QJorupll ICam ^rl^nol ICibtaty 
 
, Cornell University Library 
 
 KF2280.A221 
 
 Index-digest of the cases reported in vo 
 
 3 1924 017 616 529 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017616529 
 
INDEX-DIGEST 
 
 OF THB 
 
 Cases Reported in Volumes 1 to 23 
 
 INCLUSIVE 
 
 American and English 
 Railroad Cases 
 
 New Series 
 
 AND INDEX TO THE NOTES THERETO 
 
 WITH 
 
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED 
 
 The Michib Company, I/AW Pdbwshbrs 
 
 Chari,ottesvii,i,b, Va. 
 
 1902 
 

TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Volumes 1-23 Inclusive, 
 (nbw sbries.) 
 
 Abbott, McCadden v. (Wis.) ' 3-6S1 
 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co. (CaL ) 3-167 
 
 West Jersey R. Co. v. (N. J.) 8-764 
 
 Aberdeen & A. R. Co., Strother v. (N. Car.) 12-121 
 
 Abernathey, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 22-206 
 
 Abraham v. Oregon & C. R. Co. (Ore.) 17-250 
 
 Adams v. Blankenstein (Cal.) 2-646 
 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 20-274 
 
 V. G. I., etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.)... 8-76S 
 
 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. v. (Fla.) 3-2S, 27, 28, 29, 30 
 
 z/. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Wash.) , 15-784 
 
 Pullman Paluce-Car Co. v. (Miss.) 23-583 
 
 V. Reed (Utah) 1-SSl 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. z^. (U. S.) 6-790 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 9-747 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 16-369 
 
 State Revenue Agent, Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. (Miss.)... 20-428 
 
 Adams Exp. Co., State v. (Minn.) 7-781 
 
 Adams & Westlake Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co. (CCA.) 22-484 
 
 Adams, Wirt, Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railway Company v. 
 
 ( tj. S.) 20-1 , 350 
 
 Adirondack Railway Company v. People of the State of New 
 
 York (U.S.) / 18-348 
 
 Adler v. Metropolitan El. R. Co. (N. Y. ) 1-371 
 
 Agulino V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.) 14-314 
 
 Ahnapee & W. Ry. Co., Goldberg v. (Wis.) 17-65 
 
 Airey v. Pullman Palace-Car Co. (I^a.) 11-836 
 
 Akeson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (Iowa) 11-430 
 
 Alabama G. Si R. Co. v. Burgess (Ala.) 10-835 
 
 V. Carroll (C C A.) 9-759 
 
 V. City of Bessemer (Ala.) 6-410 
 
 V. Coggins (CCA.) 12-109 
 
 z/. Fowler (Ga.). 11-860 
 
 V. Johnston (Ala.) 20-909 
 
 V. • l^cDonough (Tenn. ) S-169 
 
 V. Moorer (Ala.) '. 9-742 
 
 Quirouet z;. (Ga.) i. 18-551 
 
 V. Ritchie (Ala.) 5-554 
 
 V. Roach (Ala.) 11-869 
 
 V. Taylor (Ala.) 21-135 
 
 Tibbs V. (Ala.) 5-458 
 
 Alabama Midland Ry. Co. , Bell v. (Ala. ) 3-448 
 
 V. Darby (Ala.) 13-105 
 
 V. Gassett (Ga.) , 5-607 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commission v. (C C A.) 3-638 
 
 ». McGill (Ala.) 14-20 
 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. Jones (Ala.) 8-383 
 
 Alabama M. R. Co. , Mobile & M. R. Co. v. (Ala. ) 10-128 
 
 Alabama Min. R. Co. v. Jones (Ala.) 15-752 
 
 z/. Southern R. Co. (Ala.). 10-112 
 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. Barrett (Miss.) 20-141 
 
 V. Bell (Miss. ) 21-155 
 
4 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. Bloom (Miss.) 1-28 
 
 Farquhar v. (Miss.) 20-538 
 
 Hardy v. (Miss.) 3-6S5 
 
 Hasie v. (Miss.) 20-SSl 
 
 V. Holmes (Miss.) ■ 10-270 
 
 Jackson v. (Miss.) 14-392 
 
 z/. Kuhn (Miss.) 19-466 
 
 V. Lamkin (Miss.) 21-867 
 
 V. Ligon (Miss.) 9-198 
 
 V. Odeneal (Miss.) 3-436, 449 
 
 Alabama, etc., Ry. Co. v. Odeneal (Miss.) 7-77a 
 
 V. Roach (Ala.) S-70S, 706 
 
 Albany & N. Ry. Co., Watson v. (Ga.) 19-176 
 
 Albany Ry., Becker z/. (N. Y.) 12-853 
 
 Albion Lumber Co. v. De Nobra (CCA.) 3-564 
 
 Alderman, D. W. & Sons Co., Sauls v. ^S. Car.) 15-558 
 
 Alexander v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. (Ga.) 15-337 
 
 Texas E. P. R. Co. v. (C C A.) 2-184 
 
 Algood, Louisville, etc., Co. v. (Ala.) 6-771 
 
 Alister, Little Rock & S. F. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 3-447 
 
 Allegheny & K. R. Co., O'Beirne v. (N. Y.) 10-860 
 
 Allegheny Traction Co. , Goorin v. (Pa. ) 9-864 
 
 Allegheny Valley R. Co. , Scott v. (Pa.) 2-678 
 
 Allen *. Boston & M. R. R. (Me.) 19-729 
 
 z^. Buffalo, R. & P. R. Co. (N. Y. ) ; 9-265 
 
 City of Fort Worth v. (Tex.) 1-282 
 
 z/. Colorado Cent. R. Co. (Colo.) 3-446 
 
 V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. (Ohio) 9-25 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa. ) 10-347 
 
 V. Wilmington & W. R. Co. (N. Car.) 8-257 
 
 Aller, Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. (Ohio) 21-304 
 
 Allison V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 23-714 
 
 AUraon v. Chicago, P. & M. R. Co. (111.) 3-136, 164 
 
 Altoona &B. C. R. Co., Pittsburgh, J.,E. &E. R. Co. v. (Pa.) 19-614 
 
 Altoona, etc., R. Co. v. Beech Creek R. Co. (Pa.) 6-787 
 
 Ambach, Toledo & O. C. R. Co. v. (Ohio) 8-533 
 
 American Fxch. Bank, Chesapeake & O. R. Co. :'. (Va.) 3-424, 425 
 
 American Esp. Co., Attorney General, Moore v. (Mich.) 13- 95 
 
 American Express Co. v. Maynard, Attorney General of the 
 
 State of Michigan, Moore (U. S.) 17-530 
 
 American Loan & Trust Co., Veatch v. (C C A.) 10-795, 805 
 
 American Min. Co., Teal v. (Minn.) 23-314 
 
 American National Bank v. Georgia R. Co. (Ga.) 2-618 
 
 American, etc., Nav. Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co. (N. J.) 8- 759, 761 
 
 American Sugar Refining Co. v. McGhee, Receiver, (Ga.) 2-697 
 
 American Transp. & Nav. Co., In re (N. J.) 3-26 
 
 Ames, Smith, Attorney General, v. (U. S.) 10- 1 
 
 Amory Mfg. Co. v. Gulf, C & S. F. R. Co. (Tex. ) 8-472 
 
 Amos V. Atlanta Ry. Co. (Ga.) 12-857 
 
 Ampey, Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. (Va.) 5-706, 707 
 
 Anchors, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 11-657 
 
 Anderson v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 20-230 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) 5-667, 10-49r 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. (Va.) 9-136 
 
 V. Howard (CCA.) 1-595 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (C. C.) 2-16e 
 
 St. Louis I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 5-637 
 
 Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 18-37 
 
 V. Union Pac, etc., R. Co. (Colo.) 6-786 
 
 V. Union Terminal R. Co. (Mo.) 20-834 
 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 14-412 
 
 Andreesen, Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 22-536 
 
 Andrews, Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. (Ohio) 12-545 
 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. (Ala.) 8-756 
 
TABLE OF CASES 5 
 
 Andrus v. Bay Creek R. Co. (N. J.) 6-780 
 
 Ann Arbor R. Co.,' Western Union Tel. Co. z*. (C. C. A.) 13-395 
 
 Ann Arbor St. R. Co., Shadford v. (Mich.) 6-584 
 
 Annis, West Chicag-o St. R. Co. v. (111.) 6-792 
 
 Antrim Lumber Co., Limited, Lynn v. (La.) 21-598 
 
 Appeal of Cherryfield & M. Electric R. Co. (Me.) 22-906 
 
 Appel, Baltimore Traction Co. v. (Md.) 1-261 
 
 Appleby v. South Carolina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.) , 20-581 
 
 Areata & M. R. R. Co., Burk v. (Cal.) 15-769 
 
 Archambeau v. New York & N. EJ. R. Co. (Mass.). 11-706 
 
 v.. Piatt (Miss.) 15-249 
 
 Arkansas & L. Ry. Co. v. Sanders (Ark.) 23-744 
 
 Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. Griffith (Ark.) 9-846 
 
 Armstrong, Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 14-256 
 
 Arnett, Southern Pac. Co. &. (C. C. A.) 23-794 
 
 Arnola, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Miss. ) .' . 20-945 
 
 Arnold, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe '&. Co. v. (Kan.) 1-61 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 19-272 
 
 Saranac & L. P. R. Co. K. (N. Y 22-480 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 11-864 
 
 Arnreich, North Baltimore Pass. R. Co. v. (Md.) 1-270, 278 
 
 Artenberry v. Southern Ry. Co. (Tenn. ) 15-847 
 
 Asheville St. R. Co. v. City of Asheville (N. Car.) 1-27 
 
 Ashland & C. St. R. Co. v. Faulkner (Ky.) 10-223 
 
 Ashley, Delaware L. & W. R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 2-212, 300, 383, 386 
 
 Ashline, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 9-702 
 
 Ashling, Chicag-o S. F. & C. R. Co. v. (111.) 3-549 
 
 Aske V. Duluth & I. R. R. Co. (Minn.) 21-819 
 
 Atchison & C. R. Co. v. Green (Kan.) 6-786 
 
 Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Boerner (Neb.) 3-132, 135, 166, 168 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Chamberlain (Okla.) 5-698 
 
