 

V. Hawkins, 337 

V. Lewis, 325 
Jefferson County Bank v. Eborn, 360, 

373o, 380, 682, 683 
Jefferson Gas Co. v. Davis, 1164, 1165 
Jefferson Hotel Co. v. Brumbaugh, 425 
Jeffersonville v. Myers, 1110 



Jeff ersonvi lie v. Patterson, 346 
Jefferaofiville, M. & I. R. R. w. Downey< 
1206 

V. Esterle, 63, 65, 95 
Jeffersonville R. R. v. Rogers, 372 
Jeffery v. Bastard, 655 

V. Chicago & M. E. R. R., II6O0 
Jeffras v. McKillop, 4486 

V. Bigelow, 125, 148, 769 

V. Osborne, 1149a 
Jeffries v. Seaboard A. L. R. R., 1303 
Jegon V. Vivian, 601, 935 
Jelalian v. New York, N. H. & H. R. 

R., 107a 
Jelison v. Lee, 275 

Jellett V. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry., 57, 853 
Jemina, The, 587 
Jemison v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 512a 

V. Governor, 30, 692/ 

V. Woodruff, 1060 
Jemmison v. Gray, 412, 734 
Jemo V. Tourist Hotel Co., 170a 
Jenks V. Quinn, 961, 964 
Jenkins v. Armour, 309 

V. Bacon, 121a 

y. Betham, 999/i 

V. Doolittle, 303 

V. Hay, 688a 

V. Hopkins, 966, 969 

V. Jones, 962 

V. Kirtley, 606 

V. Lemonds, 692a 

V. Long, 834c 

V. McConico, 515 

V. Means, 908 

ft. Mitchell, 631a 

V. Montgomery L. Co., 933 

V. Parkhill, 681, 6856 

V. Pennsylvania R. R,., 36a 

V. Southern B. T. & T. Co., 893 

V. Steanka, 1260 

V. Stone, 991 

V. Temples, 632 

V. Troutman, 554 

V. Womach, 984 
Jenne v. Sutton, 36a 
Jenness ;;. Simpson, 478 
Jennette v. Sullivan, 639 
Jennings v. Alaska Treadwell Gold 
Mining Co., 5716 



TABLE OF CASES 



[References 

Jennings v. Bond, 984, 988, 988a 

V. Camp, 659 

V. Johnson, 77 

V, Loeffler, 514 

V. Loring, 109 

V. Lyons, 672, 673/ 

V. Maddox, 363o, 365, 373 

V. Rogers S. P. Co., 1220 

V. Smith, 851 

V. Sparkman, 533, 536a, 537 

V. Van Sohaick, 1326 

V. WiUer, 419, 657 
Jennings H. O. Snyd. v. Housserie- 

Latreille Oil Co., 493 
Jennison v. Hapgood, 3116, 344 
Jensen v. Chioagp, S. P. M. & 0. Ry., 

484 
Jermaine v. Waggoner, 1108 
Jerman v. Stewart, 545 
Jerome v. Ross, 1107 

V. Smith, 387 
Jersey City v. O'Callaghan, 324a 
Jesse French P. & O. Co. v. Phelps, 135 

V. Porter, 685j, 685A;,, 685ot 
Jesser v. Gifford, 74 
Jessoy V. Horn, 405 
Jestous V. Brooke, 606c 
Jesus College v. Bloom, 1256e 
Jeter v. Glenn, 238, 773, 976, 979, 982, 
983 

V. Littlejohn, 340b 
Jevne v. Osgood, 685m 
Jewell V. Colby, 363 

V. Grand Trunk Ry., 1216 

V. Schroeppel, 656 

V. Thompson, 672 
Jewett V. Brooks, 613, 665, 988 

V. Fisher, 983 

V. Israel, 1152 

V. Lawrenceburgh & U. M. Ry., 
630 

V. Thompson, 334 

V. Wanshura, 1251, 1252 

V. Weston, 656, 660, 662 

V. Whitney, 101, 107(i 

V. Wilmot, 608, 614 
Joan V. Shielis, 901 
Job T. Wilson, The, 590 
Joch V. Dankwardt, 44 
Jochams v. Ong, 753 

183 



29ia 

are to sections] 

Jockers v. Borgman, 363, 1249; l'250i 

1251, 1252, 1254 
Johannesson v. BorscReniuB, 58 
Johanson v. The Bark Storia, 597a 
John and Cherry Sts., Matter of, 1187 
John Blaul & Sons v. Wandel, 248a-, 533 
John C. Lewis Co. v. Scott, 667 
John D. Park & Sons Co. v. Hubbard, 

84, 1256i 
John Davis & Co. v. Insurance Cb. of 

N. America, 723a 
John H. Starin, The, 597a 
John Henry, The, 587 
John Hetherington & Sons v. William 

Firth Co., 824 
John Hutchinson Mfg. Co. v. Pinch, 

134o, 174, 186, 189, 646, 6466 
John Monat Lumber Cb. v. Wllmore, 

251 
John Soley & Sons v. Jones, 642 
Johnson v. Allen, 78 Ala. 387; 246, 739 

V. Allen, 100 N. C. 131; 360, 376, 
385 

V. Atlantic & S. L. R. R., 335 

V. Arnold, 607, 607o 

V. Bailey, 537, 538 

V. Baltimore & P. R. R., 41, 486 

V. Bay aty, 1357 

V. Blanks, 774 

V. Beeney, 1027 

». Boston, 1165 

V. Britton, 972 

V. Camp, 373a, 384a 

V. Caulkins, 641 

V. Chamberlain, 692S 

V. Chapman, 36a 

V. Cherokee L. & I. Co., 834c 

W.Chicago & N. W. Ry., 77 la. 
666; 317, 318 

». Chicago & N. W. Ky., 64 Wis. 
425; 866, 172a 

V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 1263 

V. Collier, 364 

V. Collins, 116 Mass. 392; 968, 979 

V. Cbllihs, 89 S. W. 253; 462 

V. Conant, 101, I07d 

V. Courts, 121d, 927 

V. Culver, 439d, 762 

V. Daily, 47 

V. Downing, 325 



2914 TABLE 

[References 

Johnson v. Drummond, 1255 
V. Dun, 256 
V. Eicke, 311a 
0. Elwood, 685 
V. F. & M. Ry., 252 
V. Farwell, 265 
V. Fish, 908 
V, Futch, 910 
». Gavitt, 439t 
V. Gillen, 317 
V. Great N. Ry., 1346 
II. Gwathney, 692i 
V. Gwinn, 418 
V. Hacker, 681a 
V. Hamilton, 1010 
V. Hannahan, 929, 1334 
V. Heath, 1348 
V. Henry, 603 
V. Hessel, 688o 
V. Hoffman, 1044 
V. Holyoke, 195 
V. Hughes, 692/ 
V. Hulett, 990a 
V. Ish, 1347 

V. Jenkins, 370, 637, 641o 
V. Jones, 1031 

V. Lancashire & Y. Ry., 493 
V. Levy, 3 Cal. App. 591; 171 
V. Levy, 118 La. 447; 638a 
V. Levy, 122 La. 118; 637, 639 
V. Long Island R. R., 1333, 1367 
V. McMuIlin, 1007 
V. Manhattan Ry., 1303 
V. Marks, 55, 493a 
V. Marshall, 615 
V. Mathews, 153 
V. Meeker, 211 
V. Meyer, 69, 325 
V. Miln, 1063 
V. Missouri P. Ry., 674 
V. Moser, Q85h 
V. MuUin, 1277 

V. Northern P. R. R., 86c, 860 
V. Nyce, 976 

V. Old Colony R. R., 1163 
V. Parkersburg, 1149 
V. Perry, 226j 
V. Purvis, 973 
V. Railroad, 1109 
V. Robertson, 443 



OF CASES 
are to sections] 

Johnson v. Rochester Ry., 1367 

V. St. Louis, 1123 

V. St. Louis Butchers' Supply Co., 
1032 

V. St. Paul & D. R. R., 584a 

V. St. Paul City Ry., 1348 

e. St. Paul & W. C. Co., 1365 

V. Schultz, 1249, 1256 

V. Semple, 305 

V. Slaymaker, 657 

V. Smith, 385, 386, 387, 490 

V. Southern Pac. R. R., 577 

V. Stallcup, 271 

V. State, 170 

». Stear, 80, 627 

V. Stinger, 109 

V. Sumner, 317, 519 

V. Tillson, 481 

V. Travis, 638 

V. Troy, 1270o 

0. Union Pac. R. R., 1354 

V. United States, 999e 

V. Von Kettler, 66 111. 63; 384 

V. Von Kettler, 84 111. 315; 1270 

V. Weed, 798 

V. Weedman, 352 

V. Wells, 44, 488 

V. Western U. T. Co., 79 Miss. 58 
170, 879, 888 

„. Western U. T. Co., 81 S. C. 235 
46a, 894b, 894d 

V. Western U. T. Co., 82 S. C. 87 
'894(i 

V. White Mountain C. C. Assoc, 
1049 

V. Williams, 370, 681a, 692, 692i 
Johnson & Co., Ltd., v. Johanson, 699 
Johnson Ave., In re, 243c 
Johnson County v. Carmen, 573a 
Johnston v. Albany Dry Goods Co., 
264a 

V. Christie, 70 

V. Cleveland & T. R. R., 679 

V. Cowan, 423 

V. Crawford, 386, 487o 

V. Disbrow, 376 

V. Manhattan Ry., 1200 

V. Old Colony R. R., 1117 

V. Sexton, 681a 

V. Southern Pac. Co., 1309 



TABLE 

[References 

Johnston v. Wejls, 490 
Johnstone v. Hall, 990c 

V. Richmond & D. R. R., 851 
Joice V. Branson, 360, 364, 365 
Joiner v. Texas & P. Ry., 1371 
JoUet V. Adler, 1138, 11656 

V. Blower, 1110, 1121, 1151 

V. Conway, 180, 486 

V. Fox, 171 

V. Henry, 171a 

V. Le Pla, 2216 
Jolley V. Rutherford, 684 
Jolly V. Des Moines Northwestern R. 
R., 1154c 

V. Parral & D. R. R., 6476 

V. Single, 134a 

V. Terre Haute D. B. Co., 593 
Jonas V. Noel, 984 

V. Springfield Waterworks Co., 999c 
Jones V. Adams, 655 

V. Allen, 86a, 685? 

V. Alsbrook, 565a 

V. Annis, 542 

V. Bates, 1251 

V. Blair, 555 

V. Boyce, 43A, 226a 

V. Bradford, 807a 

V. Brooke^ 705, 803 

V. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 43i 

V. Brown, 302a 

V. Bunker Hill & S. M. & C. Co., 
1354 

V. Call, 182o 

V. Carragan, 1168 

V. Chamberlain, 276, 736 

V. Chapman, 4A8d 

V. Chicago & I. R. R., 1165 

V. Childs, 684a, 795 

W.Cobb, 107d, 492a 

V. Coffey, 914 

V. Cooley Lake Club, 937, 942 

V. Corte, The, 47 

V. Deyer, 672, 1064 

V. Doles, 541 
' V. Dyke, 838, 1002 

V. Erie & W. V. R. R., 1120 

V. F. S. Rayster Guano Co., 947 

V. Festiniog Ry. Co., 33 

V. Fletcher, 265 

V. Foster, 313o 



OF CASES 2915 

are to sections] 

Jones V. Galigher, 310 
V. Gardiner, 1021a 
V. Gardner, 301 

V. George, 56 Tex. 149; 133, 191 
V. George, 61 Tex. 345; 766 
!?. Gilbert, 567 
V. Gooday, 939 
V. Greeley, 445 
V. Green, 408 
V. Hannovan, 101, 940 
V. Haseltine, 974 
V. Hayderi, 704 
V. Hays, 684 
V. Hicks, 78 
V. Horn, 82, 497e, 1069 
V. Jackson, 667 
V. Jenkins, 458, 459 
V. Jennings, 753 
V. Jones, 16 Ala. 545; 808 
V. Jones, 71 111. 562; 363a, 366 
V. Jones, 1 Ired. Eq. 332; 310a 
V. Jones, 2 Swan, 605; 660, 665 
V. Joynei', 801 
V. Judd, 655c 
V. Just, 762 
V. Kansas City, F. S. & M. Ry., 

574a, 577 
V. Keith, 1152a 
V. Kellogg, 497/ 
V. King, 109 
V. Kinney, 439i 
V. Kramer & Bros. Co., 924 
V. Lamon, 378,, 565a 
V. Leonardt, 578 
V. Lewis, 236, 1257 
V. Lowell, 83 
V. McNeil, 55 
V. Mallory, 305 

V. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank,. 341 
V. Marsh, 659 
V. Marshall, 1263 
V. Matthews, 361. 
V. Mayer, 766 
V. Merrill, 915 
V. Mial, 607 
V. Morehead, 1230 
V. Morgan, 1298 
V. Mudd, 1025 
V. Murray, 448a 
V. Nathrop, 186 



2916 



TABLE OF CASES 
[ReferenoeB are to sections] 



Jones V. National Printing Co;, 166, 742 

V. Nelson, 186 

V. New Orleans & S. R. R., 1133, 
1175 

V. N. Y., 655o 

V. Niagara Junction Ry., 1354 

V. Noe, 107£f, 973 

V. Peterson, 482 

V. Portland, 1307 

». Queen, 407, 419 

V. Rahilly, 374 

t>. Richardson, 1301 

V. Ross, 766 

». Soriven, 1072 

V. Seattle, 1143o 

1). Seligman, 1164 

V. Smith, 691a 

V. Snider, 497^ 

V. State, 704 

». Stevenson, 451 

». Telegraph Co., 109, 893 

B. Texas & N. O. R. R., 48^, 864 

V. Texas & P. Ry., 2260 

i). Townsend, 452 

V. Turpin, 360, 388 

V. United' States, 942 

». Utica & B. R. R. R., 1291 

e. Vance Shoe Co., Q73d 

i>. Van Patten, 30 

V. Voorhees, 873 

V. Wells, 856a 

V. Wills Valley R. R., 1137 

D. Wolcott, 835, 836, 837 

V. Woodbury, 655 
Jones's Appeal, 1300 
Jones & Adams Co. v. George, 1331 
Jones Lumber Co. v. Gatliff, 934 
Jonesboro L. C. & E. Ry. ». Cable, 937 

t). Crigger, 416 
Jonsson v. Lindstrom, 935a 
Joost V. Craig, 692p 
Joplin C. M. Co. V. Joplin, 1123 
Joplin Water Co. v. Bathe, 762 
Jordan v. Adams, 801 

V. Benwood, 69, 72, 74, 1123 

V. Bowen, 1309 

V. Cedar Rapids & M. C. Ry., 181 

V. Delaware & A. T. Co., 930, 933 

1). Eaton, 858 

V. Fitz, 659 



Jordan v. La Vine, 689a 

V. Lewis, 411 

V. Middlesex R. R., 180, 486 

V. New York & H. R. R., 1356 

V. Patterson, 159, 162 

V. Seattle, 1216; 1355 

V. Thomas, 539 

V. Warren Ins. Co., 710, 841 
Joseph V. Edison Electric Co., 1353 

u. Lyon, 325 

V. Richardson, 762, 773 

V. Sulzberger, 741 
Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Compton, 
93 

V. Dilncan, 218 
Josey V. Wihnington & M. R. R., 432a 
Joske ». Pleasants, 608, 614, 642 
Josling V. Irvine, 734 
Joshua Barker, The, 596, 845 
Joshua L. Bailey & Co. t). Western U. 