 V. Cross (Kan.) 8-757, 758 
 
 V. Elder (Kan.) ; S-309 
 
 Lawrence ». (Kan. ) (y-TJ'i 
 
 V. Long (Kan. App.) 6-774 
 
 V. Love iKan.) 4-256 
 
 V. Peterson (Kan. ) 8-772 
 
 V. Powers (Kan. ) 8-757 
 
 V. Slattery (Kan.) 8-761, 764 
 
 V. Whitbeck (Kan.) 7-778 
 
 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Arnold (Kan.) 1-61 
 
 Blevins v. (Okla.). 2-329 
 
 V. Brown (Kan.) 2-113 
 
 V. Cameron (C. C. A.) 2-108,109 
 
 V. Henry (Kan.) 2-418 
 
 V. Hug-hes (Kan.) 2-248 
 
 V. Luening (Kan.) 1-61 
 
 V. O'Melial (Kan. ) 2-257 
 
 V. Stewart (Kan.) 2-387 
 
 V. Wilkinson (Kan.) ,2-473, 474 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., Beal v. (Kan.) 18-751 
 
 Beaver v. (Kan.) 3-442 
 
 Bess V. (Kan.) 19-586 
 
 V. Billings (Kan.) 10-740 
 
 V. Campbell (Kan.. App.) , 13-69 
 
 V. Campbell (Kan.) 16-828 
 
 z/. Chance (Kan.) 4-328 
 
 V. Clark, County Treasurer, (Kan.) 16-844 
 
 V. Conlon (Kan.) 15-195, 22- 76 
 
 V. Consolidated Cattle Co. (Kan.) 10-368 
 
 Croll V. (Kan.) 5-608 
 
 V. Cunningham (Kan.) 12-132 
 
 Dalez/. (Kan.) 7-108 
 
 Dangerfield z/. (Kan.).. 17-650 
 
 Decker I/. (Okla.) 2-118 
 
6 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.; Driver v. (Kan.) ^°"Jf 
 
 V. Emmerson (Kan. ) 8-663 
 
 V. Hays (Kan. App.) 11-654 
 
 V. Henry (Kan.) 12-482 
 
 V. Holland (Kan.) '^Tt\ 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commission v. (C. C. A.) % 
 
 V. Ireton (Kan. ) , 23-847 
 
 !<. Kansas Farmers' Ins. Co. (Kan. App.) ""^^"^-f 
 
 Kavanaugh v. (Mo.) 21-755 
 
 Martin z/. (U. S.) 6-60O 
 
 Mathews v. (Kan.) 12-255 
 
 V. Mathews (U. S.) 14-89 
 
 V. Meyer (Kan.) 21-764 
 
 V. Morrow (Kan.) ■ . • . S-262 
 
 Noble V. (Okla.) 5-309 
 
 V. Potter (Kan.) 15-660 
 
 V. Ryan (Kan.) 21-684 
 
 V. Shaw (Kan.).... , 3-248 
 
 Sweetland J/. (Colo.) 3-449 
 
 V. Tindall (Kan.) 6-557 
 
 z/. Willey (Kan.) 6-565, 15-847 
 
 Williams v. (Kan.) : . 12-370 
 
 V. Youngr (Ind. Ter.) 17-645 
 
 Atkinson v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 23-651 
 
 Atlanta Baggage & Cab Co., Kates v. (Ga.) 16-140 
 
 Atlanta Consolidated St. R. Co. v. Hardage (Ga.) 2-158, 162 
 
 V. Keeny (Ga.) 5-305 
 
 w. Owings (Ga.) t... 5- 1 
 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. Bryant (Ga.) 15-817 
 
 V. Durham (Ga.) 16-606 
 
 z^. Home (Tenn.) ..19-509 
 
 Atlanta Rapid-Transit Co., Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 18-425 
 
 Atlanta Ry. Co., Amos v. (Ga.). 12-857 
 
 Atlanta Ry. & Power Co., Brown v. (Ga.) 22-886 
 
 Atlanta Stone, Coal & Lumber Co., Mercantile Trust & Deposit 
 
 Co. V. (Ala.) , 8-102 
 
 Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., Alexander v. (Ga.) 15-337 
 
 Branau v. (Ga.) 16-237 
 
 Cole V. (Ga.) 12-14 
 
 Walker v. (Ga.)- 11-498 
 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co., Garamage v. (Ga.) . . . . 5-709 
 
 V. Irwin (Ga.) 8-768 
 
 Atlantic Ave. El. R. Co. , Matter of (N. Y.) 1-364 
 
 Atlantic Ave. R. Co. v. Van Dyke (CCA.) 3-623 
 
 Atlantic City R. Co., Baldwin z/. (N. J.) 17-486 
 
 Dotty w. (N. J.) 18-157 
 
 z/.Goodin (N.J.) 14-291 
 
 Rogers z*. (N. J.) 3-283 
 
 Smith z/. (N. J.) 22-268 
 
 Tuttle !». (N. J.) 22-876 ■ 
 
 Waters z^. (N. J.) 15-525 
 
 Atlantic Coast-L,ine Ry. Co., Anderson v. (S. Car.) . . . , 20-230 
 
 Edwards v. (N. Car.) 23- 38 
 
 Atlantic Coast-Line Ry. Co. of South Carolina, Stuckey v. (S. 
 
 Car.) 20-771 
 
 Atlantic Cons. St. R. Co. v. Beauchamp (Ga.) 1-266, 267, 279 
 
 Atlantic & D. R. Co., Sherwood v. (Va.) 6-67a 
 
 Atlantic & N. C R. Co., Hardison v. (N. Car.) 11-848 
 
 Kahn v. (N. Car.) 2-474 
 
 Atlantic & N. W. R. Co. v. Wood (Can.) , 3-135 
 
 Atlantic & P. R. Co., California Powder Works v. (Cal.) 4-301 
 
 V. Laird (U. S.) ; . . . . 8-365 
 
 V. Mingus (N. Mex.) , . . 9-881 
 
 Atlantic & P. R. Co. (Postal Telegraph Co., Intervener), Mercan- 
 tile T. Co. w. (C. C) 1-683 
 
TABLE OF CASES 7 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., Mesic v. (N. Car.) 7-770 
 
 V. United States (U.. S.) 6-776. 
 
 Atlantic, S. R. & G. Ry. Co. v. State (Fla.) 20-501 
 
 Atlantic St. R. Co. v. Walker (Ga.) 1-273, 290' 
 
 Atlantic Transp. Co., Chesapeake* O. Ry. Co. v. (N. J.) 21-709' 
 
 Attorney General, Moore v. American Exp. Co. (Mich.) 13- 95 
 
 Attorney General, Morris & Cuming's Dredg-ing- Co. v. Greenville 
 
 & H. Ry. Co. (N. J.) 21-728 
 
 Aufdenberg- v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. (Mo.) 3-323 
 
 Augusta & Savannah R. Co., Patterson v. (Ga.) 2-342 
 
 Augusta Southern R. Co. v. McDade (Ga. ) . . ^ 12-548 
 
 V. Seals (Ga.) 10-386 
 
 Tompkins v. (Ga.). 11-587 
 
 Augusta T. & G. R. Co., Kittel z/. (N. Y.) 11-876 
 
 Augusta T. Ry. Co., Austin v. (Ga.) 17-711 
 
 Aull V. Columbia, etc., R. Co. (S. Car.) 3-129 
 
 Ausk V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (N. Dak.) 21-851 
 
 Austin V. Augusta T. Ry. Co. (Ga.) 17-711 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.) 5-323 
 
 Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. f. (Ga.) 10-343, 11-539 
 
 Austin & N. W. R. Co. v. McElmurry (Tex.) 3-445 
 
 State V. (Tex.) 22-556 
 
 Averillz). Southern R. Co. (CCA.) 5-704 
 
 Ayers, Kansas & A. V. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 6-628 
 
 V. Rochester Ry. Co. (N. Y.) 12-165 
 
 Bach V. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 20-161 
 
 Bacheldor v. United States (CCA.) 9-878 
 
 Bachman v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (Pa.) 13-563 
 
 Backhaus v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (Wis.) 3-426 
 
 Backus, Union Depot Co. v. (Mich.) 3-130, 136 
 
 Bacon v. Kentucky Cent. R. Co. (Ky.) 1-718 
 
 Bader v. Southern Pac. Co. (La.) 17-60 
 
 Baer, Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. v. (Md.) 22-662 
 
 Bagley v. Colflmbus, etc., R. Co. (Ga.) 5-700 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 13-259 
 
 Bailey, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Teuu.) 2-17 
 
 V. Tacoma Traction Co. (Wash.) 6-794, 795 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 12-739 
 
 Baird, Birmingham Ry. & Electric Co. v. (Ala.) . . . . » 22-909 
 
 Baker v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa). ". 6-772 
 
 V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 21-396 
 
 V. Louisville & N. Terminal Co. (Tenn.). 20-946 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 9-824 
 
 V. Railroad Co. (N. Car.) 5-710 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 8-764 
 
 V. Wilmington & W. R. Co. (N. Car.) 3-650 
 
 Baldwin v. Atlantic City R. Co. (N. J.) 17-486 
 
 V. Fair Haven & W. R. Co. (Conn.) 9-853 
 
 V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada (Mich.) 23-117 
 
 V. Great Northern' Ry. Co. (Minn. ) 19-202 
 
 V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. (Ala. ) 6-777 
 
 v. Smith (111. ) 1-28 
 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 21-479 
 
 Ball, Mavsville & B. S. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 20-186 
 
 Ballentin'e, Cleveland, C, C &St. L. Ry. Co. ». (C C A.) 14-831 
 
 Baltimore Belt R. Co., McColgan v. (Md.) 7-778 
 
 Baltimore, Catonsville & Ellicott's Mills Pass. R. Co., Baltimore 
 
 & Frederickstown Turnpike Road v. (Md.) 3-177 
 
 ' Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. z;. Baer (Md.) 22-662 
 
 V. Cooney (Md.) 11-759 
 
 Lion z-. (Md.) 23-538 
 
 Baltimore, C & A. Ry. Co. v. Commissioners of Wicomico 
 
 County (Md.) - • . . ■ 21-284 
 
 V. Kirbv (Md.) 18-248 
 
 V. Mayor, etc., of Ocean City (Md.) 14-195 
 
8 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Baltimore & Ffederickstown Turnpike Road v. Baltimore, 
 
 Catonsville & EUicott's Mills Pass. E. Co. (Md.) 3-177 
 
 Baltimore, Hampden & Lake Roland R. Co., Bonaparte v. (Md.).. 1-119 
 Baltimore & O. & G. R. Co., Lake Shore & Mich. So. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 (111.) .' 3-57 
 
 V. Scholes (Ind.) • 3-4S4 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Anderson (CCA.) S-667, 10-497 
 
 V. Burris (C C. A.) ■ • ■ 23-912 
 
 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. (Md.) 1-119 
 
 V. Diamond Coal Co. (Ohio) 16-232 
 
 !Z. Helleuthal (C C. A.) '^'^~'^t 
 
 Keller v. (Pa.) 19-197 
 
 V. Kreager (Ohio) 18- 99 
 
 V. Lersch (Ohio) 14-835 
 
 V. Meyers (C C A.) 2-225,262 
 
 Simon w. (Pa.) 3-655 
 
 V. Stankard (Ohio) ;•■ 6-^77 
 
 Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Company v. Voigt 
 
 (U. S.) 17-111 
 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Jackson 
 
 County (Ind.) .20-716, 22-408 
 
 ». Conoyer (Ind.) 9-348 
 
 V. Hausman (Ky.) 17-237 
 
 V. Kerner (Ind.) 9-328 
 
 Lingenfelter v. (Ind.) 16-690 
 
 V. Little (Ind. ) 9-427 
 
 V. Mercantile Trust Co. (C C A.) 22-484 
 
 Norris v. (C. C. A.) 22-806 
 
 V. Peterson (Ind.) 20-887 
 
 Rogers v. (Ind.) 9-726 
 
 V. Tripp (111.) 14-119 
 
 Voight I'. (C. C A.) 9-835 
 
 V. Young (Ind.) 6-349 
 
 Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Swann (Md.) 2-187 
 
 Baltimore & P. R. Co., Fletcher v. (U. S.) 9-229 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co., Keller ». (Pa.) 4-263 
 
 Baltimore Traction Co. v. Appel (Md. ) 1-261 
 
 Cooke V. (Md.) 1-2SS, 2S6, 263 
 
 V. Helms (Md. ) 6-651 
 
 Baltimore Trust & Guarantee Co. v. Hof stetter (CCA.) 10-783 
 
 Mayor, etc. , of City of Baltimore v. (U. S. ) 7-624 
 
 Baltimore Union Pass. R. Co., Hodges z-. (Md.) 1-119 
 
 Baltzeger v. Carolina Midland Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 14-845 
 
 Bamford v. Pittsburgh & B. Traction Co. (Pa. ) 22-798 
 
 Bangor & A. R. Co., Boston Excelsior Co. v. (Me.) 16-654 
 
 Leavitt v. (Me.) : 7-354 
 
 Pierce v. (Me.) 18-533 
 
 Bangor, O. & O. Ry. Co., Fairbanks v. (Me.) 22-756 
 
 Bangor St. R. Co., Cleveland v. (Me.) 1-336 
 
 Bangs V. Lewiston, etc., R. Co. (Me.) 7-785, 786 
 
 Bank of Tupelo, Southern Express Co. v. (Ala.) 2-608, 609, 678 
 
 Banks v. Georgia R. & Banking Co. (Ga.) 20-225 
 
 Barbour, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 15-192 
 
 Bard v. Pennsylvania, etc., R. Co. (Pa.) 5-717 
 
 V. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 21-782 
 
 Bardeu v. Northern Pacific R. Co. (U. S.) 1-S12 
 
 Barfield v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 15-735 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 19-702 
 
 Barker v. Central Park, N. & E. R. Co. (N. Y.) 6-686 
 
 V. Northern Pacific R. Co. (C C A.) 2-389, 414 
 
 Owensboro, etc. , R. Co. w. (Ky.) 6-791 
 
 V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. (Mo.) ." , 2-157 
 
 Barkman v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J. ) 12-250 
 
 Barnard, Harper v. (Iowa) 5-697 
 
 Barnes v. Chicago, R. I. & T. R. Co. (Tex.) 3-28, 29 
 
TABLE OF CASES 9 
 
 Barnes, Evansville & R. R. Co. v. (Ind.) ... 2-18 
 
 Barnett, Kansas City, P. &. G. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 22-81 
 
 Middle Georgia & A. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 12-532 
 
 San Antonio & A. P. K. Co. v. (Tex. ) 3-423 
 
 Barr Car Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 23-587 
 
 Barr v. Southern Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 19-261 
 
 Barrett, Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. (Miss. ) 20-141 
 
 V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 12-742 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 15-578 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. z/. (U. S. ) 11-867 
 
 Barry v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) 12-245 
 
 Little Rock & M. R. Co. w. (CCA.) 11-453 
 
 Barth v. Kansas City El. R. Co. (Mo. ) 10-281 
 
 Barton, Georgia S. & P. R. Co, v. (Ga.) 10-446 
 
 Bass, Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga. ) 11-608 
 
 Bassett v. Los Angeles Traction Co. (Cal. ) 22- S 
 
 Baston, Southern R. Co. v. (Ga.) 8-755 
 
 Bateman v. Peninsular Ry. Co. (Wash.) 12-678 
 
 Battle, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 22-700 
 
 Baumgartner v. City of Mankato (Minn. ) 1-274, 287 
 
 Baxley v. Tallassee & M. R. Co. (Ala.) 21-170 
 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 16-476 
 
 . V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 14-85 
 
 V. Louisville, N. A. & C R. Co. (111.) 6-618 
 
 Bay City St. Railway Co., Taylor v. (Mich. ) 1-165 
 
 Bay Creek R. Co., Andrus z^. (N. J. ) 6-780 
 
 Beach v. Wilmington & W. R. Co. (N. Car.) 9-158 
 
 Wood V. (TT. S.) 1-596 
 
 Beal V. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Kan. ) 18-751 
 
 Beall, Bruce v. (Tenn.) 9-841 
 
 Beardsley v. New York, L. E. & W. K. Co. (N. Y) 17-149 
 
 Beath v. Rapid Ry. Co. (Mich.) 15-793 
 
 Beatrice Rapid Transit & Power Co., Chicago B. &'Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 (Neb . ) 4-325 
 
 Beattyville & C G. R. Co. v. Maloney (Ky.) 14-24 
 
 Beauchamp, Atlantic Cons. St. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 1-266, 267, 279 
 
 Beaumont v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C C A.) 22-470 
 
 Beaver v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (Kan.) 3-442 
 
 Beavers, Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 21-646 
 
 Beck V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.) 15-851 
 
 Pittsburgh, C, C & St. L. Ry. Co. v. (Ind.) i.S-3S3 
 
 Becker v. Albany Ry. (N. Y.) 12-853 
 
 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 16-348 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. (Ark.) 8-758, 759 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 20-803 
 
 Beckstead v. Montana Union R. Co. (Mont. ) . 9-273 
 
 Beckworth, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.).lV 2-258, 261 
 
 Bedell, Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. (Colo. App.) 12-141 
 
 Bedford Belt Ry. Co., Menaugh v. (Ind.) 22- 1 
 
 Bedford v. Spokane St. R. Co. (Wash.) 6-795 
 
 Beebe, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 11-163 
 
 Beech Creek R. Co., Altoona, etc., R. Co. v. (Pa.) 6-787 
 
 MahafEy v. (Pa.) , 3-131, 165 
 
 Beecher v. Long Island R. Co. (N. Y.) 12-295 
 
 V. Long Island R. Co. (N. Y.) 17-199 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 10-557 
 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. Co. (N. Y.) 8-23 
 
 Beem v. Tama & T. Electric Railwa.y & Light Co. (Iowa) 10-610 
 
 Beers v. Boston, etc., R. Co. (Conn.) 4-263 
 
 Beeson v. City of Chicago (U. S.) ,. 5-715 
 
 Behlmer, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. (U. S.). . . 18-167 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (S. Car.) 3-426 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (C C A.) 9-620 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. w. (U. S. ) 10-779 
 
 Behlow V. Southern Pac. R. Co. (Cal.). : 19-392 
 
10 ■ TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Behr, Consolidated Traction Co. ». (N. J. ) 8-770 
 
 Belcher, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas ». (Tex. ) 3-498 
 
 Bell V. Alabama Midland R. Co. (Ala.) 3-448 
 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. (Miss. ) ^f "iof 
 
 Chicag-o, Kansas & W. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 2-222, 384, 385 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. Z'.(Ky.) • 8-41^ 
 
 McGhee z/. (Ky . ) 9-345, 11-519 
 
 Bell, City Engrineer, State, Crescent City R. Co. v. (L<i. ) ■ 8-UO 
 
 Bellaire, etc., R. Co., Interstate Commerce Commission v. (U. S.). 7-768 
 
 Bellows Falls & S. R. St. Ry. Co. , Rutland R. Co. v. (Vt. ) 23-675 
 
 Bellville City R. Co., Kast St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. (111.) 3-94, 9/ 
 
 St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railway Co. v. (III.) 3-53 
 
 Belljngham Bay & British Columbia R. Co , City of New What- 
 com V. (Wash.) 6-419 
 
 z/. Strand (Wash. ) 3-171 
 
 Benig-nia v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 20-486 
 
 Bennett v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (S. Dak.) : 5-148 
 
 Joostz/. (Cal.) 15-252 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 7-534 
 
 Benson, Brown v. (Ga.) 5-316, 10-161 
 
 V. Chicago, St. P.,-M. & O. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 12-797, 16-546 
 
 McDowell V. (Ga.) 10-161 
 
 V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.) . : 22-299 
 
 Benton-Bellefontaine R. Co., Czezewzka v. (Mo.) 1-256, 258, 265, 267 
 
 Bentz, Illinois Cent. R. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) 18-540 
 
 Bercaw, Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-952 
 
 Berg-en Couaty Traction Co. v. Heitman's Adm'r (N. J.) 11-286 
 
 Bergen Neck R. Co. v. Point Breeze F. & I. Co. (N. J.) 3-29, 98 
 
 Berger, St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 10-235 
 
 Berg-sland, San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. w. (Tex. ) 3-304 
 
 Berkeley v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. (W. Va.) 8-757, 758 
 
 Berks County ». Reading City Pass. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-28, 212 
 
 Bernard, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 6-55 
 
 Bernheim, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. (Ala.) 8-753, 754 
 
 Bernstein, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 20-952 
 
 Berry v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. (Ind. ) 3-654 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 20-401 
 
 St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. ( Ark.) 2-457 
 
 V. West Virginia & P. R. Co. (W. Va.) 11-103 
 
 Bessz'. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Kan.) 19-586 
 
 Best, Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. (111.). 9-660 
 
 International & G. N. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 17-153 
 
 Bethlehem Iron Co. , Weiss z;. (C. C. A.) 12-305 
 
 Betts V. Lehigh Val. R. Co. (Pa. ) 14-299 
 
 Beyer I'. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ala.) 9-819 
 
 Bias V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.) ,. . . 13-616 
 
 Biddeford & S. R. Co., Bligh v. (Me.) 22-805 
 
 Biddle, Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky . ) 3-656 
 
 Bigelow V. Chicago, B. & N. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 17-341 
 
 V. Draper (N. Dak.) 7-771 
 
 Bigham, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. (Tex.) 6-791 
 
 Billings, Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 10-740 
 
 Billingsby, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. (Tex.) 5-714 
 
 Billington, Illinois Central R. Co. v. (Ky.) 2-109 
 
 Birch V. Lake Roland El. R. Co. (Md.) 5-640 
 
 Birmingham Railway & Electric Co. v. Baird (Ala.) 22-909 
 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. z/. ( Ala.) 9-502 
 
 Birnie, Little Rock & Ft. Smith Railway Co. z/. (Ark.) 1-645 
 
 BischofFz/. New York El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-372,373, 377 
 
 Bittner zi. Crosstown St. R. Co. of Buffalo (N. Y.) 9-152 
 
 Bixby V. Omaha & C. B. Railway & Bridge Co. (Iowa) 13-784 
 
 Bizzell, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 23-615 
 
 Black, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga ) 23-864 
 
 V. Middle Georgia & A. Ry. Co. (Ga.) 12-569 
 
 Blackburn v. Southern Pac. Co. (Ore ) 12-461 
 
TABLE OF CASES 11 
 
 Blackmore v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 21-360 
 
 Blackstone v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. (Ga.) 20-365 
 
 Blair, L,ouisville & N. R. Co. v. (Tenn.)- ■ 17-159 
 
 V. Sioux City & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) .10-306, 17-363 
 
 Blake, Southern R. Co. v. (Ga.) 10-472 
 
 Bland, St. Louis I. M. & S. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-423 
 
 V. Shreveport Belt R. Co. (La.) 4-349 
 
 Blaney v. Electric Traction Co. (Pa.) 10-560 
 
 Blank v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (111.) 16- 6 
 
 Blankenship v. Kanawha, etc., R. Co. (W. Va.) 8-768 
 
 Blankenstein, Adams v. (Cal.) 2-646 
 
 Blaul, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (111.) ..... 12-418 
 
 Bledsoe z/. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Mich.). 20-927 
 
 Blevins v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. (Okla.) 2-329 
 
 Bligh V. Biddeford & S. R. Co. (Me.) 22-805 
 
 Block V. Milwaukee Street R. Co. (Wis.) 1-329 
 
 Blocker, Ristine v. (Colo.) 18-139 
 
 Blomquist Z). Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.) 4-439 
 
 Blondel v. St. Paul City R. Co. Minn.) 6-272 
 
 Bloom, Alabama & V. R. Go. v. (Miss.) 1-28 
 
 Blumenthal, New York C. & St. Louis R. Co. v. (111.).. 4-174 
 
 Board of Assessors, State, St. Charles St. R. Co. v. (La.) 4-386 
 
 Board of Com'rs, etc., v. Duluth, etc., R. Co. (Minn.) 6-779 
 
 Board of Com'rs of Jackson County, Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. (Ind.). 20-716, 22-408 
 
 Board of Pub. Works of Camden, State, West Jersey Traction 
 
 Co. V. (N. J.) 1-98 
 
 Board of Railroad Com'rs of Arkansas, Kansas City S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. (Ark.) 21-178 
 
 Board of Railroad Com'rs of State of California v. Market St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Cal.) 23-21 
 
 Board of Railroad Com'rs of State of New York, People, Loug-h- 
 
 ran z/. (N. Y.) 15-441 
 
 Board of Railroad Com'rs, Union Terminal R. Co. v. (Kan.). . . 3-72 
 
 Board of Supervisors, New York, etc. , R. Co. v. (Va.) 4-265 
 
 Board of Waterworks Imp. Dist. No. 1, Kansas City P. &G. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. (Ark.) : 20-265 
 