T. Co., 891 
Jourolmon v. Ewing, 282; 301B, 340 
Joy V. Bitzer, 125, 769 

V. Grindstone Neck Water Co., 
1152 

V. Hopkins, 1294 

1). Morgan, 814 

V. Security Ins. Co., 722 
Joyscli). Barney, 544 
Joyner v. Weeks, 999^ 
Jo^a V. Moroney, 454 
Juchter v. Boehm, 1304 
Jucher v. Whitridge, 1367 
Judd V. Ballard, 4866 

V. Dennison, 762a 
Judden v. Dike, 301, 311c 
Judice V. Southern Pac. Co., 610 
Judge V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 

11496 
Judkins v. Walker, 673a 
Judson ». Griffin, 274 

V. Reardon, 1336 
Juilliard v. Greenman, 269 
Juiilard v. Orem, 310a 
Julius Jonson's Sons v. Buellesbach, 

166 
Jumel' V. Mar Ins. Co;, 717 
Junction Lumber Co. v. Sharp, 948 
Junction R. R. v. Rogers, 380 
June V. Falkinburg, 762 



TABLE 

[References 

Jungblum v. Minneapolis N. W. & S 

W. R. R., 942 
Juniata, The, 588, 599 
Just v. Grave, 89 

V. Porter, 535 
Justice V. Kirlin, 445 

V. Mendell, 493 

V. Nesquehoning V. Ry., 1176 

V. Philadelphia, 1157 
Justy V. Erro, 834d 
Jutte V. Hughes, 155, 2266, 948, 1265 
Juul V. Kitsap Transp. Co., 1358 



K. B. Koosa & Co. v. Warten, 990 

K. E. Mining Co. v. Jacobson, 412 

Kabus V. Frost, 992 

Kadgin v. Miller, 1254 

Kadish v. Young, 636o, 636/, 753, 758 

Kafer ». Harlow, 689a 

Kahn v. Kahn, 90 

Kake v. Horton, 574a, 578 

Kalbfleisch, The, 597a 

Kalckhoff v. Zoehriaut, 256 

Kalembach v. Michigan Cent. R. R., 

1371 
Kaley v. Shed, 55, 60 
Kalfur V. Broadway F. & M. A. B. R., 

1356 
Kalkhoff V. Nelson, 90, 636<i 
Kalkman v. Baylis, 674 
Kamerick v. Castleman, 317 
Kampmann v, Rothwell, 1347 
Kane v. Johnson, 1826, 565c 

V. Mitchell Transportation Co., 
1367 

V. New York Elevated Railroad, 
llfll 

V. New York, N. H. & H. R, E., 
86c 

V. Ohio Stone Co., 657 

V. Sanger, 956, 959 

V. Smith, 310 
Kankakee & S. R. R. v. Horan, 131 111. 
288; 926 

V. Horan, 23 HI. App. 259; 95, 225 
Kannon*. Pillow, 911 
Kansas & C. P. Ry. v. Curry, «9, 636^ 
Kansas & T. C. Co. v. Reed, 1364 



m CASES 2917 

are to sections] 

Kansas B. P. Co. v. rUnited States F. & 

G. Co., 688a 
Kansas Central By. v. AUen, 1149, 1154 
Kansas City v. Davidson, 611 
V. Frohwerk, 924 
■ V. Kansas City B. Ry., 1164 
V. Manning, 1348 
V. Mprse, 1168 
V. Morton, 1172a 
V. Mulkey, 1160 
Kansas City & E. R. R. v. jKregelo, 

1165, 1166 
Kansas City & O. R. R. v. .Rogers, «33 
Kansas City & T. Ry. v. Splitlqg, 253, 

1171 
Kansas City E. & S. R. R. v. Merrill, 

1154 
Kansas Qty, F. S. &.M. R. R. v. Cook, 
942 
V. Daughtry, 584 
V. Eagan, 490 
Kansas City, F. S. & G. R. R. v. Kier, 

368 
Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. R. v. 
Little, 865 
V. McGahey, 873 
V. Stoner, 860 
Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Sauer, 238, 

806 
Kansas City H. P. Co. v. Devol, 1230, 

1243 
Kansas City M. &£. R. R. w. Donjgh- 
try, 377o 
V. Foster, 865 
V. Lackey, 1110 
V. Southern Ry. N^wsCo., 795 
Kansas City, M. & 0. Ry. «. Mayfield, 

937 
Kansas City, M. & B. R. R. v. Phillips, 
380 
t)., Sanders, 5716 
Kansas City, O. L. & T. Ry. v. Weiden- 

mann, 252 
Kansas City R. R. v. Berry, 336 
Kansas-City S. <fe G. R. R. v. Louisiana 

W. R. R., 1152o, 1169 
Kansas City S. B. R. R. v. JNorcross, 

1154, 1161 
Kansas City S. C. & R. Co. v, Taylor, 
1354 



2918 



Table of cases 

[References are to sections] 



Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. R. v. 

Simpson, 851 
Kansas City S. Ry. v. Anderson, 1169 

V. Boles, 1168 

V. Frost, 577 

V. Henrie, 1367 

V. Hewie, 574a 
Kansas City Star Co. v. Carlisle, 447, 

448o 
Kansas City Stock Yard Co. v. Haw- 
kins, 852 
Kansas City, W. & N. W. R. R. v. 

Fisher, 1171 
Kansas P. Ry. v. Cutter, 580 

V. Little, 368 

V. Lundin, 574a 

V. Mihlman, 92, 95, 214, 226& 

V. Miller, 584 

V. Pointer, 41, 47, 180, 226/, 481, 
485 

». Peavey, 1357 

V. Reynolds, 854 
Kansas Protective Union v. Whitt, 732 
Kansas Z. M. & S. Co. v. Brown, 933 
Karan v. Pease, 580a 
Karasich v. Hasbrouch, 1347 
Karbach v. Fogel, 988a 
Karch v. Commonwealth, 692t 
Karczenska v. Chicago, 1354 
Kares v. Covell, 1012o 
Karkowski v. Pitass, 377 
Kamitzky v. Banwer, 414 
Kams V. Allen, 36a 
Karr v. Karr, Slid 

». Parks, 485 

ti^ Peter, 679a 
Karst ». St. Paul, S. & T. P. R. R., 214B, 

932, 939 
Karthaus v. Owings, 689a 
Karwowski v. Pitass, 368 
Kaskaskia Bridge Co. v. Shannon, 1031 
Kaspari v. Marsh, 574 
Kasper v. Walla, 495 
Kastner v. Long Island R. R., 380 
Katahdin P. & P. Co. v. Peltomaa, 

1270a , 
Kattelman v. Guthrie, Slid 
Katz V. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 1369 

V. Cleveland, C; C. & St. L. Ry., 
856 



Katz V. Wolf, 170 
Kauflfman v. Babcock, 1826 
Kaufman v. Fye, 639a, 640a 

V. Tacoma, O. & G. H. R. R., 1123, 
1143a 

V. Tredway, 302o 

V. Wicks, 357, 383a 
Kauss V. Rohner, 671 
Kavanagh v. Brooklyn, 1112 
Kavanaugh v. Day, 678 

V. Taylor, 170a, 317 
Kaveh v. South Omaha, 1154 
Kayser v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R., 

1165a, 1166 
Kazy V. Western U. T. Co., 45a, 894 
Keables v. Christie, 1304 
Keaggy v. Hite, 493 
Keane v. Branden, 310 

V. Main, 364 

V. Seattle, 1352 
Kear v. Garrison, 43j 
Kearney v. Boston & W. R. R., 5706 

V. Glutton, 497e 

V. Doyle, 6556 

V. Fitzgerald, 36a, 1251, 1252, 1256 

V. Metropohtan El. R. R., 1201 
Keast V. Santa Ysabel G. M. Co., 574 
Keating v. Boston El. Ry., 486c 

V. Cincinnati, 939 

V. Springer, 1057 
Keber v. Mahoney City Gas Co., 182 
Keck V. Bieber, 410, 413 
Kedden v. Pubhc Service Ry., 1364 
Keeble v. Keeble, 415, 416 
Keefei). Fairfield, 412 

V. Lee, 1261, 1270a 
Keegan v. Harlan, 182 
■ t). Kinhare, 999;, 1042 
Keehn v. McGillicudd^, 1112a 
Keehner v. Kinder, 339 ^ 
Keel V. Ogden, 684 
Keeler v. Herr, 657 

V. Ricker, 682 

V. Wood, 238, 962, 982, 983 
Keeler Co. v. Schott, 753 
Keeley v. Great No. Ry., 578 
Keeling v. Pommer, 1249, 1249a 
Keen v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. R., 

' 1270 

t), Whittington, 688 



TABLE 
[References 

Keenan v. Getsinger, 664a 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1270a 
Keene v. Dilke, 226c 

V. Keene, 287, 325 

V. Lizardi, 378 

V. Metropolitan El. R. R., 1205c 
Keenholts v. Becker, 88, 444a 
Keenan v. Cavanaugh, 125a, 929 
Keep V. Fuller, 1237 
Keesling v. Frazier, 803 
Kehoe v. Allentown & L. V. Traction 
Co., 218 

V. Philadelphia, 110 

V. Rutherford, 615, 6556 
Kehrer v. Richmond City, 1112 
Kehrig v. Peters, 378 
Keiffer v. Smith, 55 
Keigher v. St. Paul, 337 
Keil V. Chartiers V. C. Co., 380 
Keiley v. The Cypress, 599 
Keir v. Leeman, 36 
Keim v. Warfield, 101 
Keirnan v. Heaton, 373, 932 
Keith V. Day, 962 

V. Haggart, 82 

V. Ham, 58 

V. Henkleman, 685, 685j 

V. Hinkston, 89, 636ft 

V. Ridge, 656 

V. Tilford, 1297 
Keithsburg & Eastern R. R. v. Henry, 

1129, 1138 
Kell». Trenchard, 778 
Kellam v. Hampton, 408, 414 
Kellar v. Carr, 689a 

V. Lewis, 226/ 
Keller v. American B. P. Co., 448 

V. Berry, 1309 

V. Boatman, 791 

V. Oilman, 486o, 1307 

V. Stoltzenbaugh, 1216 
Kellerman v. Arnold, 1247, 1249, 1254 

V. Kansas City, S. J. & C. B. R. R., 
851 
Kellett V. Robie, 637, 1339 
Keiley v. Archer, 493a 

V. Bradford, 661 

V. Central R. R., 573a, 574a 

V. Dillon, 448d 

e. Highfield, 637o, 639o 



OF CASES 29ld 

are to sections] 

Keiley v. Keiley, 484 

V. Louisville & N. R. R., 1167 

V. Mckibben, 540 

V. Miles, 984, 987 

V. Ohio R. R. R., 673a 

V. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 325, 3406 

V. Riley, 639 

V. Seay, 676 

V. State, 692e 

V. Third Nat. Bank, 1258 

V. West, 1025 
Keiley, Maus & Co. v. La Crosse Car- 
riage Co., 603 
Kellinger v. Forty-second St. & O. S. F. 

R. R., 1183, 1184, 1187 
Kellogg V. Albany & H. R. & P. Co., 
1367 

!). Citizens' Ins. Co., 664 ' 

V. Curtis, 411 

V. Frohlich, 753 

V. Hickok, 341 

V. Kirksville, 95 

V. Krauser, 1295 

«;. Lavender, 326 

V. MaUck, 993, 999 

V. MaUn, 65, 970, 973 

V. Manro, 553, 654, 686 

V. Ry., 67a 

V. Scott, 692a 

V. Sweeney, 46 N. Y. 291; 271, 272 

V. Sweeney, 1 Lans. 397; 272 

V. Thompson, 256 
Kellogg Bridge Co. v. United States, 

642 
Kelly V. Allen, 1016, 1027 

V. Altemus, 133, 638 

V. Baltimore, 1172a 

V. Butte, 942, 1347 

V. Carthage Wheel Co., 664, 667, 
669 

V. Cunningham, 772 

V. Dutch Church of Schenectady,, 
959, 985 

V. Fahmey, 163a 

V. Fall Brook Coal Co., 313 

V. Fejervary, 413, 419 

V. Low, 979 

V. McDonald, 1326 

V. McKibben, 226c 

V. Moody, 6926 



2920 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to 'sections] 



Kelly V. New York & M. B. B,. R., 70 

V. Partington, 113 

V. Pember, 1050 

V. Peirce, 6226, 756 

V. Renfro, 50, 53, 641e 

V. Rochester, 1371 

V. Rogers, 233, 234 

V. Sherlock, 98, 1368 

V. Smith, 821 

V. United States, 642 

V. Wheel Co., 666 
Kellyville Coal Co. w. Moreland, 1309 
Kelsey v. Murphy, 335 

V. Remer, 226e, 979, 980 
Kelso ». Marshall, 752 

V. Reid, 418 
Kelty V. Jones, 107d 
Kember v. Southern Exp. Co., 851 
Kemble v. Farren, 399, 413 
Kemmerer v. Edleman, 99 

V. Kemmerer, 310o 
Kemner v. Beaumont Lumber Co,, 959 
Kemp V. Finden, 808 

V. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 423 

V. Pennsylvania R. R., 1109 

V. Western U. T. Co., 876 
Kemper v. Louisville, 1166d 
Kempker v. Roblyer, 819 
Kempner v. Cohn, 1012 

V. Heidenheimer, 1023 
Kendall v. Albia, 47, 226/, 482 

V. Aleshire, 692i 

V. Fitts, 531, 535 

V. Lewiston Water Power Co., 335 

I). May, 1304 

V. Stone, 5 N. Y. 14; 455 

V. Stone, 2 Sandf. 269; 352 
Kendall B. N. Co. v. Commissioners of 

Sinking Fund, 613, 614 
Kenderdine Hydro-Carbon Fuel Co. v. 

Plumb, 610, 619, 625 
Kendrick v. -Forney, 801 

V. Kemp, 446 

V. McCrary, 48, 473 

t». Ryus, 1027 

V. Towle, 318 
Kenerson v. Colgan, 607o 
Kenkele v. Manhattan R. R., 1190 ' 
Kenley v. Commonwealth, 689o 
Kennebeck Co. v. Boulton, 36o 



Kennebeck Purchase v. Boulton, 1279 
Kennebec Water Dist. v. Waterville, 

1171c 
Kennedy v. American Express Co., 200 

V. Barnwell, 308o 

V. Brown, 681a 

V. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 1354, 
1359 

V. Dodge, 852, 1049 

V. Dubuque, etc., R. R., 1167 

>». Erdway, 366, 373 

V. Gregory, 44:8d 

V. Nims, 688 

V. North Missouri R. R., 347 

V. Rodgers, 637, 638, 368a, 638b 

V. St. Paul aty Ry., 1347, 1364 

V. South Shore Lumber Co., 666 

V. Strong, 295, 317 

V. Standard Sugar Refinery, 5706 

V. Sullivan, 1254 

V. Travis County, 1149 

V. Way, 1368 

V. Whitwell, 317, 519 

V. Woodrow, 364, 377 
Kennett v. Fickel, 537, 1296 
Kenney v. Hannibal & S. J. Ry., 293 

V. Knight, 633 

V. South Shore N. G. & F. Co., 
1358 
Kennison v. Taylor, 283, 239, 966, 982, 

983 
Kennon v. Dickins, 345 

ti. Gilmer, 1330 

V. Thompson, 343 

V. Western U. T. Co., 101 
Kenny v. Collier, 98, 183, 984 

V. Knickerbocker B. & Y. Co., 614 

V. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co., 
1357 
Kenrig v. Eggleston, 1216 
Kent V. Mtna, Ins Co., 725 

V. fionzey, 453 

V. Sown, 331 

V. Dunham, 301c 

V. Ginter, 516a, 745 

V. Halliday, 133 

V. Hudson R. R. R„ 847 

V. Kelway Lane, 1216 

V. Kent, 302o 

V. St. Joseph, 1140 



TABLE OF CASES 



2921 



[References 

Kent County Agricultural Society v. 