 Bobira j;. New Orleans & C. R. Co. (La.) 1-220 
 
 Bodie V. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 22-818 
 
 Bodine, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 19-551 
 
 Boerner, Atchison & N. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 3-132, 135, 165, 168 
 
 Boerth v. West Side R. Co. (Wis.) 1-264 
 
 Bogan V. Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. Car.) 23-322 
 
 Bogard, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 18-410 
 
 Bogardus, State v. (Kan.) 22-142 
 
 Boggs V. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (Mo. ) 18-379 
 
 Texas & P. R. Co. z/. (Tex.) 2-545,546 
 
 Bohan, Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 12-490 
 
 Bohannon v. Southern Ry. Co. in Kentucky (Ky.) 23-548 
 
 Bohler, Georgia R., etc., Co. v. (Ga.) 8-766, 767 
 
 Boikens v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. (La.) 4-260 
 
 Bolin V. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 19-735 
 
 Bollong, Houston C. A. & N. R. Co. v. (Ark,) , 2-18 
 
 Bolton, Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Ind. Ter . ) 16-liO 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Tenn. ) 9-868 
 
 Bonaparte v. Baltimore, Hampden & Lake Roland R. Co. (Md.) . . 1-119 
 
 Bond, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 17-757 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 15-759 
 
 V. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 12-447, 23-156 
 
 V. Pennsylvania Co. (111.) 10-118 
 
 Bonh.im, Canal Co. v. (Pa.) 5-720 
 
 Bonnet v. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. (Tex.) 3-437 
 
 Booker, Virginia-Carolina Ry. Co. v. (Va.) 22-800 
 
 Bookman v. New York El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-373, 374, 376 
 
 Booth, Savannah F. & W. R. Co. z/. (Ga.) 5-612 
 
12 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Boothby v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Me.) .- 8-299 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co. (N. H.) • ■ • • 3-6S5 
 
 Borden, Kimball v. (Va.) 15-519 
 
 Bordner, Sagfinaw T. & H. R. Co. v. (Mich.) 3-11, 29 
 
 Bork, New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. z/. (R. I. ) 22-511 
 
 Born V. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (Pa.) 22-723 
 
 Boroug^h of McKeesport z/. McKeesport Street R. Co. (Pa.)..l-171, 286,291 
 
 Bossut, Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. (N. Mex. ) 19-683 
 
 Boston & A. R. Co.. Barry v. (Mass.) 12-245 
 
 Bowen v. (Mass. ) 23-267 
 
 Brewer Lumber Co. v. (Mass. ) 21-548 
 
 V. Brown (Mass.) 19-304 
 
 Carter v. (Mass.) 21-492 
 
 City of Boston v. (Mass.) 11-807 
 
 V. City of Worcester (Mass.).' 23-679 
 
 Fairman v. (Mass.) , 9- 83 
 
 Flynn v. (Mass.) 8-691 
 
 Heyward v. (Mass. ) 10-260 
 
 V. O'Reilly (U. S.) 2-377 
 
 Perkins v. (Mass.) 13-601 
 
 Sheldon v. (Mass.) 13-390 
 
 Whicher v. (Mass. ) 18-325 
 
 Wilder v. (Mass.) 3-28 
 
 Boston & A. R. R., Leonard v. (Mass.) 13-825 
 
 Boston Elevated Ry., Cobb v. (Mass.) 21-424 
 
 Boston Excelsior Co. v. Bangor & A. R. Co. (Me.). 16-654 
 
 Boston & M. Con. C. & S. M. Co., Montana Ore-Purchasing Co. 
 
 V. (Mont.) 10-754 
 
 Boston & M. R. Co., Boothby v. (Me.) 8-299 
 
 V. City of Cambridge (Mass.) 5-705 
 
 Ellis z;. (Mass.) 10-490 
 
 Floy trup v. (Mass. ) 2-273 
 
 Gilman v. (Mass. ) 8-478 
 
 Goddard v. (Mass.) 21-423 
 
 Gray v. (Mass. ) 8-481 
 
 Johnson v. (Vt.) 10-374 
 
 Jones V. (Mass. ) 2-17 
 
 Lemery v. (Mass. ) 11- 17 
 
 McDonald zi. (Me.) 2-293 
 
 O'Loughlin z;. (Mass.) 2-160 
 
 Roberts v. (Me,) 3-439 
 
 Rowell z;. (N. H.) 16-571 
 
 St. Jean v. (Mass.) 10-444 
 
 Wellington t/. (Mass.) 3-165 
 
 Whitcher v. (N. H.) ! 20-540 
 
 Boston & M. R. R., Allen v. (Me.) 19-729 
 
 Concord & M. R. R. w. (N. H. ) 14-458 
 
 Davis z/. (N. H.) 21-821 
 
 Dickey ». (N. H.) 19-258 
 
 Donahue v. (Mass.) 20-526 
 
 Gahagan v. (N. H.) 23-141 
 
 V. Graham (Mass.) 22-553 
 
 Hardy v. (N. H.) 12-565 
 
 z;. Hurd (C. C. A.) 21-674 
 
 La Pointe v. (Mass.) 23-105 
 
 Lessard v. (N. H.) '.'. 17-211 
 
 Mugford V. (Mass. ) 16-684 
 
 Pomeroy zi. (Mass.) 12-119 
 
 Quimby v. (N. H.) ' ". 12-517 
 
 Quimby v. (Vt.) 19-242 
 
 Sargent ». (N. H.).... 21-335 
 
 Smith V. (N. H. ) 19-320 
 
 V. Sullivan (Mass.) 20-356 
 
 Turley v. (N. H.) '.■■■ 20-440 
 
 Boston, R. B, & L. R. Co., Inness v. (Mass.) 9-819 
 
TABLE OF CASES 13 
 
 Boston, etc. , R. Co. , Beers v. (Conn. ) 4-263 
 
 Caron v. (Mass.) S-70S 
 
 De Whirst v. (Mass.) 6-785 
 
 Eastman v. (Mass. ) 3-43S 
 
 Huntress v. (N. H.) 4-257, 260 
 
 Mitchell V. (N. H. ) 4-256 
 
 Young V. (Mass.) 7-776 
 
 Bosworth, Receiver of the Chicag-o, Peoria, & St. Louis Railway- 
 Company, Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railway Com- 
 pany V. ( U. S.) : 19-680 
 
 Huntting Elevator Corapanv !<. (U. S.) 19-651 
 
 Boteler ». Philadelphia isl R. T. R. Co. (Pa.) 3-130, 132, 167 
 
 Bouldin, Railroad Co. v. (Ala. ) 5-708 
 
 Boutten v. Wellington & P. R. Co. (N. Car. ) 21-576 
 
 Bowcock, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 17-421 
 
 Bowdle V. Detroit Street R. Co. (Mich.) 2-223 
 
 Bowen v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) 23-267 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 9-276 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 18-331 
 
 Bowers v. J. B. Worth Co. (N. Car.) 22-658 
 
 Bowes V. Hopkins tC. C. A.) 9-641 
 
 Bowlds, Louisville, H. & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-553 
 
 Bowler & Burdick Co.. Toledo & O. C. R. Co. v. (Ohio) 8-533 
 
 Toledo & O. C. R. Co. v. (Ohio) 19-574 
 
 Bowles, Missouri. K & T. R. Co. v. (Ind. Ter. ) 8-12 
 
 Richmond. R. & Electric Co. v. (Va.) 3-654 
 
 Bowlin, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 2-387, 445 
 
 Box V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 16-527 
 
 Boyd V. Harris (Pa. ) 4-472 
 
 V. Spencer (Ga.) 11-247 
 
 Boyden v. Fitchburg R. Co. (Vt.) 10-523 
 
 Boyle V. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 14-817 
 
 Bradford, Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 21-298 
 
 Bradley v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Wis.) 5-40 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Mo.) 8-728 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co. (Mich.) 2-281 
 
 z/. Ohio River & C. Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 18-340 
 
 V. Second Ave. R. Co. (N. Y.) 12-184 
 
 Bradshaw, Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 22-572 
 
 Brady v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (Neb.) 15-845 
 
 Lang V. (Conn.) 21-843 
 
 z/. Old Colony R. Co. (Mass.) 2-280 
 
 Bragg, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Rv. Co. v. (Ark.) 14-34 
 
 Brague v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 15-594 
 
 Brammer z/. Wabash R. Co. (Iowa) 22-508 
 
 Branan v. Atlanta <a W. P. R. Co. (Ga.) 16-237 
 
 Branch v. International & G. N. R. Co. (Tex.) 12-378 
 
 Bras (Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., Intervener) v. McConnell, 
 
 County Treasurer, (Iowa) 23-127 
 
 Brashear v. Houston Cent. A. N. R. Co. (La.) 2-185, 262, 293 
 
 V. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa.) 6-794 
 
 Braunz/. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 17-139 
 
 Bray, Southern Pac. R. Co. ». (C. C. A.) 1-594 
 
 Breadow, Texas li P. R. Co. v. (Tex.) " S-483 
 
 Breckinridge, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 3-428 
 
 Bredin v. Pittsburg & W. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-718 
 
 Breeden, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-131 
 
 Brendle v. Spencer (N. Car.) 16-722 
 
 Brenuan Lumber Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 15-478 
 
 Brewer Lumber Co. v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) 21-548 
 
 Brewster v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 21-399 
 
 Bridgeport Traction Co., Heenan v. (Conn.) S-398 
 
 Bridgman, Hanks v. (Eng.) 3-656 
 
 Briggs V. Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. (Kan.) 3-447 
 
 Brinton, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 19-153 
 
.14 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Brittain v. West End St. R. Co. (Mass.) 7-773 
 
 Broadway Ferry & M. Ave. R. Co., Kalfur w. (N. Y.) : . 12-850 
 
 Brockett v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co. (Conn.) 20-406 
 
 Brockton St. Ry. Co. , Robbins v. (Mass. ) 23-483 
 
 Bronson v. Oakes (CCA.)..., 9-166 
 
 Brooklyn Heights R. Co., Ruppert v. (N. Y.) ,. . . : 11-873 
 
 Brooks V. Manchester S. & L. R. Co. (Eng.) .... 3-27 
 
 Spencer v. (Ga.) 5-202 
 
 Broslin v. Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. (Ala.) 9-99 
 
 Brown; Atchison, Topeka v. Sante Fe Railroad Co. V. (Kan.) — 2-113 
 
 V. Atlanta Ry. & Power Co. (Ga.) 22-886 
 
 V. Benson (Ga.) .5-316, 10-161 
 
 Boston & A. R. Co. v. (Mass.) 19-304 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. (Ga. ) 21-561 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 33-603 
 
 V. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Kan.) 11-408 
 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. (III.) 23-930 
 
 Huber v. (Wash.) 10-884 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Ky.) 6-772 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky.l 16-827 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Miss. ) 19-681 
 
 Joliffe V. (Wash.) 3-254 
 
 V. I^ouisville, H. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ky.) 23-883 
 
 V. L,ouisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 10-55 
 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 14-794 
 
 w.Pine Creek R. Co. (Pa.) 8-693 
 
 St. Louis 1. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 16-440 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. (Ark.) 4-262 
 
 V. Seattle City R. Co. (Wash.) 9-859 
 
 V. Sioux City & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 10-306, 17-363 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. (C C. A.) ....1-594,5-711 
 
 V. State (Ga.) 17-247 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga. ) 10-107 
 
 z/. Wilmington City Ry. Co. (Del.) 12-439 
 
 Brown & Haywood Co. v. Pennsylvania Co. (Minn.) 2-640 
 
 Bruce v. Beall (Tenn.) , 9-841 
 
 Brunswick Grocery Co. v. Brunswick & W- R. Co. (Ga.) 13- 85 
 
 Brunswick Traction Co., Foley ji. (N. J.) 1?r^2\ 
 
 Brunswick & W. R. Co., Brunswick Grocery Co. v. (Ga.) 13- 85 
 
 V. Gibson (Ga.) 5-441 
 
 Griffin V. (Ga.) ,, 21-808 
 
 V. Moore (Ga. ) 12- 84 
 
 Petty V. (Ga.) 16-840 
 
 V. Weinkle (Ga. ) 14- so 
 
 i). Wiggins (Ga.). 22-588 
 
 Brunswick, etc., R. Co. v. Snjith (Ga.) 5-695 
 
 Bryan Fruit Co., St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.. v. 
 
 (Kan.) , ; . . . 2-691 
 
 Bryan, McCook v.. (Okla. ) 5-699 
 
 Savannah T. & J. of H. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 1-279 
 
 Southern Ry. Co... p. (Ala.) '. i9_ 7 
 
 z/. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car. ) 21-542 
 
 Bryant, Adm'r of Davidson, Chicago, St. Paul, Minn. & O. R. 
 
 Co. f. (C. C. A.) 2-319 
 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 15-817 
 
 Southern Ry. Co, v. (Ga-). 12-159 
 
 Bryce w. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Iowa) 9-832 
 
 Bucholz V. New York, L. E, & W. R. Co. (N. Y.) ".'3-453, 454 
 
 Buckalew, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-432* 433 
 
 Buckley v. Flint & P. M. R. Co. (Mich.) IsL 1 
 
 Budd V. Salt Lake City R. Co. (Utah) ' ] " ' 22- 6 
 
 Buffalo R. Co., Thompson z/. (N. Y.) . i_264 
 
 Buffalo, R. & P. R. Co , Allen v. (N. Y.) ' 9_26S 
 
 BuUard, Fulton :/. (C. C A.). . 14-547 
 
 Bullock, Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. z/. (N. J.). , '.'." 7-370 
 
TABLE OF CASES IS 
 
 Bullock V. Delaware, I^. & W. R. Co. (N. J. App.) 11-837 
 
 Bundy, Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 14-660 
 
 Bunnell v. Rio Grande, etc., R. Co. (Utah). 4-261 
 
 Bunyan v. Citizens' Railway Co. (Mo.) 1-246 
 
 Burden, Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 3-447, 448 
 
 Burgess, Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 10-835 
 
 Burgher v. Chicago R. I. cS: P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 11-130 
 
 Burgin v. Richmond & D R. Co. (N. Car.) 2-259 
 
 Burk V. Areata & M. R. R. Co. (Cal.) 15-769 
 
 Burke v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey (N. J.) 19 -258 
 
 V. Ellis (Tenu.) '.. 19-695 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 5-386 
 
 Burkhardt, Philadelphia W. & B. R. Co. v. (Md.) 5-189 
 
 Burleigh, Carroll v. (Wash.) 5-628 
 
 Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., Burlington Gaslight Co. v. 
 
 (U.S.) 11-878 
 
 Goodrich v. (Iowa) 3-620,10-719 
 
 LfUcas V. (Iowa) 20-366 
 
 - Nicholas v. ■ (Minn.) 16-341 
 
 Ratzer z/. (Minn.) 4-55 
 
 State, Stone, Atty. Gen., v. (Iowa) 7-610 
 
 Burlington Gaslight Co. v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. 
 
 (U. S.) 11-878 
 
 Burlington Traction Co., Ploof v. (Vt.) 13-702 
 
 Burnett v. Eastern & A. R. Co. (N. J.) 10-469 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 4-449 
 
 V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co. (N. Car.) 7-773 
 
 Burney, Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 6-543 
 
 Burnham v. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H. ) 16-320 
 
 Burns, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 22-883 
 
 V. Chicago Ft. M. & D. R. Co. (Iowa) 10-867 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis. ) 17-290 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car. ) 22-624 
 
 Burr V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.) 16-162 
 
 Burris, Baltimore & O. R. Co. z/. (CCA.) 23-912 
 
 Burrows, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 17-678 
 
 Burrus v. City of Columbus (Ga.) 12-869 
 
 Burton v. Laughrey (Mont. ) 3-657 
 
 V. Western, etc., R. Co. (Ga.) 5-708 
 
 Bush, Central Texas & N. W. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-264 
 
 V. Delaware, Iv. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.) 21-516 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. z*. (Ala.) 19-46 
 
 V. Union Pac, R. Co. (Kan.) 20-798 
 
 Bussey v. Charleston & W. C Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 11-474 
 
 Buswell V. Southern Pacific Co. (Cal.) , 5-10 
 
 Butler, Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. (U. S. ) 1-594 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.) 2-383, 386 
 
 V. St. Paul & D. R. Co. (Minn.) 2-261 
 
 Butler & P. R. Co. , Reiber v. (Pa.) 23-421 
 
 Butte A. & P. R. Co. v. Montana U. R. Co. (Mont. ) 3-26, 95, 96, 99 
 
 Butte & B. Con. Min. Co. v. Montana Ore-Purchasing Co. 
 
 (Mont.) 10-754 
 
 Buttelli w. Jersey City, etc., R. Co. (N. J.) 7-784, 785 
 
 Butts, Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. (Kan.) ; .3-30, 32 
 
 V. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. (C C A.) 23-100 
 
 Byrne, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. w. (Ind. Ter.).... 13-17 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. z/. (C C. A.) 18-573 
 
 Byrum, Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. (111.) 2-211, 261,263 
 
 Caffery Cent. Refi^nery & R. Co., Limited, Gusman v. (La.) 8-463 
 
 Cag win z/. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 20-236 
 
 Calhoun, Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga. ) 11-334 
 
 California & N. Ry. Co., Eureka & K. R. R. Co. v. (C C A.). . . . 22-404 
 
 California Powder Works v. Atlantic & P. R. Co. (Cal.) 4-301 
 
 California St. Cable R. Co. , Cross v. (Cal ) 1-262, 276 
 
 California S. R. Co., Germain Fruit Co. v. (Cal.) 2^-362 
 
16 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Callaghan, Union P. R. Co. z-. (U. S.) 3-360 
 
 Gallery v. Easton Transit Company (Pa.) ll-32i 
 
 Calumet Electric St. Ry. Co., South Chicaeo City Ry. Co. v. 
 
 (111.).... ... . ...: 11-789 
 
 Calvert v. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 19-173 
 
 Cambron v. Omaha & St. L. R. Co. (Mo.) 23-634 
 
 Camden & A. R. Co. , Deery v. (Pa. ) 2-225 
 
 z/. Williams (N. J.) 11-600 
 
 Camden, G. & W. R. Co., Pierce Z'. (N. J.) S-S48 
 
 z/. Preston (N. J.). : S 616 
 
 West Jersey R. Co. z/. (N. J.)., 1-170, 189, 322, 325 
 
 Camden Horse R. Co. v. Scott (N. J.i 1-132 
 
 V. West Jersey Traction Co. (N. J.) 1-132 
 
 West Jersey Traction Co. z/. (N. J.) 4-520 
 
 Camden, etc., R. Co., Young- w. (N. J.) 8-768 
 
 Cameron, Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe R. Co. v. (C. C. A.).. 2-108, 109 
 
 Cameron v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (N. Dak.) 12-520 
 
 Omaha St. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 1-258, 278 
 
 Cammell, McCord v. (Eng.) 3-451, 452 
 
 Campbell, Atchison, T- & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Kan. App. ) 13-69 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Kan. ) 16-828 
 
 V. New Jersey Dry-Dock & Transporation Co. (N. J. ) . . . 11- 12 
 
 Canal Co. v. Bonham (Pa.) 5-720 
 
 Canal & C. R. Co. v. Crescent City R. Co. (L,a.) 1-229 
 
 Canastota Knife Co. v Newington, etc., Co. (Conn.) 7-787 
 
 Candee v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn. ) 21-434 
 
 Cannon, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 14-405 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Iowa) 9-12 
 
 Canton, A. & N. R. Co. v. Paine (Miss.) 3-453 
 
 Cantrell v. Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. (Miss.j 14-30 
 
 Cape Girardeau & S. W. R. Co., Missouri & T. R. & F. E. Co. v. 
 
 (U.S.) 5-703 
 
 Cape May, D. B. & S. P. R. Co. v. City of Cape May (N. J.) 6-329 
 
 City of Cape May w. (N. J.) 7-585 
 
 City of Cape May, State (Cape May, D. B. & S. P. R. Co., Prose- 
 cutor) V. (N. J.) 3-592 
 
 Carbondale Traction Co., May v. (Pa.) 1-171 
 
 Carden v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) .' 10-872 
 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-449 
 
 Cargille, East Tennessee & W. N. C. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 19-282 
 
 Cargill, W. W., Company- zi. State of Minnesota (U. S.) 20-658 
 
 Carlisle v. Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 22-209 
 
 Carlisle & Mt. H. Ry. Co. v. Philadelphia, H. & P. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.) 22-754 
 
 Carlson v. Cincinnati, S. & M. R. Co. (Mich.) 14-803 
 
 Consolidated City & C. P. R. Co. v. (Kan. ) 7-274 
 
 Carmer v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. (Wis.) 8-331 
 
 Carnegie Steel Co., Limited, New'England R. Co. v. (C. C. A.). . 5-193 
 
 Southern Railway Company v. (U. S. ) 17_ i 
 
 Southern R. Co. z*. (U. S.) '.. 6-420 
 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co., Bogan v. (N. Car.) 23-322 
 
 Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. (N. Car. ) .' ' 21-429 
 
 Leak v. (N. Car.) .'."." 14-739 
 
 Little V. (N. Car.) 7-769, 772, 779 
 
 Means v. (N. Car.) 14-363 
 
 Mitchell V. (N. Car. ) ' _' * 13_201 
 
 Neal V. (N. Car.) "" jg- 51 
 
 Wilmington St. R. Co. z/. (N. Car.) 7-786 
 
 Carolina, C. G. & C. Rv. Co., Farmers' Loan & Trust Co v 
 
 (CCA.) : ;..; 15-212 
 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) 15-212 
 
 Carolina Midland Ry. Co., Baltzeger v. (S. Car.) '. . .' 14-345 
 
 Cave V. (S. Car. ) , 13-195 
 
 Caron v. Boston, etc., R. Co. (Mass.) '. 5-705 
 
 Carpenter v. Greene County ( Ala. ) 23-191 
 
TABLE OF CASES 17 
 
 Carpenter v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (C. C. A. ) S-712, 713 
 
 Carper v. Receivers of Norfolk & W. R. Co. (U. S.) 7- 95 
 
 Carrier v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (Kan.) 17-513 
 
 Carroll, Alabama G. S. R. Co. z-. ( C. C. A. ) 9-759 
 
 V. Burleig-h iWash. ) S-628 
 
 CarroUton Furniture Mfg. Co., United States Mail Line Co. v. 
 
 (Ky.) 9-286 
 
 Carson, Electric R. Co. v. (Ga.) 8-769,770 
 
 Carstens, Louisiana Western Extension Ry. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.) 12-781 
 
 Carter v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) 21-492 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111. ) 8-485 
 
 z*. NewYorkEl. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-378 
 
 Case?/. Central R. Co. of New Jersey (N. J.) 7-347 
 
 Casey v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (N. H.) 16-361 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co. (Wash.) 7-599 
 
 Cashie & C. R. & L. R. Co., Wellington & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 ' (N. Car.) 3-32, 29 
 
 Cass County, Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. (N. Dak.) 11-813 
 
 Chicago, etc. , R. Co. v. (Neb.) 8-773 
 
 Catawissa R. Co., Fischer z/. (Pa.) 4-310 
 
 Cavallaro ». Texas & P. R. Co. (Cal.) 2-645,717 
 
 Cave V. Carolina Midland Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 13-195 
 
 Cawley v. La Crosse City Ry. Co. (Wis.) 12-483 
 
 Cayce, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 3-656 
 
 Cedar Rapids, G. & N. W. Ry. Co. , Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. 
 