Ide, 935a 
Kenton Ins. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 303 
Kentucky v. Janioek, 1165a 
Kentucky & I. B. & R. Co., v. Sing- 

heiser, 1347 
Kentucky & I. C. Co. ». Cleveland, 611 

». Morgan, 935 
Kentucky C. R. R. v. Ackley, 41, 47, 
180, 226/ 

V. Dills, 368 

V. Gastineau, 584 

tf. Ryle, 1356 
Kentucky D. & W. Co. v. Barrett, 948 

V. Lillard, 608 
Kentucky Hotel Co, v. Camp, 1348 

V. Hood, 143, 373 
Kentucky L. & I. Co. v. Crabtree, 689a 
Kentucky M. Ry. v. Stump, 373 
Kentucky Stave Co. v. Page, 933, 934 
Kentucky Title Co. v. English, 346 
Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Shake, 

1359 
Kenwood Bridge Co. v. Dunderdale, 

655c 
Kenworthy v. Hopldns, 700 

V. Stevens, 657 
Kenyon v. Cameron, 360, 387 

V. Goodall, 153 

V. New York C. & H. R. R. R„ 924, 
932 

V. Western U. T. Co., 109 

V. Woodrufi, 440, 785, 802 
Keon V. Whitney, 999c 
Kepple If. Keokuk, 1112a 

V. Lehigh C. & N. Co., 924 

V. Petersburg R. R., 278 
Kerfoot v. Marsden, 638 
Kerkow v. Bauer, 573a, 580, 1251 
Kerley v. Richardson, 975, 979, 1013 
Kerling v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co., 

580a, 1367 
Kern v. Creditors, 803 
Kemgood v. Gusdorf, 685A 
Kemochan v. Manhattan R. R., 1201 

V. New York B. F. I. Co., 725 

V. New York El. R. R., 926, 1201 
Kerns v. Hagenbuchle, 637, 637o, 1339, 

1340 
Kerr v. Blair, 246 



are to sections] 

Kerr v. Cusenbary, 673d 

V. FuUarton, 686 

V. Haverstick, 326, 328 

V. Love, 312 

V. Minnesota M. B. Assoc, 732 

V. Mount, 493a 

V. O'Connor, 36a 

V. Quaker City Ins. Co., 716 

V. Shaw, 456 

V. South Park Comrs., 1138, 1162 

V. Union Ry., 1368 
Kerrigan v. Market St. R. R., 580 

V. Pennsylvania R. R., 1306 
Kersenbrock v. Martin, 53Ja 
Kersey v. Schuylkill River E. S. R. R., 

1142, 1149, 1164 
Kerslake v. Mclnnis, 412 
Kervin v. Utter, 313 
Kerz V. Wold, 685j, 685fc 
Kesler v. Smith, 574 
Kessee v. Mayfield, 673/ 
Kester v. Miller, 760 

V. Western U. T. Co., 45a,. 894 
Ketcham v. Cohn, 66 

V. Eox, 1254 
Ketchum v. Wells, 1060 
Kettle V. Harvey, 661 

V. Hutchinson, 1060 

V. Lipe, 802 
Kettleworth v. Refuge Assur. Co., 439c 
Key V. Hehson, 1053 

V. Key, 1012 
Keyes v. Devlin, 481, 487o 

V. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry., 44, 
226a 

V. Pueblo S. & R. R., 1222 

V. Western V. S. Co., 209, 226, 618, 
647c, 991, 992, 1070 

I). Morrison, 294 
Keyser v. Jurvelius, 857 

V. Lake Shore & M. S. By., 95, 
1109 
Keystone L. & I. Co. v. McGrath, 363o, 

368 
Keystone L. & S. M. Co. v. Dole, 660, 

662 
Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 1243 
Keyworth v. Hill, 492a 
Kibler v. Southern Ry., 365 
Kickw. Doerste, 606, 655/ 



2922 



tABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Kicks V. State Bank, 1012o 
Kidd V. McCormick, 633d 

V. Mitchell, 515 
Kidder v. Barker, 547 

V. Oxford, 331a 
Kidney v. Stoddard, 439/ 
Kielty v. Buehler-Cooney Const. Co., 

1355 
Kienle v. Fred Gretsch Realty Co., 995 
Kiernan v. Chicago, S. F. & C. Ry., 
1294 

». Germain, 991 

V. Rocheleau, 762 
Kiersted v. State, 686 
Kiff V. Youmans, 384, 487 
Kiger v. McCarthy Co., 1011 
Kilboum v. Thompson, 364, 366, 368, 

461, 462, 464 
Kilbourne v. State Inst., 12866 
Kilburn v. Coe, 1250 
Kilby V. Erwin, 933 
Kiley v. Lee Canning Co., 753 

V. Western U. T. Co., 109 N. Y. 
231; 875, 876 

V. Western U. T. Co., 39 Hun, 158; 
888 
Kilgore v. Powers, 326 
Kille«.Ege,908,911 
Killen v. North Jersey St. Ry., 1371 
Killian v. Eigenmann, 294 
Killilan v. Hemdon, 339a 
Kihner v. Parrish, 1368, 1369 

V. Reckitt, 1358 
Kilmore v. Abdoolah, 1282 
Kilpatrick v. Haley, 378, 380a 

V. Inman, 617 

V. William Whitmer & Sons, 734 
Kimball v. Adams, 1174 

V. Bryant, 966, 979 

V. Connolly, 560 

V. Deere, 752 

V. Doggett, 993 

V. Holmes, 44a, 436 

V. Marshall, 82 
Kimball & A. M. Co. v. Vroman, 764 
Kimball Bros. Co. v. Citizens' Gas & 

Electric Co., 205 
Kimberly v. Howland, 43ft, 486a 
Kimel v. Kimel, 98, 99 
Kimes v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 293 



Kimic V. San Jose-Los Gates I. Ry., 

1326, 1360 
Kimmell v. Bums, 326, 328 
Kimports v. Breton, 734 
Kincaid v. Brittain, 966 

V. Price, 753 

V. Walla Walla V. T. Co., 1348 
Kindred v. Stitt, 464 
King V. Bangs, 73, 81 

V. Board of Council of City of Dan- 
ville, 941 

V. Bressie, 1027, 1052 

V. Brewer, 677 

». Brown, 651, 6736, 1020 

V. Buckman, 3016 

V. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 85c 

V. Comrs. of Sewers, 1108 

V. Des Moines, 647 

V. Diehl, 301c 

V. Finch, 3406 

V. Fowler, 937 

V. Franklin, 492a 

V. Gilson, 966, 977 

V. Gray, 1013 

V. Ham, 497 

V. Hanson, 385 

V. Herron, 692o 

V. Hudson R. R. R., 620 

n. Iowa M. R. R., 1110 

V. Kerr, 961, 978, 981 

V. Kersey, 639 

V. Little, 912, 913 

V. London Dock Co., 1093 

V. Merriman, 503, 934 

V. Minneapolis N. Ry., 252, 1171 

V. Mott, 1028 

V. Nichols, 53 Minn. 453; 618 

V. Nichols, 16 Oh. St. 80; 692i 

ti. Orser, 55a, 76, 244, 493 

V. Oshkosh, 481, 485, 1289, 1307 

V. Perfection B. M. Co., 618 

V. Phillips, Peters C. C. 350; 803 

V. PhilUps, 95 N. C. 245; 339 

V. Pyle, 960, 975, 1028 

V. Ramsey, 691a, 6916 

V. Root, 352, 377, 451 

V. Sassaman, 364, 377 

V. Scammbnden, 964 

V. Shepherd, 317, 845 

V, Sherwood, 852 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2923 



King t). Southern Pac. Co., 317, 318 

V. State M. F. I. Co., 725 

V. Steiren, 206, 227, 667 

V. Waterman, 636(i 

V. Will J. Block Amusement Co., 
'667 

V. Wise, 1041 

V. Woodbridge, 854 
King County, v. Ferry, 692b 
Kingdom v. Cox, 659 
Kingfisher v. Altizer, 1309 
Kinghome v. Montreal Telegraph Co., 

883 
Kingman v. Western Mfg. Co., 613, 

636c, 752 
Kingman & Co. i>. Hanna Wagon Co., 

752 
Kingfibury v. Millner, 959, 982 

V. Smith, 495, 983 

V. Westfall, 67o, 999c 
Kingsland v. Clark, 999(i 
Kingston v. Fort Wayne, etc., Ry., 1303 
Kinnaird v. Standard Oil Co., 91 
Kinne v. New Haven, 1041 
Kinnear v. Robinson, 494 
Kinner v. Shepard, 1230 
Kinney w. Crocker, 482o 

V. Folkerts, 1354 

V. Watts, 959, 985 
Kinports v. Breon, 763 
Kinsella v. Riesenberg, 1270a 
Kinsey v. Wallace, 1330 
Kinssly v. Hire, 384 
Kintz V. McNeal, 946 
Kip V. Brigham, 792, 805 
Kipp J). Wiles, 737 
Kirbs V. Propne, 682 
Kirby v. Armstrong, 1233 

V. Forbes, 691d 

V. Railroad, 1110, 1167 

V. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 1352, 
1355 

V. Western U. T. Co., 876 
Kirby Liunber Co: v. C. R. Cummings 
& Co., 742 

V. Lloyd, 484, 485 
Kirchman v. Tuffli Bros. P. I. & C. Co., 

753 
Kirchner v. Myers, 1248, 1251 
Kirk V. Du Bois, 1243 



Kirk V. Hartman, 667 

V. Seattle Electric Co., 181 
Kirkeys v. Crandall, 819 
Kirkman v. VanUer, 303, 341 
Kirkpatrick v. Downing, 1007 

V. McNamee, 935 
Kirksey v. Friend, 795 

V. Jones, 683 
Kirschmann v. Lediard, 753 
Kirtlaiid v. Molton, 278 
Kisseoker v. Monn, 927 
Kissinger-Ison Co. v. Bradford Belting 

Co., 1230 
Kist t). Atkinson, 1038 
Kitchen v. Branch Bank at Mobile, 301 
• Kitchen Bros. Hotel Co. v. Philbin, 182, 

988o 
Kitchenman v. Skeel, 1276, 1277 
Kittel V. Augusta, T. & G. R. R., 305 
Kittel's Estate, 305 
Kittredge v. McLaughlin, 345 
Kitzinger v. Sanborn, 734 
Kivett V. Western U. T. Co., 894(i 
■Klages V. Philadelphia & R. T. R. R. R., 

331a 
Klein v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 1363 

V. Burleson, 1270 

V. East River Electric Light Co;, 
346 

V. Equitable Gaslight Co., 126d 

V. Jewett, 486 

V. Klein, 1271 

V. Second Avenue R. R., 482a 

V. Thompson, 67 
Kleiner v. Third Ave. R. R., 1270a 
Klemm v. New York C. & H. R. R., 

1367 
Kleppner v. Lemon, 999fc 
Klewin v. Bauman, 364, 377 
KUeb V. Mclnturff, 778 
KHnck V. Colby, 447 
Kline v. Kline, 43i, 484 

V. McCandless, 494c, 565a 
Klingman v. Holmes, 376 

ti. Racine Sattley Co., 608, 633 
Klinkert v. Fulton S. & M. Co., 531o, 

536, 537, 538 
Klock V. Robinson, 334, 336 
Klopfer V. Bromme, 386, 475 
Kopp V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 1149 



2924 



TABLE aF CASES 



[References 

Klosterman v. Chesapeake & O. R. R., 

1149 
Knadler v. Sharp, 979 
Knapp V. Banks, 1285 

V. Barnard, 136, 565c 

V. Campbell, 451 

V. Great W. Ry., 95 

V. Lee, 973 

V. Maltby, 400, 417 

V. Roche, 57 

V. Sioux City & P. Ry., 485, 1355 

V. United States & C. Exp. Co., 
256, 819, 856a 
Knatz V. Wise, 311/ 
Kneeland v. American L. & T. Co., 

336 
Knefel v. Ahem, 235a 
Knepper v. Kurtz, 973 
Knettle v. Crouse, 345 
Knickerbocker v. Wilcox, 803 
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Gardiner 
Dairy Co., 364, 470a 

V. Leyda, 172 
Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Gould, 301, 

724 
Kniffen v. McConnell, 638, 639, 640a, 

641 
Knight V. Beckwith Commercial Co., 
375, 540 

w. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 2146 

V. Egerton, 61, 990a 

V. Eureka Ins. Co., 712o 

t». Foster, 445, 452 

V. Hughes, 808 

V. Maclean, 678 

V. Mantz, 304 

V. Mitchell, 310 

V. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R., 1206 

V. Sadtler L. & Z. Co., 573o, 578 

V. Turner, 973 
Knights of Pythias v. Allen, 301 
Knights Templars & M. L. I. Co. v. 

Crayton, 302 
Knisely v. Hire, 933 
Knobell v. Fuller, 452 
Knoth V. Barclay, 1154a 
Knott V. Botany Mills, 596o 

V. Burwell, 453 

V. Gough, 233 
Knouff V. Logansport, 119 



are to sections] 

Knowlden v. Guardian Printing, ete^ 

Co., 448a 
Knowles v. Baldwin, 302 

V. Kennedy, 977 

V. Leggert, 999 

V. N. S. R. R., 360, 365, 372 

V. Nunns, 125, 769 

V. Pierce, 542 

V. Sandercock, 301a 

V. Steele, 107a, 984 
Knowlton v. Mackay, 417 

V. Oliver, 752, 753 
Knox V. Great Western Q. M. Co., 1231 

V. Hook, 962 

V. Jones, 298, 308 

V. Keams, 692c 

V. Lee, 269 
Knoxville, C. G. & L. R. R. v. Wyrick, 

573o 
Knoxville Traction Co. v. Lane, 380 
Knudtson v. Robinson, 1256e 
Koch V. Godshaw, 185, 734 

V. PhiUips Inv. Co., 938 

V. Streuter, 426 

V. Williams, 6736 
Kocher v. Mayberry, 6.11 
Kock V. Sackman-^Phillips Inv. Co., 64, 

932 
Koeltz V. Bleqkman, 743 
Koenigkraemer v. Missouri Glass Co., 

667 
Koenigs v. Jung, 373, 1334 
Koerber v. Patek, 43ft, 43i, 47 
Koemer v. Oberly, 386, 1254, 1256 
Koestel v. Cunningham, 377a 
Koestenbader v. Peirce, 65, 970, 975 
Koester v. Cowan, 373 
Kohai V. MacDonald, 498 
Kohler v. Smith, 325 
Kohlsaat v. Crate, 685 
Kohn V. Dravis, 497e 
Kohne v. Insurance Co. of Nor^ Amer- 
ica, 259 

V. White, 991, 992 
Kokomo V. Mahan, 1112a 
Kolb V. Bankhead, 368 

V. O'Brien, 368 

V. Southern Ry., 157 
Kolka 1). Jones, 459 
Kolon, The, 587 



TABLE OF CASES 



2925 



[References 

Kolsch V. Jewell, 637, 639 
Koon V. Greenmam, 655, 6556 

V. Munro, 311b 
Koona v. Miller, 298 
Kopecky v. Benish, 942 
Kopp V. Northern P. R. R., 932, 939 
Kopplin V. Quade, 435 
Korf V. Lull, 645, 984, 1044, 1067 
Kom V. New York El. R. R., 1201 
Komegay v. White, 316, 772 
Kortwright V. Commercial Bank, 627o 
Koptz ». Carpenter, 956 
Korzib v. NetherlandB-American S. N, 

Co., 1359 
Koshkonong v. Burton, 346 
Kostendader v. Pierce, 970, 975 
Kostopolos V. Pezzetti, 183 
Kotz V. IlUnois Cent. R. R., 1109 
Kountz V. Brown, 368, 373a 

V. Gates, 828, 829 

V. Kirkpatrick,- 249, 745 

V. Toledo, S. L. & W. R. R., 1306 
Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co., 688a 
Koyer v. White, 565 
Kraber to. Union Ins. Co., 818a 
Kracb v. Heilman, 1255 
Kraft V. Fancher, 793 
Krai V. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry., 860 
Kjramer v. Cleveland & Pittsburgh R. 
R., 1148 

V. Goodlander, 93Da 

V. Messner, 165 

to. Wolf Cigar Stores Co., 667 
Krapi) to. Adierholt, 310a 
Krasilnikoff to. Dundon, 762 
Krause to. Busacker, 1027 

to. Rutherford, 686a 
Kreamer ». Irwin, 610, 614 
Krebs v. Security T. & L. I. Co., 730 

to. Bambrick Bros. Const. Co., 948 
Krebs Hop Co. to. Livesley, 114 Pac. 
944; 753, 757 

to. Livesley, 118 Pac. 165; 753 
Krebs Mfg. Co. ». Brown, 155 
Kreibohm to. Yancey, 533 
Kreiter to. Nichols, 1254 
Kremer to. Chicago, etc., R. R., 1151, 

1154 
Krepp to. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 1007, 
1012 



are to sections] 

Krepper v. Glenn, 681o 
Kress to. Lawrence, 380, 1345 
Kribs to. Jones, 734 
Krider to. Lafferty, 933 
Kriger to. Leppel, 6736 
Krisinger ». Creston, 1363 
Kroeger to. Passmore, 1336 

to. Pitcairn, 836 
Kroener to. Chicago, M. & St. P, Ry., 

1356 
Krohn to. Oechs, 844, 845 
Krom to. Levy, 190 
Krone to. Block, 1263 
Kroner to. Transit Co., 486 
Kronold to. New York, 181, 482a 
Kronschnable to. Knoblauch, 1296 
Krueger v. Le Blanc, 214c 
Krug to. Pitass, 382 

to. Ward, 241, 459 
Krumm to. Beach, 777, 1027 
Krumwiede to. Manhattan R. R., 11986 
Krutz to. Robbins, 411 
Kucera to. Merrill Lumber Co., 4866 
Kucheman to. C. C. & D. R. R., 1152a 
Kuck to. Johnson, 1328 
Kujek to. Goldman, 367, 439; 
Kuhn to. Chicago, M. & S. P. R. R., 
361 

to. McKay, 313, 736 

to. Myers, 411 
Kuhnis to. Lewis R. B. & L. Co., 219 
Kunkle to. Wherry, 416 
Kunkel to, Utah Lumber Co., 73 
Kuntz to. Shnugg, 1023 
Kupke to. St. Louis Tr. Co., 1360 
Kurpgeweit to. Kirby, 43j, 1345 
Kurrus to. Seibert, 101 
Kurtz to. Frank, 53, 637a, 641c 

to. Sponable, 420 
Kuter to. Michigan Cent. R. R., 844 
Kutner v. Fargo, 379, 387 
Kyd to. Cook, 182 
Kyle to. Bamett, 311c 

to. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 45a 

to. Fauntleroy, 982 

to. Hoyle, 1006 

to. Laurens R. R., 844 

to. Mays, 334 

to. Ohio R. R. R., 937 

to. Roberts, 307 



2926 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



L. Bucki & Son L. Co. v. Fidelity & D. 

Ck)., 682, 682a, 
L. Campbell & Co. v. Mion, 615 
L. N. Lanier & Co. v. Little Rock 

Cooperage Co., 734 
La Amistad de Rues, 175 
Labasse v. Piat, 42 
La Bourgogne, 570, 590 
Labowitz v. Frankfort, 655c 
Lacas v. Detroit City Ry., 486 
Lacey v. Marnan, 966 

V. Straughan, 762 
La Champagne, 43 Fed. 444; 587 
La Champagne, 53 Fed. 398; 589, 594 
LaChappelle v. Warehouse & B. S. Co., 

495 
Lack V. Brecht, 317 
Lackey v. Miller, 679a 
Lackin v. Delaware & H. C. Co., 318 
La Conner Co. v. Widmer, 854 
Lacour v. New York, 182 
Lacy V. Gentry, 361 

V. Getman, 672 
Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angdes G. & E. 

Co., 656 
Ladd V. Arkell, 274, 275 

V. Brewer, 537, 538 

!). Hawkes, 998 

V. Lord, 766 

V. Ney, 251a 

V. Redle, 930 
Ladner v. Balsley, 993 
La Doucre v. Nichel, 1347 
La Du-King Manuf . Co. v. La Du, 651, 

655c, 673/ 
Ladue v. Seymoiir, 665/ 
Lae V. Ruhl, 999a 
La Farge v. Halsey, 1031 

V. Mansfield, 1057 
Lafayette v. James, 692a 

V. Nagle, 95, 1112a, 1295 

V. Wortman, 1112a 
Lafayette B. & M. R. R. v. Winslow, 

1166 
Lafayette, M. & B. R. R. v. Murdock, 

1166 
Lafean v. York County, 1142 
Lafferty v. Hannibal & S, J. R. R., 43e 



Lafferty v. Milligan, 968 

V. Schuylkill R. E. S. R. R., 1154o, 
1159 

V. Third Ave. R. R., 1357 
Lafler v. Fisher, 377a 
Laflin v. Chicago, W. & N. R. R., 1151 

V. Willard, 103, 547 
La France v. Krayer, 1251 
Lahay v. City Nat. Bank of Denver, 

439^ 
Lahey v. Crist, 1366 
Lahr v. Metropolitan El. Ry., 95, 1184, 

1187, 1188, 1190, 1192 
Laidlaw v. Sage, 119 
Laidley v. Merrifield, 334 
Laines v. Philips, 686 
Laing v. Hanson, 648a 

V. Stone, 287 
Laird v. Laird, 611 

V. Pim, 1023 

V. Townsend, 740 
Lake v. Campbell, 670 

V. Park, 311b 

V. Merrill, 1258 
Lake County v- Linn, 346 
Lake E. & W. Ry. v. Fix, 47, 865 

t>. Griffin, 67a 

V. Mugg, 574a, 580a 

*. Power, 205 

V. Shelley, 1148 

V. Tiemey, 666 
Lake Roland E. Ry. v. Frick, 1148 

V. Webster, 1117 
Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. v. Baltimore & 
Ohio R. R., 1138 

V. Chicago,J121, 1165 

V. Chicago & W. I. R. R., 1152a 

V. Cincinnati, S. & C. R. R., 1163 

V. Frantz, 41, 180, 226/ 

V. Hottman, 1367 

V. People, 332 

V. Prentice, 380 

V. Richards, 126 III. 448; 612 

V. Richards, 152 III. 59; 89, 636d 
Lake S. R. R. v. Rosenzweig, 360, 380 
Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. v. Warren, 

873 
Lake St. El. R. R. v. Gormley, 47 

V. Johnson, 1347 

V. Sandy, 1360 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2927 



Lake Superior & M. R. R. v. Greve, 

1155, need 

Lakeman v. Grinnell, 317, 845 

V. Pollard, 672 
Lakeside Paper Co. v. State, 189, 338 
Lakin v. State, 692i 
Lallande v. Trezevant, 684, 685A 
Lally V. Cantwell, 470o, 666 

V. Crookston Lumber Co., 664, 
673& 

V. Wise, 685 
Lalor V. Burrows, 742 
Lamar Ins. Co. v. McGlashen, 717 
Lamb v. Brolaski, 674 

V. Buker, 149, 980a 

V. Cecil, 343 

V. Dart, 692/ 

V. Day, 61 

V. Elizabeth City, 1148 

V. Harbaugh, 383 

V. Shaw, 685fc, 685i 

V. Stone, 11 Pick. 527; 29, 32 

V. Stone, 95 Wis. 254; 372 

V. Walker, 93o, 925 

V. West, 447 
Lambert v. Alcorn, 685fc 

V. Estes, 959, 964 

V. Haskell, 182, 685, 685e 

V. Jenkins, 644 

V. King, 667 

V. Pharis, 451 

V. Schmalz, 325 
Lambert-Murray Co. v. Southern Ex- 
press Co., 169(1 
Lambeth Rope Co. v. Brigham, 308 
Lamerlec v. Barthelmy, 962, 983 
Lamerson v. Marvin, 1052, 1053 
Lamington, The, 5996 
Lamkin v. Crawford, 755 
Lamm v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. Ry., 

85c, 95 
Lammiman v. Detroit C. S. Ry., 226/ 
Lamond v. Sea Coast Canning Co., 200 
Lamoreaux v. Rolfe, 90,. 618, Q36g 
Lamos v. Snell, 451 
Lamott V. Sterett, 339a 
La Motte v. Angel, 844 
Lampert v. Judge & D. D. Co., 373a, 

1246c 
Lampley v, Atlantic C. L. R. R., 937 



Lampman v. Cochran, 413, 415 
Lampon v. Corke, 964 
Lamprey v. Mason, 330, 606c 
Lamson & G.Mfg. Co. v. Russell, 1046 
Lanagan v. Enos Fire Escape Co., 1351 
Lanahan v. Heaver, 610 

V. Ward, 330, 345 
Lancashire & Yorkshire Ry. v. Evans, 
1082 

V. Gidlow, 182, 843 
Lancaster v. Elliott, 302 
Lancaster Mills v. Merchants' Cotton- 
Press Co., 812 
Lance v. Butler, 505 

V. C. & M. R. R., 1166 
Lancon v. Morgan's L. & T. R. R. & 

S. S. Co., 1349 
Lancoure v. Dupre, 1017 
Land, etc., Co. v. Robertson, 695c 
Landa v. Obert, 233, 234 
Lande v. A. G. Hyde & Sons, 734, 741 
Lander v. Proper, 565 

V. Ware, 375 
Landes v. Eichelberger, 565a 
Landis v. Shanklin, 452 

V. Wolf, 685e, 685fc 
Landreth v. Wycoff, 191, 768 
Landro v. Great N. Ry., 1347 
Landry v. Lake Charles, 1139 
Landsberger v. The Magnetic Tele- 
graph Co., 879, 887 
Lane v. Boston, 1112a 

V. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 1367 

V. Calby, 651 

V. Fury, 982, 983 

V. Hitchcock, 73 

V. Holman, 464 

V. Lantz, 762 

V. Montreal T. Co., 879 

V. Richardson, 973 

V. Ruhl, 919 

V. Turner, 308 
Lane County v. Oregon, 270 
Lang V. Fritz, 565c, 565a 

V. Hill, 1360 

V. Moole, 3016 

V. New York, L. E. & W. R. R., 
486c 
Langan v. jEtna Ins. Co., 723 

V. Potter, 182 



2928 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Langdon v. Castleton, 310, 344 

V. Clarke, 1368 

t). Gray, 6851 

0. New York, 1161 
Lange v. Werk, 416, 418 

V. Wagner, 134, 685/ 
Langfeldt v. McGrath, 944 
Langford ». Owsley, 91, 93 

V. Tyler's Adm'r., 750 

V. United States, 642 
Langhorst v. Ahlers, 301c 
Langhren v. Barnard, 6336 
Langley v. Augusta, 924, 932, 1110 
Langston v. S. C. Ry., 325, 346 

V. Hagerty, 384tt 
Langworthy v. Green, 484 

V. McKelvey, 685A 
Lanier v. Trigg, &79a 
Lanigan v. Kille, 985, 988o 

V. Neely, 1339 
Lanius v. Druggist Pub. Co., 368 
Lanning v. Peters Shoe Co., 308a 
La Normandie, 595 
Lanphier v. F. Johnson & Son Co., 1371 
Lanquist v. Chicago, 1179 
Lansgenberg v. Heer Dry Goods Co., 

976 
Lansing v. Rattoone, 307 
Lansing ». Smith, 8 Cowen, 146; 35, 
1108 

V. Smith, 4 Wend. 9; 35, 946 

V. Wiswall, 35, 946 
Lanston M. M. Co. ». Merganthaler 

Linotype Co., 1261 
Lantiy v. Parks, 673/ 
Lantz V. Frey, 1258 
Lanusse v. Barker, 275 
Lapham v. Osborne, 6736 
Lapleine v. Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. 

Co., 1216, 1360 
LaPorte v. Wallace, 637o 
Laporte Improvement Co. v. Brock, 

166, 734 
Lapp V. Illinois Watch Co., 740 
Larabee v. Cook, 689 
Laraway v. Perkins, 621, 1020, 1266 
Larios v. Bonany y Gurety, 126c, 127o, 

707, 819 
Larkin v. Buck, 659 

V. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 723o 



Larkin v. Hecksher, 666 

V. New York & N. R. R., 1356 

V. Scranton, 1163 

V. Trammel, 964 
Larkins v. Tarter, 44Sd 
Larmon v. District, 41, 47, 180, 226/ 
Lamed v. Allen, 692d 

V. BuiGnton, 451 

V. Hudson, 905 
La Roche ». O'Hagan, 762 • 
Larrabee v. Lumbert, 91 

V. Minnesota Tribune Co., 4A8d 

V. Southard, 302o 
Larrimore v. Comanche County, 644 
Larsen v. Postal T. C. Co., 888 

V. Sedro-WooUey, 1355 
Larson v. Chase, 43t 

V. Grand Forks, 3806 

V. Haglin, 1357 
Lartigue v. Peet, 667 
Larwell v. Stevens, 908 
Larzelere v. Kirchgessner, 1249, 1254 
Lasala v. Holbrook, 93a 
Lash V. Lambert, 340c 
Lassas v. McCarty, 695 
Lassiter v. Okeetee Club, 910 

V. Western U. T. Co., 876 
Latchtimacker v. Jacksonville T. & W. 

Co., 1367 
Late V. Armorer, 983 
Latham v. Brown, 256 

V. Darling, 330 

V. Westervelt, 554a 

V. Wilcox, 31 Id 
Lathers v. Wyman, 496 
Lathrop v. Atwood, 789 

V. Michaelson, 917 

V. O'Brien, 1023 
Lathrope v. Flood, 1343 
Latimer o. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1303 

V. Motler, 79 

V. New York Cotton Mills, 667 
Laton V. King, 657 
Latrobe v. Winans, 1023, 1025 
Lattimore v. Hardsocg Mfg. Co., 1232d 

jj. Union E. L. & P. Co., 1355 
Lattin v. Davis, 313o, 771 

V. Vail, 973 
Laubach v. Laubach, 514, 754 
Laubengayer v. Rohde, 1012a 



TABLE OF CASES 
[Referencea are to sections] 



2929 



Lauder v. Jones, 446, 1335 
Lauer v. Banning, 638, 639 
Laufer v. Boynton Furnace Co., 182, 

182o, 766 
Laugher v. Pointer, 810 
Laughlin v. Barnes, 506o 
Laundry Co. v. Debow, 418 
Laura Jane v. Hagen, 340 
Laurea v. Bemauer, 417 
Laurel, City of, v. Rowell, 1123 
Laurent v. Chatham Ins. Co., 720, 725 

V. Vaughn, 620, 844, 854 
Lavender v. Hudgens, 457, 468, 459 
Lavens v. Lieb, 193 
Laverty v. Snethen, 811 
Lavery v. Crooke, 376, 385, 475 
Law V. East India Co., 286 

i;. House, 410 

V. London I. L. P. Co., 729 
Lawler v. Bangs, 636»i 

V. Murphy, 732 
Lawless v. CoUier, 979, 981 
Lawrance v. Robertson, 959 
Lawrence v. Bimey, 575 

V. Chase, 1012 

V. Church, 302 

V. Cooke, 638, 638a, 639o, 6586 

t). Cowles, 331, 420 

V. Embree, 301c 

V. Great Northern Ry., 1082 

V. GuUifer, 674 

V. Hagerman, 182, 241, 373o, 459 

V. Housatonic R. R., 41, 47 

V. Jenkins, 125a 

V. Kemp, 98 

V. Leake Orphan House, 325 

«;. Maxwell, 509 

V. Miller, 414, 1012a 

V. New York Ins. Co., 714 

V. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R,, 851 

V. Philadelphia, 1154 

V. Porter, 741 

V. Rector, 908 

V. Rice, 103 

V. Second Municipality, 1151 

V. U. S., 677 

V. Van Home, 712 

V. Wardwell, 167, 607o, 984a 
Lawrence Canning Co. v. Lee Mercan- 
tile Co., 755 

184 



Lawrence R. R. v. Cobb, 319, 331a 

V. Mahoning County, 217 
Lawrence Tanning Co. v. Lee Mercan- 
tile Co., 753 
Lawshe v. Tacoma R. & P. Co., 865 
Lawson v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry., 
866, 172a 

V. Douglas, 999i 

V. Hogan, 659 

V. Price, 182, 203, 214 
Lawther v. Hamilton, 1230 
Lawton v. Erwin, 692 

V. Fitchburg R. R., 226o 

V. Green, 685 

V. Herrick, 182, 182a, 224, 947 

V. Sweeney, 1300 
Lawyer v. Fritcher, 376 
Lay V. Bayles, 506a 

V. Postal T. C. Co., 45a, 894a 
Layman v. F. F. Slocomb & Co., 493 
Layton v. Hogue, 3016 

V. Pearce, 423 
Lazarus v. Com. Ins. Co., 712a 

V. Ely, 55, 60 

V. Metropolitan El. R. R., 1203 
Lazelle v. Newfane, 573a, 577 
Lea V. Whitaker, 414 
Leach v. Forney, 1016 

V. Leach, 43i, 484 

V. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 170a, 
843 

V. Pirani, 686 

V. Smith, 278, 734 

V. Thomas, 1277 

V. Vining, 306 
Leaders v. Gray, 334 
Leahy v. Davis, 1372 
Leake Orphan House v. Lawrence, 316 
Learned v. Castle, 36a 
Learock v. Paxson, 614 
Leary v. Laflin, 408, 416 
Leatherberry v. Odell, 207, 667 
Leathers v. Sweeney, 66, 620, 764 
Leavell v. Coleman, 762, 772 
Leavenworth v. Delafield, 717 

V. Packer, 734 
Leavenworth N. & S. Ry. v. Curtan, 
1117 

V. Herley, 1110 
Leavitt v. Cutler, 639, 640a, 1266 



2930 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Leavitt o. Dow, 1369 

V. Fiberloid Co., 765 

V. Fletcher, 992 

V. Lamprey, 921 
Leber v. Minneapolis & N. Ry., 1159 
LeBlanc v. Sweet, 570 
LeBlanche v. London & N. W. Ry., 

226fc, 862 
Leblond v. McNear, 858 
LeBranthwait v. Halsey, 341 
Leche v. Claverie, 667 
LeCheminant t). Pearson, 712 
LeClaire v. Tacoma R. & P. Co., 1342 
Lecroy v. Wiggins, 613 
Ledbetter v. Morris, 98 
Ledger v. Ewer, 1050 
Ledgerwood v. Bushnell, 166 
Lediard v. Boucher, 1074 
Ledoux V. Goza, 310 

V. Jones, 999/ 
Ledyard v. Bull, 310a 

V. Jones, 556, 559 
Lee V. The Alexander, 599c 

V. Bowman, 910 

V. Briggs, 614, 636d 

V. Burk, 927 

V. Burlington, 43h 

V. Burrell, 789 

V. Clark, 797 

V. Clements, 674, 1066 

V. Dean, 975 

V. Goodrich, 343 

V. Gratz, 961 

V. Grinnell, 717 

V. Humphries, 909o 

V. Kendall, 85c 

II. Lashbrooke, 310a 

V. Lord, 934o 

V. Maxwell, 684a 

V. Minneapolis, 1108 

V. Mo. Pac. Ry., 571a 

V. Moore, 684 

V. Mutual Life Ass'n, 636d 

V. Overstreet, 426a 

V, Paterson, 636/ 

V. Pillsbury, 1215 

V. Pindle, 308a 

V. Powell Bros. & Sanders Co., 
1356 

V. Publishers, Knapp & Co., 1367 



Lee V. Reed, 3146 

V. Riley, 125a 

V. Russell, 1012 

t). St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 1350 

V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. R., 856a 

V. Sickles Saddlery Co., 753 

V. Springfield Water Co., 1171 

V. Tartlin, 1027 

V. Tebo & N. R. R., 1140 

V. West, 470 

V. Western U. T. Co., 130 Ky. 202; 
8946 

V. Western U. T. Co., 51 Mo. App. 
375; 881 

V. Wilcocks, 275 
Lee, The, 595 
Lee Ahlo v. Ins. Co., 722 
Lee Tung v. Burkhart, 492a, 493 
Leech v. Baldwin, 1068 
Leeds v. Camden & A. R. R., 1161 

V. Cheetham, 999c 

V. Cook, 641o 

V. Little, 657 

V. Metropolitan G. L. Co., 171 
Leek v. Northern Pac. Ry., 865 
Leestzky v. Canning, 988o 
Leet V. Gratz, 137 Mo. App. 208; 983 

V. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422; 979 
Leffingwell v. EUiott, 86a, 236, 238, 506, 

973, 979, 980a, 982, 983 
Leffler v. Witten, 614 
Leftovits V. First Nat. Bank, 622 
Lefurgy v. McGregor, 419 
Legal Tender Cases, 269 
Legar6 *. Frazer, 238 
Legett V. Steele, 922 
Legg V. Britton, 571c 
Leggat V. Gerrick, 312 
Legge V. Harlock, 419 
Legett V. Baker, 60 

V. Cooper, 1038 

V. Humphreys, 677 

V. McCarty, 973 

V. McClelland, 808a 

V. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 1011 

V. Rome, W. & O. R. R., 1206 
Leggott V. Great N. Ry., 571c 
Leghorn v. Nydell, 224 
Liegrange v. Hamilton, 341 
Le Guen v. Gouverneur, 813 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2931 



Lehigh Bridge Co. v. Lehigh C. & N. 