 V. (Iowa) 23-152 
 
 Cedar Rapids & M. C. Ry. Co., Hall v. (Iowa) 23-316 
 
 Orr V. (Iowa) 1-239 
 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Ore. ) 21-624, 22-655 
 
 " Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Bernstein (Ga.) 20-952 
 
 V. Black (Ga.) 23-864 
 
 Blackstone v. (Ga.) 20-365 
 
 V. Bond (Ga.) 17-757 
 
 V. Brown (Ga.) 21-561 
 
 z/.Cannon (Ga.) 14-405 
 
 Dixon V. (Ga.) 17-380 
 
 V. Dorsey (Ga.) 14-212 
 
 Dorsey v. (Ga.) 21-566 
 
 V. Dumas (Ala.) 23-956 
 
 V. Edwards (Ga.) 19-779 
 
 V. Forshee (Ala.) 18-467 
 
 V. Hall (Ga.) 18- 26 
 
 V. Howard (Ga.) 21-15 
 
 V. Johnston (Ga.) 12-286 
 
 V. Joseph (Ala.) 18-659 
 
 V. Kavanaugh (C. C. A.) 13-119 
 
 V. Lippman (Ga.) '. , 18-640 
 
 »..Murphey (Ga.) 21-555 
 
 V. Neidlinger (Ga.) 17-758 
 
 V. Perkerson (Ga.) 21- 63 
 
 Plunkett V. (Ga.) 13-860 
 
 V. Price (Ga.). 12-283 
 
 V. Ross (Ga.) 14- 12 
 
 State V. (Ga.) 16-845 
 
 V. Trammell (Ga.) 23-856 
 
 V. Tribble(Ga.) 20-794 
 
 t). Williams (Ga.) 13-861 
 
 V. Wood (Ga.) 11-850 
 
 V. Wood (Ala.) 20-906 
 
 V. Woolsey (Ga.) 19-573 
 
 Central Pac. R. Co. v. Nevada (U. S.) 4-264 
 
 V. United States (U. S.) 6-777 
 
 Central Park, N. & E. R. Co., Barker v. (N. Y. ) 6-686 
 
 ID— 2 
 
18 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Central Pass. E. Co. v. Chatterson (Ky. ) 1-262, 272, 278 
 
 Central R. Co., Haver v. (N. J. App.). 12-261 
 
 V. Knbwles (111.) 22-795 
 
 V. Serfass (111.) 1-269 
 
 Central R. Co. of Baltimore v. Coleman (Md.) 1-275 
 
 Central R. Co. of New Jersey, Burke z/. (N. J.) 19-258 
 
 Case z/. (N. J. ) 7-347 
 
 Cone z/. (N. J.) 12-278 
 
 Extonz/. (N. J.) 14-240 
 
 Glynn v. (Mass.) 17-482 
 
 Haver z/. (N. J.) 17-490 
 
 Rothschild V. (Pa.) 2-282, 283 
 
 Runyan v. (N. J.) 19-290 
 
 V. Smalley (N. J.) 10-463 
 
 Swanson z/. (N. J.) 16-624 
 
 Van Steuben v. (Pa.) 9-485 . 
 
 Wiegand v. (Pa.) 5-61, 
 
 Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Cooper (Ga.) 2-688 
 
 V. Ogletree (Ga.) 2-382 
 
 z/. Wright, Comptroller General, (U. S.) 7-181 
 
 Central Railway & Electric Co., McAdam v. (Conn.) 5- 7 
 
 New England R. Co. zi. (Conn.) 8-261 
 
 Central Street R. Co., Santa Rosa City R. Co. v. (Cal.) 1-105 
 
 Central Texas & N. W. R. Co. v. Bush (Tex.) 3-264 
 
 V. Nycum (Tex.) 3-435 
 
 Central Traction Co., Thatcher v. (Pa.) 1-275 
 
 Central Transp. Co., Pullman Palace Car Co. v. (C. C. A.) 3-451 
 
 .Central Trust Co. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. (James, 
 
 Intervener) (Tenn. ) 2-677, 718 
 
 V. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. "(Meredith, Intervener) 
 
 (C.C.).-. 2-1S9 
 
 z/. Savannah & W. R. Co. (C. C.) 2-717 
 
 Central Trust Co. of New York v. Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. 
 
 (CCA.) 17-548 
 
 V. Chattanooga, R. & C. R. R. (Owens, Interveners) (C. 
 
 C) 12-869 
 
 V. Denver & R. G. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 19-513 
 
 V. Hennen (C. C. A.) 13-409 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 14-S20 
 
 V. Thurman (Ga. ) 3-164 
 
 Central Vermont R. Co. (American Loan & Trust Co., Inter- 
 vener), Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. (C. C. Vt.) 11-693 
 
 Central Vermont R. Co., Judson z/. (N. Y.) 15_ 7 
 
 McPeckz'.(C. C. A.) .....'. 9-828 
 
 Chaddick v. Lindsay (Okla.) , 8-754 755 
 
 Chaffee, Rutland R. Co. v. (Vt.) 21-513 
 
 Chamberlain, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. (Okla.) S-698 
 
 V. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.) " " .' 17-241 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo.) ".'.'. 3-401 
 
 Receiver, etc., v. Northeastern R. Co. (S. Car.) 1-694 
 
 Chambliss, St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. (Tex.) '. .. 18-204 
 
 Chance, Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan.) .'.'. 4-328 
 
 Chancellor, Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. (Al.) " " ' 10-842 
 
 Chaney, Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) '.\\\ n- y 
 
 Chappeil, Drain Com'r, Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v 
 
 (Mich.) ". 19-607 
 
 Charless, Northern Pac. R. Co. v. (U. S.) 4—128 
 
 Charleston, C. & C. R. Co., City of Johnson City v. (Tenn.)... . . . 12-866 
 
 Charleston & S. Ry. Co., Glover v. (S. Car.) ,\\\ 17-102 
 
 Johnson v. (S. Car.) 12-761 la-ccc 
 
 Matthews v. (S. Car.) . . ' t-xm 
 
 V. Varnadore (Ga.) ; 2^156 im 
 
 Wilson z/. (S. Car.) '" ^-ii 
 
 Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., Bodie v. (S. Car.) 22-818 
 
 Bussey v. (S. Car.) II-474 
 
TABLE OF CASES 19^ 
 
 Charleston & W. G. Ry. Co., Dean w. (S. Car.) IS-SSS 
 
 Evans !>. (Ga.) 15-200 
 
 V. Hughes (Ga.) 11-S41 
 
 Jones V. (S. Car. ) 23-261 
 
 V. Miller (Ga.) 21-339 
 
 Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. Chester & L. Narrow-Gauge R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.) 5-214 
 
 Charlotte Electric St. Ry. Co., Moore v. (N. Car.) 22-785 
 
 Charlotte St. R. Co., Nathan v. (N. Car.) 5-709 
 
 Chase v. Maine Cent. R. Co. (Mass.) 6-343 
 
 Chattanooga & D. R. Co. v. Voils (Ga.). ; 21-302 
 
 Chattanooga Electric l^y. Co. v. Johnson (Tenn.) 8-758 
 
 V. Lawson (Tenn.) 12-669 
 
 Chattanooga Rapid-Transit Co. v. Venable (Tenn.) 19-768 
 
 Walton V (Tenn.) 19-436 
 
 Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co., Central Trust Co. of New York v. 
 
 (CCA.) 17-548 
 
 Chattanooga R. & C R. R. (Owens, Interveners), Central Trust 
 
 Co. of New York z/. (C. C). 12-869 
 
 Chattanooga, R. & S. Ry. Co. v. Downs (CCA.) 21-493 
 
 Chattanooga Southern R. Co., Hardin v. (Ga.) 22-632 
 
 V. Myers (Ga.) 19-776 
 
 Chatterson, Central Pass. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 1-262, 272, 278 
 
 Chenowith, Consolidated Traction Co. i*. (N.J.) 5-599 
 
 Chesapeake & N. R. Co. v. Venable (Ky.) 21-449 
 
 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. (Md.) . . 1-119 
 Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. American Exch. Bank 
 
 (Va.) 3-424, 425 
 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Anderson (Va.) 9i-136 
 
 V. Atlantic Transp. Co. (N. J.) 21-709 
 
 V. Bercaw (Ky.) 23-952 
 
 Berkeley v. (W. Va.) 8-757, 758 
 
 Bias I-. (W. Va.) 13-616 
 
 Claiborne v. (W. Va ) ^ 14-217 
 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky.) ' 14-508 
 
 Connell v: (Va.) 5-333 
 
 Connell v. (Kv.) 19-236 
 
 V. Davis (Ky.) 19-710 
 
 V. Dixon (Ky.) 14-827, 
 
 Eellsz/. (W. Va.) 21-668 
 
 V. Friel (Ky.). 8-126 
 
 HafFner». (Va.) 12-556 
 
 V. Hennessey (CCA.) 16-515 
 
 Hoover v. (W. Va.) 13-573 
 
 V. Howard (U. S.) 17-660 
 
 Huff V. (W. Va.) 17-762 
 
 Judd V. (Ky.) 11-517 
 
 V. Kelley (Ky.) 13-568 
 
 V. King (CCA.) 17-167 
 
 V. Kobs(Ky.) ..1-61, 64 
 
 V. Lash (Va.) 3-569 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 16-539 
 
 V. Lucy Dixon, Adm'x of Alexander Dixon, Deceased, R. 
 
 H. Chalkey, and Wm. Sidles (U. S.) 21-79 
 
 McVey v. (W. Va.) 13-788 
 
 V. Moats (Ky.) 15-645 
 
 z/. Mosby (Va.) 4-633 
 
 V. Osborne (Ky.) . . . : 2-157 
 
 Patterson v. (Va*) 6-389 
 
 Price V. (W. Va.) 14-399 
 
 PughP. (Ky.) 8-303 
 
 Rhoades z/. (W. Va.) 22-283 
 
 Ringo V. (Ky.) 23--271 
 
 Seldomridge v. (W. Va.). 14-639 
 
 V. Smith (Ky-) 7-776, 15-641 
 
20 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., Stidham v. (Ky.) 23-162 
 
 Taylorz*. (W. Va.) 4-115 
 
 Wall z/.tC.C.A.) -^^"^in 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 4-26(> 
 
 V. Lang (Ky.) 6-775, 776, 779 
 
 Lee V. (Ky.) 6-783 
 
 Lovejoy ». (W. Va.) 4-262 
 
 Chester & L,. Narrow-Gauge R. Co., Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 (N. Car.) S-214 
 
 Tobiu z/. (S. Car.) S-630 
 
 Chester Traction Co. v. Philadelphia W. & B. R. Co. (Pa.) 12^42S 
 
 Chicago & Calumet Terminal R. Co. v. Whiting H. & E. Chicago 
 
 StreetR. Co. (Ind.) 1-181 
 
 Chicago, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (HI.) 3-188 
 
 Chicago, B. &Q. R. Co. v. (111.) \ 3-18S 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. v. Densmore (111.) 6-794- 
 