Co., 1108 
Lehigh Iron Co. v. Rupp, 575 
Lehigh V. C. Co. v.. Wilkesbarre & E. 
R. R., 503, 1166c 

V. Lazarus, 1166 
Lehigh Valley R. R., In re, 1154 
Lehmaier v. Jones, 999/ 

V. Standard S. & T. Co., 752 
Lehman v. Amsterdam Coffee Co., 182a 

V. Brooklyn, 1367 

V. Lomsiana R. W. Co., 1367 

V. McQuown, 182a, 685 

V. Minneapolis & S. L. R. R., 1348 
Lehmann v. Schmidt, 250 
Lehmeyer v. Moses, 999j 
Lehneis v. Egg Harbor Commercial 

Bank, 623 
Lehning v. Hewett, 451 
Leiber v. Chicago M. & S. P. Ry., 933 

V. Liverpool Ins. Co., 723a 
Leiby v. Clear S. W. Co., 1295 
Leicester, Earl of, v. Walter, 451 
Leick D. Tritz, 189, 991 
Leifer Mfg. Co. v. Gross, 766 
Leigh V. Garysburg Mfg. Co., 63, 932 

V. Patterson, 3361, 636a, 758 
Leigper v. Denver, 1123 
Leighton v. Brown, 676, 689a, 690 

V. Wales, 418 
Leisman v. Otto, 308 
Leiter v. Day, 363, 930 

V. Kinnare, 1367 

V. Pike, 999d 
Leitzell ». Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 

1307 
Lekas v. Schwartz, 753 
Leland v. Stone, 606, 606c, 964, 975 

V. Western U. T. Co., 8Md 
Lemeunier v. McClearley, 685fc 
Lemly v. Ellis, 975 
Lemmon v. Brown, 1016 
Lemon v. Pullman P. C. Co., 873a 

V. Stevenson, 1031 
Lemoine v. Sullivan, 1347, 1359 
Lenhart v. State, 1146 
Lenkewicz v. Wilmington City Ry., 

574a 
Lenox v. United Ins. Co., 717 
Lentell v. Boston & W. St. Ry., 1152o 



Lentz V. Carnegie, 932 

V. Choteau, 192, 610 
Leo Austrian & Co. v. Springer, 636o, 

636j, 734, 737, 741 
Leonard v. Allen, 451 

V. Beaudry, 613, 614 

V. Capital Ins. Co., 685fc 

V. Dyer, 615 

V. Fowler, 762 

V. Leonard, 921 

V. Maginnis, 540 

V. New York, A. & B. E. M. T. Co., 
221, 225, 227, 228, 874, 875, 882, 
884 

V. Pope, 446 

V. Portier, 755 

V. Rutland, 1161 

V. Union Ry., 1348 

V. Villars, 345 

V. Whitney, 691a 

V. Whitwell, 689 

V. Wildes, 339a 
Leonciniw. Post, 251 
Leopold V. Chicago, 1128 

V. Salkey, 636n 
Lepin v. Paine, 310 
Lepla V. Rogers, 148, 999A; 
Leppard v. Western U. T. Co., 881a 
Leque v. Madison G. & E. Co., 1367 
Lerner v. Cohen, 1369 
Le Roy v. Jacobsky, 1012 
Leroy & W. Ry. v. Hawk, 1165 

V. Ross, 1148 
Lesch V. Great Northern Ry., 43i 
Lesk V. Pollard, 363a, 364, 365, 366, 367 
LesUe v. Smith, 673& 
Less V. Butte, 1123 
Lessenich v. Sellers, 307 
Lesser v. Norman, 535 
Lester V. Highland B. G. Min. Co., 316, 

937 
Lestern v. Western U. T. Co., 876 
Lesure Lumber Co. v. Mutual F. I. Co., 

726 
Letcher v. Woodson, 295, 3016 
Lethbridge v. Mytton, 87, 789, 972 
Letton V. Young, 1326 
Levan v. Wilten, 78 
Leven v. Young, 444 
Levenson v. BoUowa, 614 



2932 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Leverenz v. Stevens, 377o 

Leverick v. Meigs, 819 

Levert v. Daily States Pub. Co., 98, 

448o, 454 
Levey v. Dyess, 999j 
Levin v. Nassau Electric R. R., 1353 
Levine v. Brooklyn, A. C. & S. R. R., 
101 

V. Rosenschein, 208 
Levinski v. Middlesex Banking Co., 179 
Levinson v. Sands, 294 
Levis V. Royal Packing Co., 753 
Levistones ». Marigny, 302o 
Levitsky v. Canning, 238, 983 
Levitt V. Nassau El. Co., 1347 
Levy V. Bend, 1058 

V. Fleischner, 361, 370, 683 

V. Freiman, 414 

V. GoldsoU, 423 

V. 'Loeb, 80 

V. Taylor, 680, 685A 
Lewark v. Parkison, 67 
Lewers v. Earl of Shaftesbury, 1256b 
Lewin v. Folsom, 343 
Lewis V. Arnold, 293 

V. Atlanta, 486 

V. Atlas Mutual Life Ins. Co., 834e 

V. Black, 1328 

V. Bradford, 303 

V. Burlington Ins. Co., 722 

V. Chapman, 445 

V. Chisholm, 991 

V. Cooke, 1259 

V. Cosgrave, 1036 

V. Courtwright, 933 

V. Doyle, 762 

V. Dwight, 678 

V. Englewood El. R. R., 1295 

V. Esther, 673/ 

V. Flint & P. M. Ry., 54 Mich. 55; 
118, 119 

V. Flint & P. M. Ry., 56 Mich. 638; 
109 

V. Greider, 755 

V. Harris, 979 

V. Holmes, 45 

V. Homestead, 1120 

V. Hoover, 109 

V. Leahey, 685/ 

V. Lee, 153a, 696c, 1012 



Lewis V. Morse, 493, 494a 

V. Morland, 547, 554o 

V. New York S. C. Co., 873a 

V. North Kingstown, 1256d, 1331 

V. Paschal, 345 

f. PauU, 1261 

V. Payn, 999c 

V. Peachy, 91 

V. Peake, 238, 773 

V. Pennsylvania R. R., 1151 

V. Ross, 961 

V. Rountree, 297, 312 

V. Rucker, 714 

V. Seattle, 1143a 

V. Small, 343 

V. Springfield F. & M. I. Co., 723a 

V. Springfield Water Co., 1169 

V. The Success, 848, 852 

ti. Teale, 531 

V. Terry, 120 

V. Trickey, 673c, 1303 

V. Virginia-Carohna Chem. Co., 
933, 934 

V. Wabash R. R., 1354 

V. Western U. T. Co., 894c 

V. Witham, 1277 
Lewiston & Y. Frontier R. R. v. Ayer, 

1146 
Lewter v. Lindley, 1331 
Lexington v. Long, 1130 

V. Union Nat. Bank, 346 
Lexington & E. Ry. v. Lyons, 865 
Lexington Ry. v. Britton, 1257, 1270 

V. Cozine, 380 

V. Fain, 387 

V. Johnson, 368, 1353 

V. Woodward, 1347 
Ley V. Miller, 789 
Leyde v. Martin, 310 
Leyser v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R., 372 
Liber v. Parsons, 959 
Libhart v. Wood, 674 
Lick V. Owen, 448a 

Licking Valley Building Assoc, v. Com- 
monwealth, 332 
Liddard v. Lopes, 841 
Liddell ». McVicker, 3116 

V. Rucker, 301& 
Lieberman v. Chicago & S. S. R. T., 

iieoo 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2933 



Liebrandt v. Sorg, 6386 

Lienkauf v. Morris, 368, 378 

Lienow v. Ritchie, 74, 931 

Lier v. St. Louis, etc., R. R., 1151 

Liese v. Meyer, 638o, 639, 639a 

Life Association of America v. Ferrill, 

834c 
Ligare v. Chicago, etc., R. R., 1171a 

V. Peacoclc, 310o 
Liggett S. & A. Co. v. Michigan Buggy- 
Co., 1059 
Light V. Detroit & M. Ry., 222 
Light Co. V. Compton, 363a 

V. Munsey, 576 
Lightner v. Menzel, 416 
Ligon V. Minton, 777 
Likes V. Baer, 762, 777, 1027 
Liles V. Rogers, 681a 
Liljengren Furniture &,L. Co. v. Mead, 

646a 
Lillard v. Distilleries, etc., 164 

V. Whattaker, 519 
Lilley v. Doubleday, 121a 

V. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 341 
Lillie V. Dunbar, 80o, 531a 

V. Lillie, 237, 251, 685& 
Lilly V. Person, 425 
Liman v. Pa. R. R., 161 
Lime Rock R. R. v. Famsworth, 1149 
Limpus V. The State, 557 
Linch V. Paris Limiber & Graia Eleva- 
tor Co., 657 
Linck V. Litchfield, 334 
Lincoln v. Blanchard, 802 

V. Central Vermont Ry., 485 

V. Charles Alshuler Mfg. Co., 752 

V. Claflin, 316, 322 

V. Commonwealth, 1154 

V. Chrisman, 446 

V. Hope Ins. Co., 711 

V. Levi Cotton Mill Co., 752 

V. Little Rock Granite Co., 419 

V. Orthwein, 614 

V. Packard, 251, 1298 

V. Saratoga & S. R. R., 123, 172, 
233, 1292, 1293 

V. Schwartz, 6556 

V. Smith, 1306 
Lincoln Shoe Co. v. Sheldon, 751, 753 
Lind V. Chicago, etc., R. R., 1161 



Lindblom v. Sonstelie, 387 
Lindeberg v. Howard, 685y 
Lindemann v. Dennis, 655 
Linder v. Lake, 106, 676, 722a, 972 
Lindh v. Great N. Ry., 43ft, 45 
Lindley v. Dempsey, 612o, 1261 

V. Miller, 1057 

V. Richmond & D. R. R., 136, 156, 
854 
Lindquist v. Union Pac. Ry., 924, 924o 
Lindsay v. Anesley, 411 

V. Bridgewater Gas Co., 67a 

V. Grande R. L. Co., 1332 

V. Latham, 933 

V. Oregon Short Line R. R., 47 
Lindsey v. Danville, 486a 

V. Hewitt, 690 

V. Parker, 803 

V. Rockwall County, 416a 
Lindstrom v. International Nav. Co., 

1367 
Linerode v. Rassmussen, 1027 
Lines v. Alaska Commercial Co., 496 

V. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 575 

V. Smith, 774 

V. State, 692i 
Linforth v. San Francisco G. & E. Co., 

932 
Linge v. Alaska Treadwell Co., 1326 
Lingo V. Burford, 1140 
Linn v. Duquesne, 484 

V. Minor, 270 
Linney v. Maton, 443 
Linsley v. Bushnell, 234, 352, 360, 368 
Linss V. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 5716 
Linthicum v. Truitt, 4866 
Linton Coal & M. Co. v. Persons, 482, 

485o 
Linton v. Hart, 999d 

V. National L. Ins. Co., 331 

V. Porter, 774 
Linville v. Black, 79 
Lion F. I. Co. V. Starr, 722 
Lipe V. Eisenlerd, 474 
Lippett V. Kelley, 910, 911 
Lipscomb v. Fuqua, 414 

V. Houston & T. C. Ry., 580a 

V. Seegers, 416 

V. South Bound R. R., 620 
Lipsky V. C. Reiss Coal Co., 1353 



2934 



TABLE OF CASES 



[References 

Liscom V. Boston M. F. I. Co., 720 
Lissberger v. Kellogg, 162 
Lister v. Campbell, 1344 

V. Wright, 449 
Litchenstein v. Brooks, 665, 666 
Littell V. Ellison, 312 
Little V. Anderson, 343 

V. Banks, 301 

V. Bliss, 689, 591a 

V. Boston & M. R. R., 1215, 146, 
844, 892 

V. Dawson, 671 

V. Little, 793 

V. McGuire, 214, 228 

V. Portland, c83& 

V. Stanback, 101, 940 

V. Tingle, 481 

V. Western IT. T. Co., 894b 
Little Maine Railroad v. Collett, 1131, 

1148 
Little Rook & F. S. R. R. v. Allen, 1134, 
1149, 1154 

V. Allister, 1129, 1134 
Little Rock & F. S. Ry. v. Barker, 33 
Ark. 350; 573, 573a, 575 

V. Barker, 39 Ark. 491; 574 

V. Cravens, 851 

V. McGehee, 1171a 

V. Voss, 1367 
Little Rock Junction Ry. v. Woodruff, 

252, 1172e 
Little Rock, M. R. & T. Ry. v. Haynes, 

1293 
Little Rock R. & E. Co. v. Goerner, 372 
Little Rock Traction Co. v. Winn, 868 
Little Schuylkill R. R. v. Richards, 

36a 
Little Silver, The, 1364, 1365 
Littlefield v. Perry, 323, 1230, 1234, 

1244 
Littlehale v. Dix, 488 

V. Osgood, 990c 
Littlejohn v. Wilcox, 237, 682a 
Littleton v. Burgess, 685j 
Lively, The, 596 
Livermore v. Jamaica, 1115 

V. Northrup, 53 

V. Rand, 308 

V. Roanoke, etc., R. R., 1175 

V, Wortman, 311/ 



are to sections] 

Livermore F. & M. Co. v. Union S. & C. 

Co., 165 
Liverpool Water Works v. Atkinson, 

692d 
Livesley v. Johnson, 734 

V. Krebs Hop Co., 745 
Livie V. Janson, 714 
Livingston v. Adams, 1108 

V. Burroughs, 3836, 466 

V. Exum, 237, 685b 

V. Jones, 1220, 1230 

V. L'Engle, 9996 

V. The Mayor, 1128 

V. Metropolitan Street Railroad, 
1190 

V. Miller, 313a 

V. Robb, 999y 

V. Sulzer, 1157 

V. Tanner, 905 

V. Woodworth, 1220, 1234 
Livingston, The, 591 
Livingston Co. v. Graves, 647a 
Livingstone v. New York C. & H. R. R. 
R., 854 

V. Rawyards Coal Co., 501, 935 
Livingstone, The, 590 
Llano I. & F. Co. v. Watkins, 334 
Llansamlet T. P. Co., ex parte, 6366, 

737 
Llewellyn v. Rutherford, 182, 188, 254 

V. Two Anchors, 599c 
Lloyd V. Fair Haven, 1151 

V. Goodwin, 83 

V. Hamilton, 370 

V. Haugh & K. S. & T. Co., 251, 
844 

V. Lloyd, 226b 

V. Morris, 1278 

V. O'Rear, 3406 

V. Quinby, 959, 964, 965 

V. Sandusky, 964, 975 
Lloyd Lumber Co. v. Solon, 734 
Llynvi Co. v. Brogden, 501 
Loader v. Kemp, 994 
Loan Assoc, v. Stonemetz, 673(i 
Lobdell V. Stowell, 609 
Lobenstein v. Hymson, 60 
Loch Trool, The, 592, 593 
Lochte V. Mitchell, 366 
Lock V. Ashton, 464 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2935 



Lock V. Furze, 987, 1009 

Lock Haven Bridge Co. v. Clinton 

County, 1173 
Locke V. Garrett, 58 

V. Homer, 789, 972 

V. International & G. N. Ry., 484 
Lockhart v. Geir, 940 
Locklin v. Moore, 340b 
Lockwood V. Atlantic M. I. Co., 712, 
713 

V, Lockwood, 1338 

V. Onion, 671, 1326, 1328 

V. Saffold, 685A 

V. Sturdevant, 966, 976, 978 

V. Twenty-tlurd St. Ry., 1333, 
1360 
Locomobile Co. v. De Witt, 313 
Locomotive Safety Truck Co. v. Penn- 
sylvania R. R., 323 
Loder v. Kekule, 508, 762 

V. Spooner, 275 
Lodge Holes Colliery Co. v. Wedn€s- 

bury, 932 
Loe V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 171a 
Loeb V. Flash, 515 

V. Kamak, 162 

V. Mann, 540 
Loeach v. Koehler, 433 
Loescher v. Deisterberg, 734, 740 
Loeser v. Humphrey, 228 
Loetscher v. Dillon, 5166 
Loewenthal v. Streng, 1326, 1331 
Loewer v. Harris, 156, 183 
Lofink V. Interborough R. R., 43i 
Lofland v. MauU, 1025 
Loftees v. Maxey, 365 
Loftus V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1348 
Logan V. Caffrey, 85 

V. Hannibal & S. J. R. R., 383o, 865 

V. Hodges, 377 

V. Moulder, 959, 966 

V. Tibbott, 1070 

V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 
893 
Logan Co. Nat. Bank v. Townsend, 513 
Logansport v. Justice, 180 

V. Pollard, 1112fl 
Logansport C. & S. R. R. v. Buchanan, 
1151 

V. Wray, 226o, 637, 938 



Logic V. Gillies, 829 

Lohner v. Caldwell, 641& 

Loiseau v. Threlstad, 975 

Loker v. Damon, 201, 209, 214c, 223 

Lomax v. Ragor, 685m 

Lombard v. Batchelder, 362 

V. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 1330, 
1348 

V. Chicago Sinai Congregation, 
301b 

V. Kennedy, 999A 

V. Lennox, 443 
Lombard Invest. Co. v. Burton, 334 
Lombardi v. California St. Ry., 482a, 

860 
Lommeland v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry., 

937 
London & B. Bank v. Walker, 685j 
London & Canadian Loan & Agency 

Co. «. Morris, 346 
London Assur. Corp v. Russell, 818a 
London Bank v. White, 303 
London, C. & D. Ry. v. South Eastern 

Ry., 340 
London F. Ins. Co. v. Tumbull, 726 
London T. & S. Ry. arid Trustees of 
Gower's Walk Schools, In re, 1091, 
1102 
Lonergan v. Waldo, 742 
Loney v. Oliver, 1022 
Long V. Booe, 480a 

V. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry., 45a 

V. Clapp, 125, 769 

V. Conklin, 636a, 737 

V. Douthitt, 777 

V. Fulton Contr. Co., 1270o 

V. Gieriet, 991 

V. Harrisburg & P. R. R., 1142 

V. Kansas City, M. & B. R. R., 67a 

V. Lambkin, 55 

V. Louisville & N. R. R., 932, 948 

V. McCauley, 614 

V. Morrison, 573a 

V. O'Bryan, 632 

V. Pruyn, 765 

V. Sinclair, 979 

V. Towl, 413 
Long Distance Tel. & Tel. Co. v. 

Schmidt, 252 
Long E. R. J. Co. v. Midland Ry., 1097 



2936 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Long Island R. R., Matter of, 1174 
Long Island R. R. ». Bennett, 1128 
Long P. L. Co. V. Saxon L. & L. Co., 

246 
Longfellow f . McGregor, 679a 

V. Quimby, 29 Me. 196; 226i, 233 

V. Quimby, 33 Me. 457; 317, 933 
Longmont v. Parker, 1123 
Longobardi v. Yuliano, 414 
Longstreth v. Phoenixville, 1112a 
Longworth v. Cincinnati, 316 

V. Meriden & W. R. R., 1154 

V. Mitchell, 269 
Longyear v. Gregory, 930o 
Lonon v. Public Service Co., 1304 
Lonsdale v. Church, 678 
Lonsdale Co. v. Woonsocket, 316 
Loof V. Lawton, 440 
Loomer v. Thomas, 204, 205, 608 
Loomis V. Bedel, 979 

V. Eagle Ins. Co., 729 

V. Gillett, 308a 

ti. Green, 63 

V. Knox, 3406 

V. Robinson, 83& 

V. Stave, 80 

V. Wadhams, 1007, 1012, 1018 
i-oomis Milling Co. v. Vawter, 762 
Looney v. District of Columbia, 6226 

V. Reeves, 959, 965, 966, 974, 977 
Loosemore v. Radford, 262, 789, 790 
Loosey v. Orser, 546 
Lorain St. R. R. v. Sinning, 1148 
Loraine v. Cartwright, 524, 822 
Loranger v. Dominion Transport Co., 
1216 

». Loranger, 445 
Lord V. Carbon I. M. Co., 92, 202 

V. Chadboume, 265 

V. Comstock, 644, 645 

V. Gaddis, 413 

V. Guyot, 468 

V. Hingham Nat. Bank, 633c 

V. Maine Cent. R. R., 854 

V. Neptune Ins. Co., 710, 717 

V. New York, 335, 336 

V. Staples, 800 

V. Strong, 842 

V. Wheeler, 657 

V. Wood, 565a 



Loring v. Baker, 692c 

V. Gumey, 756 

V. Morrison, 1060 

ti. Neptune Ins. Co., 717 
Lorius V. Abbott, 417 
Los Angeles v. City Bank, 339 

I). Gager, 1151 
Losch's Appeal, 1154c 
Losee v. Buchanan, 33 
Lot V. Parish, 956 

Lothian v. Western IT. T. Co., 881o 
Lothrop V. Golden, 506a 

V. Otis, 762 

V. Southworth, 685 
Lott V. Mitchell, 793o 
Lotty, The, 592 

Lotze V. Cincinnati, 1117, 11496 
Loucks V. McSloy, 55 
Loud V. Campbell, 613 

V. Merrill, 700 
Louder v. Hinson, 365, 372 
Loudon I). Shelby Coimty Taxing Dist., 

282, 301 
Loughin v. McCauley, 599 
Loughlin v. Carey, 999A 
Loughran v. Des Moines, 948 
Louis V. Brown, 411 

V. The Buckeye, 844, 846 
Louis Cook Mfg. Co. v. Randall, 739 
Louis Werner Stave Co. v. Pickering, 

934 
Louisiana & A. R. R. v. Hobbs, 1356 

V. Nix, 1348 
Louisiana & F. P. R. v. Pickett, 1140 
Louisiana & N. W. R. R. v. Reeves, 

894c 
Louisiana Extension Ry. v. Carstens, 

574a 
Louisiana R. & N. Co. v. Jones, 1171c 

V. Sarpy, 253 
Louisville v. Arrowsmith, 1348 

V. Bohlsen, 932 

V. Caron, 1138a 

V. Colebume, 924a, 1110 

V. Donahue, 924a 

V. Hammock, 1363 

V. Harbin, 1138a 

V. Hegan, 1138a, 1149 

V. Kaye, 1138a 

V. O'Malley, 947, 948 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2937 



Louisville v. Tompkins, 1360 
Louisville & A. R. R. v. Cox, 1367 

V. Davis, 1347 
LouisviUe & E. R. R. v. Hardin, 1123 

V. Vincent, 1353 
Louisville & N. R. R. t». Asher, 1138a 

V. Ballard, 360, 364, 365, 366, 367, 
380 

V. Banks, 580 

V. Barnwell, 1270 

V. Beeler, 933 

V. Beny, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 850; 387 

V. Berry, 96 Ky. 604; 574a 

V. Binion, 484, 490 

». Bizzell, 387 

V. Breckinridge, 1342 

V. Brooks, 387, 1367 

V. Brown, 121 Ala. 221; 574a 

V. Brown, 127 Ky. 732; 1328, 1347 

t>. Buck, 584a 

». CampbeU, 1306, 1355 

V. Carotheis, 67, 67o 

V. Carter, 932 

V. Case, 572 

V. Cason, 1357 

V. Chalcraft, 11656 

V. Champion, 363 

V. Com., 688a 

V. Coniff, 573a 

V. Cottengim, 865 

V. Cox, 1354 

V. Coyle, 752 

». Creighton, 573o, 575, 1367 

V. Crow, 482, 483, 484 

V. Cumnock, 1123, 1138a 

V. Daugherty, 150 

V. Dick, 486 

V. Donaldson, 388 

V. Eaden, 380 

V. Eakin's Adm'r, 574a 

V. Earl, 368 

V. Falvey, 860 

V. Foley, 1357 

V. Fort, 317 

V. Fowler, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 905; 865 

V. Fowler, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 1021 ; 365 

V. Fox, 1352, 1326 

V. Freppon, 1354 

V. Caddie, 864 

V. Garrett, 380 



Louisville & N. R. R. v. Geikel, 1151, 

1165a 
V. Gidley, 119 
V. Glazebrook, 1138a 
V. Gollihur, 573 
V. Gower, 490 

V. Gormley, 109 S. W. 346; 86a 
V. Gormley, 111 S. W. 289; 133, 

226<2 
V. Graham, 573a, 1367 
V. Greer, 368 
V. Hall, 87 Ala. 708; 387 
V. Hall, 136 S. W. 905; 1161 
V. Handley, 1303 
V. Hart County, 932 
V. Hartwell, 853 
V. Heilprin, 854 
V. Higginbotham, 91, 924 
V. Hollerbach, 642, 647a, 6475 
V. Howard, 580a 
V. Hull, 45, 45a, 856a, 1342 
V. Ingrain, 1138a 
V. Jones, 83 Ala. 376; 1215 
0. Jones, 130 Ala. 456; 579 
V. Kelly, 337a, 380, 574a, 581 
V. Kelsey, 432a 
V. Kingman, 368, 1354 
V. Lambert, 1149a 
V. Lansford, 584 
V. Law, 1357 
V. Long, 1360 
V. Lowe, 1357 
0. Lucas, 1367 
V. McE3wain, 571c 
V. McEwan, 1342 
V. MacMillam, 1363 
V. Marshall, 368 
V. Mason, 844, 852 
V. Mattingly, 1364 
V. Maybin, 365 
V. Melton, 1348 
V. Milet, 574o 
V. Mink, 152, 157 
V. MitcheU, 1326, 1356 
V. Moore, 2145 
V. Morris, 574a 
V. Mount, 368 
V. Mulfinger, 1367 
V. Neafus, 620 
V. Orr, 584 



2938 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Louisville & N. R. R. v. Owen, 851 

V. Popp, 1356 

V. Queen City Coal Co., 842 

V. Quinn, 486a 

V. Ray, 1342 

V. Reynolds, 1270 

V. Roe, 1349 

V. Roney, 1270 

V. Roth, 388 

V. Schroader, 368, 1356 

V. Scott, 365, 1367 

V. Sharp, 332 

V. Sherrod, 851 

V. Simpson, 368 

V. Smith, 141 Ala. 335; 361, 363, 
364, 383b 

V. Smith, 134 Ky. 47; 1354 

V. Sowell, 851 

V. Spinks, 212, 222, 865 

V. Stacker, 573a, 574a 

V. Stewart, 844 

V. Street, 347 

V. Sullivan, 547a, 868 

V. SuUivan Timber Co., 927 

V. Survant, 1347 

V. Taafe, 574a 

V. Thompson, 1138a 

V. Trammell, 1367 

V. Wallace, 316 

V. Ward, 584 

V. Weathers, 1342 

V. Whitman, 47, 865 

V. Wilkins, 363, 1354 

V. Wilkinson, 1342 

V. Williams, 484 

V. Wilson, 43ft 

V. Woods, 485o 

V. Wynn, 851 

V. Young, 494a 
Louisville & P. C. Co. v. Rowan, 619 
Louisville & P. R. R. v. Smith, 347 
Louisville & S. L. R. R. v. Clarke, 580a 
Louisville & S. I. T. Co. v. Snead, 1350 
Louisville A. & P. E. Ry. v. Whipple, 

620 
Louisville A. & P. V. E. Ry. v. Whipps, 

630 
Louisville Banking Co. v. M. V. Mon- 
arch Co., 685fc 
Louisville City R. R. v. Mercer, 1342 



Louisville Cooperage Co. v. Farmer, 

1355 
Louisville, E. & S. L. C. R. R. v. 

Spencer, 933 
Louisville Gas Co. v. Gutenkuntz, 126a 

V. Kentucky Heating Co., 373 
Louisville, H. & St. L. Ry. v. Arm- 
strong, 1363 

V. Baskett, 630 

V. Foulks, 1363 

V. Kessee, 1363 

V. Roberts, 932 
Louisville M. & F. I. Co. v. Bland, 712, 

714 
Louisville N. A. & C. Ry. v. Shanks, 368 
Louisville, N. & G. S. R. R. v. Fleming, 
226m, 872 

V. Guinan, 360 
Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. v. Falvey, 
1216, 221 

V. Flanagan, 842 

V. Jones, 1216 

i;. Marlott, 932 

V. Moore, 218 

V. Peck, 1296 

V. Rush, 575 

V. Snyder, 1216 

V. Sumner, 218, 620, 630 

V. Wood, 1216 

V. Wright, 574a 
Louisville, N. O. & T. R. R. v. Dickson, 
1175 

V. Hopson, 1175 

V. Ryan, 252, 1171 
Louisville Pk. Co. v. Crain, 636a 
Louisville Press Co. v. Tennelly, 443 
Louisville Public Warehouse Co., 975 
Louisville Ry. v. Bohon, 1363 

V. Bryant, 1356 

V. Gaddie, 1354 

V. Gaugh, 1270a 

V. O'Connell, 1347 

V. Owens, 1363 

V. PuUiam, 1354 

V. Roser, 1346 

V. Steubing, 123, 1362 

i;. Wellington, 1342 

V. Worley, 1363 
Louisville, S. L. & T. R. R. v. Barrett, 
1138a, 1165 



Table of cases 

[References are to sections] 
Loubville, S. L. & T. R. R. v. Neafes, 



2939 



194 
Louisville Soap Co. v. Vance, 834c 
Louisville Southern R. R. v. Cogar, 1110 

V. Minogue, 388 
Louisville St. Ry. v. Brownfield, 368 
Louisville Underwriters v. Pence, 711 
Louisville Water Ck). v. Clark, 332, 334 