 Doanez/. (111.) ' 6-792 
 
 Ebsery z/. (111.) 6-794- 
 
 V. Rood (111.) 7-784 
 
 V. Taylor (111.) 9-513 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Blaul (111.) 12-418 
 
 V. Byrum (111.) 2-211,261, 263 
 
 V. Chicago (111.) 3-18a 
 
 V. City of Pontiac (111.) 9-382 
 
 Clark V. (Mo. ) 2-307 
 
 V. Cullen (111.) 19-523 
 
 f. Davis (111.) 2-581 
 
 V. Glenny (111.) 12-839 
 
 V. Harrington (111.) 23-429 
 
 V. Henneberry (111.) 1-46, 274 
 
 Hook V. (Mo.) 3-447 
 
 Hughes z/. (Mo.) 2-284 
 
 V. Kelly (111.) 17-52 
 
 Matzz/. (Mo.) 10-592 
 
 V. Mulford (111.) 5-229 
 
 V. Nelson (111.) 1-274, 2-384, 385 
 
 Payne v. (Mo.) '. 6-291 • 
 
 Richardson v. (Mo.) 13-170i 
 
 V. Stevens (111.) : 20-182 
 
 V. Swan (111.) 12-674 
 
 V. Winters (111.) 12-93 
 
 Chicago, B. & K. C. R. Co., Sinclair v. (Mo.) 3-269 
 
 Chicago, B. & N. Ry. Co., Bigelow v. (Wis.) ... 17-341 
 
 Hinz V. (Wis.) 3-611 
 
 Mueller v. (Minn.) , 12-137 
 
 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., Akeson v. (Iowa) 11-430 
 
 V. Beatrice Rapid-Transit & Power Co. (Neb.) 4-325 
 
 V. Bond (Neb.). : 15-759 ' 
 
 V. Burns (Neb.) 22-883 
 
 z/. Chicago (111.) 3-188 
 
 V. City of Chicago (U. S.) 7-26-. 
 
 V. City of Naperville (111.) 8-702 
 
 City of York v. (Neb.) 14-200 
 
 Clinton v. (Neb.) 19-77S 
 
 V. Cox (Neb.) 7-379> 
 
 Eckman v. (111.) 9-308 
 
 Ellsworth V. (Iowa) 2- 80 
 
 V. Englehart (Neb.) . . 15-404 
 
 Farmington Mercantile Co. v. (Mass.) 5-59 
 
 V. Gardiner (Neb.) 6-534 
 
 z;. Hague (Neb.) 4-476 
 
 V. Hyatt (Neb.). 4- 44 
 
 Maine z/. (Iowa) 9-299 
 
 z/. Moseley (Neb.) '.. 15-426 
 
 V. Murowski (111.) 15-697 
 
TABLE OF CASES 21 
 
 Chicago, Burlington & Quinoy R. Co. v. O'Connor (Neb.) 1- SI 
 
 V. Oyster (Neb. ) 12-6SS 
 
 V. Richardson County (Neb.) 21-702 
 
 V. Roberts (Colo.).. 1S-S72 
 
 z/. Spirk (Neb.) 7-205 
 
 V. State City of Omaha (Neb.) 3-S73 
 
 V. State of Nebraska, City of Omaha (U. S.) 10-423 
 
 V. State, State Board of Transporation (Neb.) 7-349 
 
 Tomlinson v. (CCA.) 16-344 
 
 V. Williams (Neb.) 21-17S 
 
 V. Wolfe (Neb.) 22- 26 
 
 V. Yost (Neb.) ; 21-92 
 
 Chicago &E. I. R. Co. ». Chancellor (111.) :.. 10-842 
 
 V. DriscoU (111.) 12-644 
 
 V. Jennings (111.) 22-127 
 
 z/. Knapp (111.) 14-828 
 
 V. Mochell (111.) 23-927 
 
 Overtoon v. (111.) 15-849 
 
 V. Rouse (111.) 12-706 
 
 State V. (Ind.) 3-450 
 
 V. Storment (111.) ■ 21-116 
 
 V. Wright (111.) 1-716 
 
 Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Meech (111.) 7-667 
 
 z/. Thomas (Ind.). .' 9-181,21-343 
 
 Thompson v. (Ind.) 6-611 
 
 Chicago, Ft. M. & D. M. R. Co., Burns v. (Iowa) 10-867 
 
 Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Burden (Ind.) 3-447, 448 
 
 V. Chappell, Drain Com'r, (Mich.) 19-607 
 
 Heller v. (Mich.) 3-S99 
 
 Shaw V. (Mich.) 18-131 
 
 Sweetland v. (Mich.) 11-613' 
 
 Tucker v. (Mich. ) 18-155 
 
 Chicago, G. W. Ry. Co., Crawford v. (Iowa) , 16-628 
 
 Croft zi. (Minn.) 11-652 
 
 V. First Methodist Episcopal Church of Leavenworth 
 
 City, Kan. (CCA.) 19-538 
 
 Hemmi v. (Iowa) 8-547 
 
 Keist w. (Iowa) .., 16-297 
 
 Kowalski v. (Iowa) 23- 32 
 
 Nichols V. (Iow|i) : 2-543 
 
 Olson V. (Minn. ) 15-837 
 
 V. Price (CCA.) 16-324 
 
 V. St. Paul Union Depot Co. (Minn.) 7-679 
 
 Scott V. (Iowa) 20-884 
 
 Smithson v. (Minn. ) , 11-726 
 
 Stoner z/. (Iowa) 18-221 
 
 Thompson v. (Minn.) 3-444 
 
 Trezona v. (Iowa) 12-104 
 
 Chicago & I. W. R. Co., Ellsworth z/. (Iowa) 3- 5 
 
 Chicago, Kansas & N. R. Co. v. Parkinson (Kan. ) 3-464 
 
 Chicago, Kansas & W. R. Co. v. Bell (Kan.) 2-222, 384, 385 
 
 Briggs z/. (Kan.) 3-447 
 
 V. Butts (Kan. ) 3-30, 32 
 
 V. Frazer (Kan.) 2-206 
 
 V. Need (Kan.) 3-236 
 
 V. Ransom (Kan.) 3-259 
 
 Chicago, LakeShore&M. S. R. Co. v. (111.) 3-188 
 
 Chicago, M. & N. R. Co., Ligare v. (111.) 9-52 
 
 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Bennett v. 
 
 (S. Dak.). 5-148 
 
 V. Bosworth, Receiver of the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis 
 
 Railway Company, (U. S.) ■. 19-680 
 
 Bradley v. (Wis.) 5-40 
 
 Bradley v. (Mo.) 8-728 
 
 Bryce v. (Iowa) 9-832 
 
22 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Burns v. 
 
 (Wis.) : 17-290 
 
 Canon v. (Iowa) 9~ ^^ 
 
 V. Cass County (N. Dak.) ^^"^i? 
 
 V. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 23-575 
 
 Church V. (S. Dak.) 2-1 
 
 V. City of Milwaukee (Wis.) 9-537 
 
 Coates V. (S. Dak.) 3-426 
 
 Condran v. (C. C. A.) - ■ 2-16 
 
 Crane v. (Minn.) 22-869 
 
 Davis V. (Wis.) 4-622 
 
 Dewey v. (Wis.) .■ 11-275 
 
 Eanz/.(Wis.) 9-475 
 
 Ferguson v. (Iowa) 8-241 
 
 Fiiikelstou v. (Wis.) 6-193 
 
 Foy V. (Minn.) 2-646 
 
 V. Grant (111.) 11-823 
 
 Gray v. (111.) ■■■ 21-252 
 
 Graybill v. (Iowa) 20-178 
 
 Groesbeck v. (Wis.) 5-177 
 
 Hamilton v. (Iowa) . . 8-526 
 
 Harding v. (Iowa) 6-615 
 
 Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. {U. S.) 16-779 
 
 Hertert, Tresfsurer, v. (Iowa) 21-672 
 
 Keilbach ». (N. Dak.) 14-28 
 
 z/. Keyes (C. C.) 13-128 
 
 Kincade v. (Iowa) 14-S59 
 
 Loeser f. (Wis.) 8-421 
 
 McKeon v. (Wis.) 8-219 
 
 Mankey v. (S. Dak.) 21-248 
 
 Medberry v. (Wis.) 17-494 
 
 Meloche v. (Mich.) 10-82 
 
 Meuerz/. (S. Dak.) 2-493 
 
 Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. v. (Minn.) 13-449 
 
 Pennison v. (Wis.) ' 4-573 
 
 Pierz;. (Wis.) S-407 
 
 Reddington v. (Iowa) 11-40, 14-563 
 
 Schneider v. (Wis.) 11-81 
 
 Schrimper v. (Iowa) 23-385 
 
 Schug V. (Wis.) 15-705 
 
 Schulte z/. (Iowa) * 21-356 
 
 Solan V. (Iowa) '. 2-167 
 
 Spencer v. (Wis.) 17-163 
 
 V. Starkweather (Iowa) 3-189 
 
 Swanson v. (Minn.) 17-753 
 
 Taylor v. (Wis.) 1-170 
 
 Thomas v. (Iowa) 9-854, 21-586 
 
 V. Tompkins (C. C. S. Dak.) 12-70 
 
 V. Tompkins, Board of Railway Commissioners of South 
 
 Dakota, (U. S.) 17-349 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. if. (U. S.) 6- 1 
 
 V. Wallace (CCA.) 2-651 
 
 Walters v. (Wis.) 15-606 
 
 Ward V. (Wis.) 14-322 
 
 Weller v. (Mo. ) 22- 61 
 
 Work V. {C. C A.) 20-636 
 
 Young V. (Iowa) 6-231 
 
 Chicago North Shore St. Ry. Co. v. Payne (111.) 23-706 
 
 Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., Backhaus v. (Wis.) 3-426 
 
 Barr Co. v. (C. C A. ) 23-587 
 
 Baxter v. (Wis.) 16-476 
 
 Brewster v. (Iowa) , 21-399 
 
 Brown v. (Wis.) , 13-603 
 
 Cag win V. (Iowa) ; 20-236 
 
 V. Cicero (111,) .• 3-187, 188, 189, 206 
 
TABLE OF CASES 23 
 
 Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago (111.) 3-199 
 
 Connors v. (Iowa) 18- 75 
 
 Cox z/. (Iowa) 9-604 
 
 Grouse v. (Wis.) 14-780 
 
 V. Delaney (111.) 13-859 
 
 Donovan v. (Wis. ) 5-318 
 
 Fitzgibbon v. (Iowa) 14-270 
 
 Gradert v. (Iowa) 20-118 
 
 King V. (Iowa) 14-659 
 
 McCuUen z-. (C. C. A.) 18-500 
 
 Masterson v. (Wis. ) 14-395 
 
 Morbey v. (Iowa) 12-687 
 
 V. Morehouse (Wis.) 23-413 
 
 Mosnat v. (Iowa) 21-609 
 
 Murray z;. (C. C. A.) 13-278 
 
 Ochiltree v. (Iowa) 9- 30 
 
 Ryan v. (Wis.) 14- 4 
 
 Saunders v. (S. Dak.) 2-220, 382 
 
 Schaidler v. (Wis.). 15-lOS 
 
 Schiffler v. (Wis.) , 8-122 
 
 V. Simori (111.) 5-80 
 
 Snouffer v. (Iowa) 11-571 
 
 Stockwell V. (Iowa) 12-576 
 
 Sutton V. (S. Dak.) 20-726 
 
 Taylor v. (Wis.) 15-788 
 
 Ullman v. (Wis.) 23-782 
 
 Vant z/. (Wis.) 12-470 
 
 Wice V. (lU.) 23-919 
 
 Chicago Packing & Provision Co. v. Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. 
 