V. Phillips, 1367 

V. Youngstown Bridge Co., 419 
Louth V. Thompson, 486 
Love V. Bamseville Mfg. Co., 734 

V. Oldham, 1060 

V. Philadelphia & Reading R. R., 
346 

V. Powell, 908 

V. Ross, 762 

V. Shartzer, 916 
Lovejoy v. Hutchins, 5655 

V. Isbell, 1028 

V. Merchants' State Bank, 497/ 

V. Michels, 245, 750 
Lovell V. House of the Good Shepherd, 
2416 

V. St. Louis M. L. I. Co., 730 

V. Shea, 250 
Lovelock V. King, 655 
Low V. Archer, 806 

V. Concord R. R., 1171e 

V. Purdy, 919 
Low, In re, 1149 
Lowden v. Goodrick, 1270 
Lowe V. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R., 574a 

f. Chicago, S. P., M. & 0. Ry., 
1367 

V. Guthrie, 693 

V. Herald Co., 447 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 44 

V. Omaha, 1130, 1141, 1171o 

V. Peers, 394, 396, 678, 679 

V. Ring, 314, 488 

V. Sinklear, 656, 673a 

V. Steele, 1074 

V. Turpie, 168, 622, 829, 972 

V. Waller, 283, 698 

V. Wing, 82 
Lowell V. Boston & L. R. R., 241a 

0. Parker, 79, 692i, 802 
Lowen v. Grossman, 673a 
Lowenberg v. Jeffries, 558 



Lowenberg v. Rosenthal, 55 

V. Walley, 8186 
Lowenstein v. Chappell, 607a, 984a 

V. Monroe, 127, 237, 566a, 682 
Loweree v. Newark, 1148 
Lowery v. Rowland, 75, 317 

V. Western U. T. Co., 602, 879, 897 
Lowndes v. ColUns, 287, 289 
Lowrance v. Robertson, 961 
Lowry v. Coster, 1254 

V. State, 692A; 

V. Young, 854 
Lowther v. Com., 959 
Loyacano v. Jurgens, 1371 
Loyd V. Capps, 988 

V. Colmnbus, 1110 
Loxtercamp v. Lininger Implement Co., 

762 
Lozier v. Hannan, 749o 
Lucas V. Flinn, 481, 489 

V. Detroit City Ry., 226/ 

V. Michigan Cent. R. R., 865 

V. New York C. R. R., 579 

V. The Thomas Swann, 587 

V. Trumbull, 55, 494 

V. Wattles, 318 

V. Wilcox, 976 
Luce V. Hoisington, 54 Vt. 428; I21d 

V. Hoisington, 56 Vt. 436; 121d, 
195 

V. Jones, 81 
LucUle, The, 595, 1298 
Lucille Manor, The, 657 
Luck V. Ripon, 180 
Lucker v. Liske, 1256 
Luckey v. Robots, 567 
Lucking v. Gegg, 801 
Lucot V. Rodgers, 932 
Lucy V. Chicago G. W. Ry., 1342 
Ludden v. Buffalo Belting Co., 80 
Ludlow V. Detweller, 1123, 1138a 

V. Dole, 664 

V. Froste, 1177 

V. Gilman, 973 

V. Steffen, 436 

V. Yonkers, 316, 944 
Ludwick V. Huntzinger, 325 
Ludwig V. Meyre, 844 
Lueders v. Hartford L. I. Co., 732 
Luessen v. Oshkosh E. L. & P. Co., 575 



2940 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



Luetgert v. Volker, 311 

Lufburrow v. Henderson, 1040, 1049, 

1062 
Lufkin V. BQtchcock, 1368 

V. Mayall, 673a 

V. Patterson, 675 
Luft V. Lingane, 1335 
Luitweiler P. E. Co. v. Ukiah W. & I. 

Co., 767 
Luke V. Lyde, 841 
Lukin V. Goodsall, 932 
Lxrmber Co. v. Daniel, 308 
Lumbermen's Ins. Co. v. St. Paul, 73 
Lumberman's Min. Co. v. Gilchrist, 842 
Lumpkin v. Blewitt, 976 
Lund V. Idaho & N. W. R. R., 1165a 

V. New Bedford, 100, 101 , 

V. Sargent Mfg. Co., 1357 

V. Tyler, 181, 1303 
Lunn V. Gage, 1057 

V. Guthrie, 8186 

V. Shermer, 777 

V. Turner, 363a 
Lunsford v. Baskins, 688 

V. Dietrich, 44, 47 

V. Walker, 483 
Limt V. Egeland, 408 

V. Philbrick, 47, 473 

V. Wrenn, 236, 239 
Luntz V. Berry, 423 
Luper V. Henry, 1354 
Lurch V. Holder, 221a 
Lurton v. GiUiam, 308 
Lusch V. Huber Mfg. Co., 82 
Luse V. Jones, 42, 127a, 182, 214, 1298 
Lush V. Druse, 307, 999a 
Lusk V. Briscoe, 1271 

V. Smith, 310 
Luske V. Hotchkiss, &7Sd 
Lutes V. Alpaugh, 689 
Luther v. Winnisimmet Co., 64 
Luxenberg v. Keith & P. A. Co., 607 
Luxmore v. Robson, 999^ 
Lycoming G. & W. Co. v. Mayor, 1112a 
Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 713 
Lydeeker v. Valentine, 614 
Lyden v. McGee, 464 
Lydian Monarch, The, 851 
Lydon v. Sullivan, 753 
Lyle V. Barker, 76, 78 



Lyle V. Clason, 1277 
Lyles V. Lyles, 280 

t). Perrin, 119 Cal. 264; 363 

V. Perrin, 134 Cal. 417; 975 

V. Western U. T. Co., 894c, 894d 
Lyman v. Babcock, 413 

». Conkey, 692fc 

V. Lincoln, 655d 

V. Mower, 912 
Lyme Regis v. Henly, 35 
Lynch v. American Linseed Co., 1355 

V. Baldwin, 9996, 1057 

r. Bogy, 673d 

V. Cox, 914 

V. De Viar, 303 

V. Knight, 43, 435, 43/, 44, 47 

V. McGhan, 517 

V. Metropolitan E. R. R., 1256/ 

V. Sellers, 614 

V. Third Ave. R. R., 1262 

V. Troxell, 942 

ti. Wright, 1021 
Lynd v. Picket, 363a, 364, 366, 373a 
Lynde ». Thompson, 417 
Lyndon v. Miller, 692e 
Lyne v. Western U. T. Co., 894, 894c 
Ljmn V. McDonald, 1165 
Lynn G. & E. Co. v. Meriden F. I. Co., 

116, 12ld, 723o 
Lyon V. Betram, 762a 

V. Clark, 678 

V. Donaldson, 1229 

V. Fishmongers' Co., 1093 

V. Grormley, 503 

V. Green _Bay & M. Ry., 1151, 1175 

V. Hammon & B. I. R. R., 1138, 
1160a 

V. Hersey, 237, 685n 

V. Katten, 1012, 1298 

V. Magagno, 301c 

V. Manhattan Ry., 1309 

V. Northup, 802 

V. Valentine, 664a 

V. Yates, 53 
Lyons v. Bamimi, 1028 

V. Boston & L. R. R., 929a 

V. Chamberlin, 311a 

V. Erie Ry., 228 

V. Iron City Nat. Bank, 334 

V. Merrick, 125a 



TABLE OF CASES 



2941 



[References 

Lyons v. Second Ave. R. R., 1367 
Lytle ti. Scottish American Mort. Co., 

412 
Lytton e. Baird, 236, 241, 457, 458 



M 

M. & M. R. R. w. Finney, 380 
M. J. Sanford, The, 196 
M. Kalbfleisch, The, 2261 
M. M. Caleb, The, 593 
M. S. Bacon, The, v. Erie & W. Trans- 
portation Co., 857 
Mabb V. Stewart, 205, 222 
Mabin v. Webster, 6416 
Mabrey ». Cape Girardeau & J. G. R. R. 

171 
McAbee v. Cribbs, 972 
McAdory v. Louisville & N. R. R., 574 

1367 
McAfee v. Crawford, 60 

V. Crofford, 137, 363a 
I IcAfferty v. Hale, 655e 
McAleer v. Good, 372 
McAlester v. Landers, 1051, 1057 

V. Suchy, 689a 
I IcAlexander v. Harris, 452 
I.IoAUster v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 

852 
IIcAllen ». Western U. T. Co., 894c 
McAllister v. Clark, 681a 

V. Clement, 109 

V. Dexter & P. R. R., 921 

V. Douglas, 734 

V. Reab, 298, 1039 
I loAUistem v. Reel, 1157 
I I'Almont V. M'Clelland, 445 
McAlpin V. Lee, 762a, 1050 

V. Woodruff, 238, 976, 982, 983 
I.IcAndrew v. Electric Tel. Co., 876 

V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R., 85c 
McAneany v. Jewett, 106 
McArthur v. Cornwall, 360, 363, 908 

V. Hdwett, 537 

V. Sault News Printing Co., 443 

V. Seaforth, 508 
McAulay v. Allen, 82 

V. Birkhead, 475, 476 
McAvoy V. Wright, 777 
McBeth V. Craddock, 316 



are to sections] 

McBrayer v. Cohen, 1023 
McBride v. Marine Ins. Co., 712 

V. Mclntire, 339a 

V. McLaughlin, 385 

V. Sunset Telephone Cp., 45a, 
894 
McCaa v. Elam Drug Co., 121d 
McCabe v. Desnoyers, 777 

V. Knapp, 252 

V. Morehead, 375, 538 

V. Narragansett E. L. Co., 573a, 
574a, 577 

V. Platter, 451 
McCafferty v. Griswold, 959, 984, e84o, 

1009 
McCall V. Icks, 308, 308a, 636i 

V. McDowell, 464, 466 

V. Phoenix M. L. I. Co., 730 

V. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 710 

V. Turner, 340 
McCall Co. V. Deuchler, 417 
McCalla v. Clark, 80, 1044 
McCann v. Albany, 11 App. Div. 378; 
419 

V. Albany, 42 N. Y. Supp. 94; 
407 

V. Albany, 158 N. Y. 634; 391 

V. Lewis, 334 

V. Ullman, 769 
McCaraher v. Commonwealth, 692 
McCardell v. Williams, 991 
McCardle v. McGinley, 241 
McCarten v. Flagler, 1334 
McCarthy v. DeAmit, 372, 382 

V. EUers, 762 

V. Henderson, 1041 

V. Mayor, 673d 

V. Metropolitan Board of Works, 
1123 

V. Miller, 1266, 361 

V. Niskem, 360, 385 

V. Nixon Grocery Co., 750 

V. St. Paul, 217 

V. Spring Valley Coal Co., 226o 
McCartney v. Phila., 1110 

V. Smith, 226 

V. Titsworth, 950 
McCarty v. Beach, 106 

V. Frazer, 692j 

V. Gray, 363ai 



2942 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



McCarty v. Heryford, 637, 641c 

V. Leggett, 977 

V. Quimby, 317, 538 

V. St. Louis Transit Co., 1372 

II. Wells, 1255 
McCauley v. Leavitt, 3406 

b. Moses, 973 
McCausey v. Hoek, 182, 665c 
McCausland v. Bell, 336 

V. Cresap, 615 
MoChesney v. Wilson, 358 
McClair v. Austin, 614 
McClarren v. Jefferson, 1177 
McClatchey v. Anderson, 762 
McCleary v. Edwards, 984 
McClellan v. Harris, 672 
McClelland v. Moore, 979 

V. Snider, 613, 655 
McClendon v. Wells, 370, 683 
McCleneghan v. Omaha, etc., R. R., 

221a 
McCleskey & Whitman v. Howell Cot- 
ton Co., 739 
McClintock v. Crick, 449 
McCloskey v. Ryder, 333, 930a 
McClowry v. Croghan, 959, 984, 996 
McCloy V. Amett, 909, 909a 
McCIung V. Beirne, 688 
McClnre v. Broken Bow, 942 

». Dunkin, 678 

V. Gamble, 959 

V. Hill, 82 

i;. Pyatt, 673 

V. Renaker, 682a 

V. Secrist, 656 

V. Thorpe, 624, 936, 989 

V. Williams, 762 
McClurg V. Brenton, 373 
McCoU V. Western U. T. Co., 888 
McCoUum V. Davis, 205 

V. Huntington, 734 

V. Seward, 312, 315, 308a, 664o 
McComas v. Haas, 753 
McComb V. Brodie, 1228, 1240 

«. Reed, 270 
McCombs V. Pittsburg, 1150 
McCommico v. Curzen, 312 
McConaghy v. Pemberton, 170, 194, 

610 
McConathy v. Deck, 361, 372 



McConey v. Wallace, 645 
McConnel v. Kibbe, 93a, 98, 636jr 
McConnell v. Corona City Water Co., 
614 

V. Dunlap, 1010 

V. Hampton, 1326 

V. Wright, 779 
McConnell Bros v. Southern R. R., 
861 

V. Slappey, 316 
McCord V. Massey, 976, 980 

0. Nabours, 497a 

V. Tiber, The, 699 

V. West Fehciana R. R., 655c 
McCormaok v. Lynch, 301 

V. Showalter, 930 
McCormick v. Basal, 636i 

V. Cormoly, 665 

V. Crall, 295 

V. Elston, 294, 214« 

V. Falls City Bank, 695c 

V. Hamilton, 1297 

V. Kansas City, 1110 

V. McCormick, 310o 

V. Mitchell, 339o, 417 

V. Moss, 692d 

V. P. C. R. R., 55 

V. Rochester Ry., 1367 

V. Pennsylvania Central R. R., 317 
493 

V. Stowell, 995 

V. Vanatta, 762, 767 

V. United States Min. Co., 184 
McCormick H. M. Co. v. Drake, I21d, 
363 

V. Markert, 751 
McCormick Harvesting Co. v. Jensen, 

738, 739 
McCoy V. Cornell, 538 

V. Crawford, 451 

V. Elder, 689a 

V. Huffman, 673a 

V. Trucks, 477 

V. Milwaukee St. Ry., 1355 

V. Oldham, 991 

V. P. W. & B. R. R., 380 
McCracken v. Hair, 1066 

V. Smathers, 482, 484, 491 

V. Traction Co., 580o 

V. Webb, 757 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2943 



McCray v. Fairmont, 1144 
McCrea v. Purmort, 964 
McCready ». Phillips, 439a 
McCreary v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 

1232a 
^McCreery v. Green, 308o 

V. Willett, 553, 554 
McCnibb v. Bray, 913 
McCruden v. Jones, 311/ 

V. Rochester Ry., 933 
McCuaig V. Quaker City Ins. Co., 244, 

712 
McCubbin v. Hastings, 570 
Maccubbin v. Thornton, 549 
McCue V. Klein, 585 
McCuUoch V. St. Paul, M. & M. R. R., 

1110 
McCullough V. Baker, 6556 

V. Clemow, 310a, 312 

V. Cox, 1046, 1052 

V. Greenfield, 464 

V. 111. Steel Co., 1332, 1364 

V. Newton, 308a 

V. S. J. Hayde Contracting Co., 
648a 

V. Walton, 683 
McCune v. Hartman Steel Co., 311/ 
McCurry v. Gibson, 418, 426 

V. McCurry, 451 
McCutcheon v. Dougherty, 310 

V. Freedom, 325 
McCutchin v. Taylor, 469 
McDade v. Bossier Levee Board, 916 
McDaniel v. Baca, 1328 

V. Crabtree, 191, 238, 685i 

». Grace, 973 

V. Hutcherson, 607a, 1261, 1266 

V. Parks, 206, 667, 671 

V. Staples, 499 

V. State, 692t 
McDermid v. Redpath, 787 
McDermott v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 
1350 

V. De Meridor Co., 633/ 

V. St. Wilhelmina B. A. Soc, 655/ 

V. Severe, 47 
McDodrill v. Pardee Co., 75 
McDonald v. Casey, 1252 

V. Champion I. & S. Co., 1367 

V. Christie, 1296 



McDonald v. Clearwater Shortline R. 
R., 1032 

V. Everitt, 256 

V. Great Western R. R., 3406 

V. James, 237, 685c, 685& 

V. Kansas City, B. & N. Co., 164, 
762 

V. Liggett, 664 

V. Loewen, 684 

V. Meadows, 692fc 

V. Metropolitan St. R. R., 1367 

V. Montague, 661 

V. Montana Wood Co., 930a 

V. Neilson, 1031 

V. North, 58, 317, 540 

V. Norton, 375 

V. Scaife, 317, 375 

V. Texas, etc., R. R., 1143 

V. Unaka T. Co., 246, 739, 1059 

V. Walter, 1368 

V. Whitney, 1222 

V. Woodruff, 448(i 
.McDonnel v. Henry Elias Brewing Co., 

1348 
MacDonnell v. Buffalo L. T. & S. D. 
Co., 4926 

V. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. 
Ry., 132, 143, 1334 
McDonough v. Reilly, 536 

V. Williams, 439a 
Macdougall v. Knight, 855 
McDouglad v. Coward, 449 
McDowell V. McCormick, 76 

ti. Milroy, 979, 1053 

V. Oyer, 603, 606, 611, 1020 
McDugald V. McFadgin, 1039 
McDunn v. Des Moines, 975, 982 
McEachin v. Tuscaloosa, 1122 
McEachron v. Randies, 755 
McElheny v. McKeespert & DuQuesne 

Bridge Co., 1152 
McElljgott V. Randolph, 671/ 
McElrath v. Whetstone, 684 
McElroy v. Goble, 101, 940 
McElwee ». Bridgeport L. & I. Co., 6 
McEvoy V. Bock, 90 

V. Humphrey, 1249a, 1264 
McEwan v. McLeod, 842 
McEwen v. Dillon, 993 

V. Kerfoot, 1056 



2944 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



McElyea v. Faires, 3016 
MoFadden v. Crawford, 308a 

V. Henderson, 734 

V. Hopkins, 82 

V. Johnson, 1159 

V. Ross, 691o 

V. Schill, 924a, 1143 

V. Whitney, 55 
McFadin v. Rippey, 9996 
McFall V. Dempsey, 304 
McFarland v. Carver, 1052 

V. Dawson, 671 

V. McClees, 8186 

V. Stone, 914 

I). United States M. A. Assoc, 732 
MacFarlane v. Allan-Pfeiflfer Chemical 

Co., 672 
MacFeat v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. 

R., 574a 
McFee v. Vicksburg R. R., 1367 
McGann v. Hamilton, 924a 
McGar v. Bristol, 1112a 
McGarr v. National & P.W. Mills, 486c 
McGarrahan v. New York, N. H. & H. 

R. R., 171a, 2216, 483, 485 
McGary v. Hastings, 959, 979, 982, 983 

V. President, 3806 
McGaughey v. Jacoby, 681a 
McGaughy v. Berg, 340c 
McGavock v. Chamberlain, 528 

V. Wood, 762 
McGaw V. Acker, M. & C. Co., 240 
McGean v. Manhattan Ry., 1208 
McGee v. Roen, 795 
McGehee v. Shafer, 1325 
McGettigan v. Parks, 925, 939 
McGhee v. Posey, 734 

V. Willis, 574a 
McGiffin V. Baird, 774 
McGill V. Ash, 76 

V. Grand Trunk Ry., 856 

V. Pintsch Compressing Co., 948 

V. Rowand, 1288 

V. U. S. Bank, 339a 

!). W. P. Fuller & Co., 564, 565a, 
565c 
McGillivray v. Minico Real Estate Se- 
curity Co., 972 
McGinnis v. Noble, 1053 

V. Pontiac, The, 599c 



McGoldrick v. Rex, 1154o 
McGoon V. Shirk, 270 
McGovem v. Lewis, 633d, 842 

V. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 
571c 
McGowan v. Bailey, 304, 932, 936 

V. Duff, 8736 

V. Interstate Consolidated St. R. 
R., 481 

V. La Plata M. & S. Co., 1326 

V. Lynch, 515 

V. St. Louis O. & S. Co., 572 

V. Whiting, 1070 
McGowan, Matter of, 301c 
McGowen v. Young, 83 
McGown V. International & G. N. Ry., 

380a, 573 
McGrann v. North Lebanon R. R., 655 
McGrath v. Gegner, 734 

V. Horgan, 643, 656 
McGraw v. Baltimore & O. R. R., 119 

V. Gloversville, 673d 
McGregor v. Balch, 688a 

V. Board of Education, 999^ 

V. Equitable Gas Co., 1419, 1160a, 
1164, 1165 

i*. Kilgore, 844 

V. McArthur, 641 
McGrew v. Chicago & M. E. R. R., 1359 

I'. Mo. Pac. Ry., 857a 
McGuckin v. Milbank, 968 
McGuffey v. Humes, 959, 965 
McGuinness v. Whalen, 1023 
McGuire v. Grant, 93o, 925, 939 

V. Lovelace, 932 

V. Lynch, 906 

V. Pierce, 686 
McHaney v. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 852 

V. Trustees, 561 
McHardy v. Wadsworth, 1041 
McHenry v. Parkersburg, 924, 932 

V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. R., 852 
McHenry Coal Co. v. Sneddon, 368 
McHose V. Eamshaw, 778 

V. Fuhner, 153, 157, 163, 204, 740, 
741, 1059 
McHugh V. Rhode Island Co., 1365 

V. Schlosser, 573a, 574a 
Mellhargy v. Chambers, 1298 
Mcllvaine v. Wilkins, 295, 308 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2945 



Mcllvane, The, 692 
Mclnhill V. Odell, 269 
Mclnnis v. Lyman, 56, 956, 977 
Mclnroy v. Dyer, 58, 316, 666o 
Mclntire v. Barnes, 645, 1067 

t). Cagley, 416 

V. Eastman, 535 

V. Lineham, 692/ 

V. Sholty, 363 

V. State, 1148 
Mcintosh V. Augusta & A. Ry., 364, 
371a 

V. Johnson, 410, 676 

V. Lee, 109 
Mclnturff v. Western U. T. Co., 881o, 

896 
Mclntyre v. Bransford, 451 

V. GibUn, 47 

V. New York C. R. R., 572, 1367 

V. N. Y. Cent, R. R., 101 

V. Whitney, 201 N. Y. 526; 521 

V. Whitney, 139 App. Div. 557; 
22^, 521 
McKahan v. American Express Co., 

851 
Mckay V. Bamett, 672 

V. Lane, 316 

V. Melvin, 3016 

V. New England Dredging Co., 
573a, 574a, 576, 580, 584, 
1367 

V. Overton, 310a 

V. Riley, 740 
McKee V. Bain, 979, 983 

V. Brandon, 959 

V, Jones, 769 

V. Nelson, 1290 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 730 
McKeegan v. McSwiney, 679a 
McKeigue v. Janesville, 580, 581, 1289, 

1306, 1307 
McKellar v. Powell, 681a 
McKelvin v. London, 226j 
McKenna v. Baessler, 226/ 

V. Citizens' Natural Gas Co., 486a, 
1303 
McKenney v. Haines, 313a, 619, 746 
McKenzie v. A. P. Cook Co., 915 

V. Boutwell, 1296 

V. Gray, 637, 638 

185 



McKenzie v. Hancock, 772 

V. Marsh, 686 

V. Mitchell, 607, 629 

«;. North Coast Coll. Co., 1363 

V. Underwood, 794 
McKeon v. Byington, 310, 311 . 

w. Citizens' Ry., 347, 360, 363a, 
380 

V. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 1152a 

V. See, 33, 948 

V. Wendelken, 304 
McKerall v. Atlantic C. L. R. R., 854 
McKercher v. Curtis, 734 
McKey v. Lauflin, 689 
McKibbin v. Great Northern R. R., 873 

V. Williams, 306 
McKim V. Bartlett, 98, 106, 692c 

V. Blake, 311, 335 

V. Haley, 681a 
McKinlay v. Tuttle, 905 
McKinley v. Blackedge, 301 

V. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 41, 47, 
180, 226/, 481, 485 

V. Drew, 439c 

V. Goodman, 667 

V. Williams, 728 
McKinney v. Carson, 1261, 1271 

V. Nashville, 266, 1171a 

V. Peck, 999/ 

V. Springer, 660, 662, 1048 
McKinnon v. Burrows, 1010 

». McEwan, 190, 646 
McKinsey v. Squires, 639 
McKnight v. Carmichael, 506o 

V. Chauncey, 341 

V. Derlin, 1040 

V. Dunlop, 6 N. Y. 537; 734 

V. Dunlop, 4 Barb. 36; 313, 314 

V. RatcUff, 178, 184, 947 

V. United States, 505 

V. Wichita, 11716, 1149 
McKusick V. Stillwater, 1148 
Macky v. Dillinger, 1044, 1069 
McLane v. Abrams, 325 

V. Elmer, 4 

V. Miller, 1048, 1064 
McLaren v. Fischer, 645 
McLaughlin v. Bangor, 196, 436 

V. Charles, 446 

V. Corry, 41, 47, 86c 



2946 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



McLaughlin v. Cowley, 451 

V. Hebron Mfg. Co., 573o 
McLean v. Charles Wright Medicine 
Co., 109 

V. Chicago I. & D. R. R., 11716 

V. Chicago, S. P. M. & O. Ry., 1342 

V.News Pub. Co., 607a 

V. Pittsburg Railways, 482o 

V. Richardson, 755 

V. Tinsley, 413 
McLean C. C. Co. v. Lennon, 602 

V. Long, 502, 935 

V. McVey, 575 
McLees v. Felt, 1260 
McLemore v. Mabson, 973 
McLendon v. Anson County, 346 

V. Atlanta, etc., R. R., 1175 
McLennan v. Ohmen, 762, 766 

V. Prentice, 956, 966, 975, 977, 981 
McLeod V. Boulton, 98, 103, 812 

V. Capehart, 533 

V. Genius, 655 

V. Nimocks, 1275 

V. Sandell, 107c 

V. Spencer, 70 
McLimans v. Lancaster, 335 
McLure v. Hart, 1146 
McMahan v. Bowe, 908 
McMahon v. Bangs, 1306 

V. Dubuque, 251, 932 

V. Field, 150, 867 

V. New Orleans R. & L. Co., 1333 

V. New York &E. R. R., 313, 314a 

V. New York News Pub. Co., 368 

V. Northern C. Ry., 41, 47, 226/, 
485 

V. St. Louis, A. & T. R. R., 1123 

V. Sankey, 1249, 1254, 1255 

V. Walsh, 1328 
McManus v. American Woolen Co., 

742a 
McMartin v. Hurlburt, 244 
McMaster v. Dyer, 1254 

V. State, 314, 614, 617, 636, 642 

V. Com., 1128 
McMeekin v. Southern Ry., 159, 190 
McMenamy v. Cohick, 363a, 364, 378 
McMichael v. Mason, 59 
McMillan v. Arthur, 827 

V. Fairley, 431 



McMillan v. First Nat. Bank, 408 

V. Quincey, 834, 834c 

V. Reaume, 439a 

V. Ritchie, 959 

V. Solomon, 999c 

V. Union P. B. W., 41, 47, 4866 

V. Vanderlip, 673/ 
McMillen v. Columbia, 1149 

V. Elder, 1345 

V. Gibson, 681a 
McMullan v. Dickinson Co., 665, 
6'66 

V. Free, 164a, 768 
McMuUen v. Williams, 764 

V. Winfield Building & Loan Assoc, 
694 
McMurray v. Basnett, 1326 

V. Day, 917 

V. Emerson, 1231 

V. Sioux City, 1355 
McMurrich v. Bond H. H. Co., 519 
McMurty v. Blake, 1022 
McMurtry v. Kentucky Cent. R. R., 

316 
McNair v. Crompton, 959, 1009, 1020 
McNairy v. Bell, 411 

V. McNairy, 3116 
McNally v. White, 975 
McNamara v. Clintonville, 1216, 180 

». Com., 1191 

V. Dennison, 1143 

V. Jose, 695 

V. King, 352, 372, 490 

V. McAllister, 480a 

V. McNamara, 1334 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 1363 

t). Vincent, 999/1 
McNary v. Blackburn, 1255 
McNaught V. Dodson, 753 
McNaughter v. Cassally, 753 
McNaughton v. Borth, 934o 
McNear v. Leblond, 858 

V. McComber, 3016 
McNeil V. Call, 3406 

V. Crucible Steel Co., 184 
McNeil, Ex parte, 570 
McNeill V. Cape Girardeau, 485 

V. Reid, 193 
McNetton v. Herb, 1249, 1250 
McNutt V. Young, 451 



TABLE OF CASES 
[References are to sections] 



2947 



McNutty V. Mt. Morris E. L. Co., 

12560 
McPeak v. Missouri Pac. Ry., iZh 
McPeek v. Western U. Tel. Co., 169 
McPhee v. Wilson, 419 
McPheeters v. Hannibal & St. J. R. R., 

368 
McPherson v. Chandler, 1271a 

V. Robertson, 415 

V. Ryan, 360, 370, 637a, 638, 639a 

V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 577 
McPheters v. Moose R. L. D. Co., 136 
McPhillips V. Fitzgerald, 926 
McPike V. McPike, 311b 
McQuade v. Newman, 762 
McQuaid v. Portland & V. Ry., 1117 
McQueen v. Fulghan, 443 

V. Whetstone, 696b 
McQuown V. Law, 785fc 
McRae v. Brown, 236, 685to 

V. Clark, 200, 553 

V. Dunlop, 553 

V. McNair, 679a 

V. Malloy, 311a 

V. Metropolitan St. Ry., 42 

V. White, 908, 920 
McRea v. Hill, 119, 121a 
McReynolds v. Kansas City, C. & S. 
Ry., 1140 

V. Burlington & O. R. R., 1138, 
1164, 1165b, 1165c 
Macrow v. Great Western Ry., 873 
McShane v. Howard Bank, 303, 694 
McSherry Mfg. Co. u. Dowagiac Mfg. 

Co., 1230, 1243 
McSloy V. Ryan, 1044 
McSorley v. Faulkner, 1296 
McSwyny v. Broadway & S. A. R. R., 

1309 
McTavish v. Carroll, 1261 
MacVeagh v. Bailey, 127, 136, 565o, 

682 
McVeigh v. Howard, 302a 

V. Minn. & R. R. Ry., 1367 

V. Old Dominion Bank, 340c 
McVicar v. Dennison, 343 

V. Royce, 797, 799, 800 
McWilliam.s v. Bragg, 360, 372 

V. Hoban, 458, 372 

V. Morgan, 688a, 931, 932 



McWilUams v. Norileet, 692d 
Macarty v. Barrow, 700 
Mace V. Ramsey, 194 

V. Reed, 378 
Macey Co. v. New York, 419 
Machette v. Wanless, 324a, 538 
Machin v. Geortner, 929a 
Mack V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 1347 

V. Jackson, 685c 

V. Patchin, 986, 988 

V. Sloteman, 762 

V. South Bound R. R., 43A 
Mackay v. Western U. T. Co., 154, 890 
Mackellar v. Farrell, 688 
Mackenzie v. Clement, 238, 983 
Mackey v. Harmon, 970 

V. Olssen, 1012, 1022 
Mackintosh v. Great W. Ry., 289 
Macklem v. Durrant, 431 
Madomber v. Bigelow, 312 

V. Dunham, 325 
Macon v. Daley, 1172a 

V. Dannenberg, 1108 

V. Patty, 1139a 
Macon & Western R. R. v. Johnson, 
574o 

V. Meador, 317 
Macon Co. v. Rodgers, 326 
Macon Ry. & L. Co. v. Mason, 482o 
Macwdrth v. Thomas, 678 
Macy V. Indianapolis, 1108, 1115 

V. Peach, 137 
Mad River & Lake Erie Railroad v.] 
Fulton, 1289 ' 

Madden v. Caldwell Land Co., 960 

V. Lemke, 755 
Mades v. Miller, 311b 
Madigan v. Schaghticoke, 490 
Madison County v. Bartlett, 337 

V. Johnston, 692fc 

V. TuUis, 98 
Madison Nat. Bank v. Farmer, 81, 531a 
Madisonville, H. & E. R. R. v. Gates, 
219 : 

V. Ross, 1169 
Madisonville v. Stewart, 1348 
Madland v. Beuland, 918 
Madler v. Silverstone, 417 
Magagnos v. Brooklyn Heights R. R., 
380 



2948 



TABLE OF CASES 



[References 

Magaw V. Lambert, 999c 
Magdeburg G. I. Co. v. Paulson, 852 
Mageau v. Great No. Ry., 571c 
Magee v. Brooklyn, 1154c 

V. Holland, 360, 376 

V. Lavell, 413 
Magenta, The, 587 
Magerstadt v. Harder, 691a 
Magic RufiBe Co. v. Elm City Co., 

1232a 
Magilton v. Stevenson, 310o 
Magmer v. Renk, 241, 459, 468 
Magner v. Knowles, 303 
Magnes v. Sioux City Nursery & Seed 

Co., 753, 755 
Magnin v. Dinsmore, 844, 851 
Magnolia Metal Co. v. Gale, 603, 614 
Magnus v. Woolery, 692i 
Magoffin V. Patton, 301c 
Magouirk v. Western U. T. Co., 894 
Magrane v. Archbold, 426 
Magruder v. Randolph, 85 
Maguire v. Button, 533, 535 

V. Pan American Amusement Co., 
689o 

V. Riggin, 976 

V. Sheehan, 1216, 491 

V. Transit Co., 484 

V. Woodside, 666 
Mahady v. Bushwick R. R., 1184 
Mahaffey v. Beach Creek R. R., 1142 
Mahan v. Brown, 32 

V. Ross, 1031 

V. Waters, 3406 
Mahanoy v. Comry, 337 
Mahaska County v. Ingalls, 692d 
Maher v. Central Park, N. & E. R. R. 
R., 1325 

V. Riley, 745 

V. Schulang, 1371 

V. Winona & St. P. R. R., 109 
Mahlman v. WilUams, 688a 
Mahoney, The, 697a 
Mahoney v. Belford, 47, 451 

V. Dixon, 563o 

V. Young, 922 
Mahood v. Pleasant Valley Coal Co., 

1357 
Mahurin v. Bickford, 334 
Maier v. Brown, 1238, 1239 



are to sections] 

Maier v. Western Union Telegraph C, 

876, 897 
Maille ». Laoassagne, 1370 
Main v. Casserly, 411 

V. King, 417 
Maine, The, 590 

Maine v. Chicago City Ry., 1348 
Maine Ce