 ' (Ga.) 10-391 
 
 Chicago, P. & M. R. Co., Allmon v. (111.) 3-136, 164 
 
 V. Goff (111.) 3-136 
 
 Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co.,, Hoehn v. (111.) 2-261, 383 
 
 V. Woolridge (111.) 13-501 
 
 Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co. v. Andreesen (Neb.) 22-536 
 
 Box z/. (Iowa) 16-527 
 
 Brown v. (Kan.) 11-408 
 
 Burgher v. (Iowa) 11-130 
 
 City of Chicago z/. (111.) , 1- 1 
 
 V. Clonch (Kan. ) 3-240 
 
 V. Cowles (Neb.) 11-33 
 
 Cu&mings v. (Iowa) 21-470 
 
 Dalton V. (Iowa) 21-460 
 
 V. Farwell (Neb.) 17-687 
 
 Ford V. (Iowa) 11-489 
 
 V. Griffith (Neb.) 3-167, 168 
 
 V. Groves (Kan.) 3-454 
 
 V. Groves (Okla.) 16-850 
 
 V. Hoover (Ind. Ter.) .' 23-73 
 
 V. Kinnare (111.) 21-328 
 
 z/. Ivee (CCA.) 14-264 
 
 Lund V. (Neb.) 14-826 
 
 V. McCarty (Neb.) 5-507 
 
 McGraw v. (Neb.) 18-764 
 
 V. Martin (Kan.) 12- 4 
 
 V. O'Neill (Neb.) 13-371 
 
 O'Neill V. (Neb.) 22-578 
 
 V. Parks (Kan.) 14-808 
 
 V. Posten (Kan.) 11-138 
 
 Quinlan v. (Iowa) 21-385 
 
 Quinn v. (Iowa) 12-512 
 
 Sanders v. (Okla.) 18-244 
 
 V. Scheinkoenig (Kan.) 19-232 
 
 Shea V. (Minn.) 5-695 
 
 Smith V. (Iowa) 6- 78 
 
24 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Chicago, Rocji Island & Pacific R. Co. v. Sturey (Neb.) 13-849 
 
 Trott V. (Iowa) 21-391 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 6- 1 
 
 V. Williams (Kan.) 12-336 
 
 V. Wood (CCA.) 19-493 
 
 V. Young (Neb.) 14-343 ■ 
 
 V. Zernecke (Neb.) 17-76 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & T. R. Co., Barnes v. (Tex.) 3-28, 29 
 
 Ft. Worth Ice Co. v. (Tex.) 3-134, 169 
 
 Foster w. (Tex.) 3- 1 
 
 Long V. (Tex.) 18-386 
 
 V. Porterfield (Tex.) .'.... 12-383 
 
 Twombly v. (Tex.) 3-134 
 
 Chicago, S. F. & C R. Co. v. Ashling (111.) 3-549 
 
 Chicago, St. Louis & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 
 
 (Ky. ) 19-688 
 
 Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Ry. Co., Fish v. (Minn.) 23-409 
 
 Nelling v. (Iowa) '. 4-S39 
 
 Ring V. (Iowa). • 11- 93, 12-452 
 
 Chicago, St. Paul, Minn. & O. Ry. Co., Benson v. (Minn.)..12-797, 16-546 
 
 Bolin V. (Wis.) : 19-735 
 
 Brady z/. (Neb.) 15-845 
 
 Z). Bryant, Adm'r of Davidson, (CC. A.) 2-319 
 
 Carmer v. (Wis.) 8-331 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 23-575 
 
 Conroy ». (Wis.) 8-714 
 
 V. Deaver (Neb. ) 2-545 
 
 Evans V. (Wis. ) 1-27, 61 
 
 Fay V. (Minn.) 12-641 
 
 Johnson v. (Iowa) 15-683 
 
 Myers z/. (C C A.) 14-749 
 
 Page z/. (S. Dak.) 2-622 
 
 Rudiger v. (Wis.) 6-50, 12-196 
 
 Scheiber z/. (Minn.) 2-289 
 
 Sutton V. (Wis.) 10-100 
 
 Weber Co. v. (Iowa) 2-473, 474, 20-464 
 
 Chicago & Southeastern R. Co. v. Galey (Ind.) ; 3-234 
 
 Chicago & Southside Rapid-Transit R. Co.j Tudor v. (111.) 1-340 
 
 Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co., Sewell v. (111.) 13-387 
 
 Chicago West Division R. Co. v. Metropolitan ■ West Side El. R. 
 
 Co. (111.) 3-45 
 
 Chicago & W. I. R. Co. v. Ptacek (111.) 10-481 
 
 Chicago & W. M. Ry. Co. , Green v. (Mich.) 6-317 
 
 Grunst v. (Mich.) 5-373 
 
 Knapp V. (Mich.) 13-857 
 
 Osborne v. (Mich.) 8-297 
 
 Peter v. (Mich.) 15-541 
 
 Phelps V. (Mich.) 16-301, 20-137 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., Austin v. (Wis.) 5-323 
 
 Baker v. (Iowa) 6-772 
 
 V. Cass County (Neb.) 8-773 
 
 Commercial Bank v. (111.) 4-263 
 
 Conway v. (Iowa) 8-755 
 
 Crane v. (Wis.) S_706 
 
 V. Curtis (Neb.) 8-753, 762,765 
 
 Davis V. (Wis.) 5-708, 710, 711 
 
 V. Forest Co. (Wis.) 6-796 
 
 Gregory v. (Iowa) 6-773, 775 
 
 Holt V. (Wis.) 7-775 
 
 Hutchinson v. (S. Dak.) 5-714 
 
 Laird v. (Iowa) 7-772, 776 
 
 Leitch V. (Wis,) , 6-777, 782 
 
 Ligare v. (111.) 4_2S6 
 
 V. Lyon (Neb.) 8-764 
 
 V. McGinnis (Neb.) , 7-774 
 
TABLE OF CASES -5 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., Mills v. (Wis.) S-323 
 
 I/. Mills (Kan.) 7-770 
 
 Milwaukee, etc.. Electric R. Co. v. (Wis.) : 7-787 
 
 V. Pounds (Ind. Ter.) 4-262 
 
 V. Ryan (111.) 8-754 
 
 St. Paul V. (Minn.) S-711, 712 
 
 Schmitt V. (Iowa) ., S-714 
 
 V. Shafer (Neb.) S-698 
 
 V. Soderburg (Neb.) 8-761, 764 
 
 Wood V. (Minn.) S-706 
 
 V. Woodworth (Ind. Ter.) 4-261 
 
 Chilton V. Traction Co. (Pa.) S-71S 
 
 Chippewa Val. Elec. R. Co., Stafford v. (Wis.) 23-364 
 
 Chitty V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 23-829 
 
 Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co., Kilpatrick v. (Ind. Ter.) 23-244 
 
 Choctaw R. Co., Churchill v. (Okla.) 5-711 
 
 Chollette, Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 2-225, 386, 388 
 
 V. Railway Co. (Neb.) 2-388 
 
 Christian, Columbus & R. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 5-584 
 
 Church V. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. (S. Dak.) 2- 1 
 
 V. Minneapolis & St. L,. Ry. Co. (S. Dak.) 21-382 
 
 Churchill v. Choctaw R. Co. (Okla.) 5-711 
 
 Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. (Ga.) 21- 17 
 
 Cicero, Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. (111.). 3-187, 188, 189, 206 
 
 Cicero & Proviso St. Ry. Co. v. Brown (111.) 23-930 
 
 V. City of Chicago (111.) 22-815 
 
 V. Meixner (111. ) 4-246 
 
 V. Priest (111. ) • 22-694 
 
 Cincinnati, H. & D R. Co. v. Aller (Ohio) 21-304 
 
 Farley z/. (C. C. A.) 21-404 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T..P. Ry. Co., Crowley v. (Tenn.) 23-545 
 
 V. Graves (Ky.) 16-177 
 
 V. Interstate Commerce Commission (U. S. ) 4-223 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commission v. (U. S.) 4-223,' 673 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commission v. (C. C. A.). . . 5-703 
 
 V. Jackson (Ky.) 23-216 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) ■ 2-409 
 
 V. N. K. Fairbanks & Co. (C. C. A.) 13-179 
 
 V. Roberts (Ky.) 21-322 
 
 Warax v. (Ky.) 3-650, 657 
 
 V. Wright (Ky.) 3-441 
 
 Cincinnati, S. & M. R. Co., Carlson v. (Mich.) 14-803 
 
 Zagelmeyer v. (Mich.) 2-18, 161 
 
 Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. Whitcomb (CCA.) 
 
 1-260, 261, 267, 268, 269, 270, 279 
 
 Cincinnati, Wabash & Michigan R. Co. v. City of Anderson (Ind.) 3-194 
 
 Cincinnati, etc. , R. Co. , Vreeland v. (Mich.) 6-778 
 
 Citizens' Electric, etc. , Co. v. County Com'rs (Ohio) 8-769 
 
 Citizens' H. R. Co. , City of Belleville v. (111. ) 1-26, 118, 119 
 
 Citizens' Pass. R. Co. v. E- Harrisburg Pass. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-189 
 
 Citizens' R. Co., Bunyau v. (Mo.) . 1-246 
 
 Hicks V. (Mo.) 1-255, 262, 265, 276 
 
 Citizens' St. R- Co. v. City St. R. Co. (Ind.) 1-99 
 
 Conner v. (Ind.) 7-287 
 
 Dan V. (Tenn.) 10-880 
 
 V. Shepherd (Tenn.) 23-163 
 
 V. Sutton (Ind.) 8-771, 772 
 
 Young V. (Ind.) 5-717 
 
 Citizens' Traction Co. , laquinta v. (Pa. ) 1-276 
 
 Seeley v. (Pa.) 6-790 
 
 Ci*y Council of Augusta v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. 
 
 (Ga.)..- 7-384 
 
 City Council of Greenville, Southern R. Co. v. (S. Car.) 3-450 
 
 City Electric Street R. Co. v. Conery (Ark.) 3-36S 
 
 City of Aberdeen z/. Honey (Wash.) 1-163 
 
26 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 City of Anderson, Cincinnati, Wabash & Michigan R. Co. ». 
 
 (Ind.). 3-194 
 
 City of Anniston z;. Southern R. Co. (Ala.) ^„ 
 
 City of Ashville, Ashville St. R. Co. v. (N. Car.) 1-27 
 
 City of Atlantic City, State (Currie, Prosecutor) v. (N. J.) 23-9Sa 
 
 City of Belleville v. Citizens' H. R. Co. (111.) 1-26, 118, 119 
 
 City of Bessemer, Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 6-410 
 
 City of Boston v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) 11-807 
 
 City of Buffalo, lu re (N. Y.) , ^^"5^? 
 
 City of Cambridge, Boston & M. R. Co. v. (Mass.) 5-705 
 
 City of Cape May, Cape May, D. B. & S. P. R. Co. v. (N. J.) 6-329 
 
 V. Cape May, D. B. & S. P. R. Co. (N. J.) 7-585- 
 
 State (C. M., D. B. & S. P. R. Co., Pros.) v. (N. J.). . .6-507, 511 
 
 City of Cedar Rapids, Stritesky v. (Iowa) 4-535 
 
 City of Charlottesville v. Southern Ry. Co. ( Va. ) 16-600 
 
 City of Chicago, Beeson v. {V. S.) 5-715 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. w. (U. S.) 7-26 
 
 Chicago & Northwestern R. Co. v. (111. ) 3-199 
 
 V. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co. (111.) 1- 1 
 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. (111.) 22-815 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 3-181 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. (111.) 15-618 
 
 City of Cincinnati, Louisville Trust Co. z*. (U. S.) 6-113 
 
 City of Columbus, Burrus v. (Ga.) 12-869 
 
 City of Connersville, Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ind.).. 9-195 
 
 City of Defiance, Wabash R. Co. v. ,{U. S.) 7-638 
 
 City of Denver, Walker ». (U. S.) 6-206 
 
 City of Des Moines, Des Moines City R. Co. v. (Iowa) 1-215 
 
 City of Detroit, Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 1- 71 
 
 Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co. v. (Mich.) 5-15 
 
 V. Detroit City R. Co. (CCA.) 1- 71 
 
 V. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. (Mich.) 8-117 
 
 V. Donovan (Mich.) 23-520 
 
 City of Duluth v. Duluth St. R. Co. (Minn.) 1-288 
 
 St. Paul & D. R. Co; v. (Minn.) 13-855 
 
 City of Elizabeth, State Consolidated Traction Co. Z). (N. J.) 3-614 
 
 City of Fond du Lac, Schaefer v. (Wis.) 11-342 
 
 City of Fort Worth v. Allen (Tex.) 1-282 
 
 City of Galveston, Galveston & W. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 7-72 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. (Tex.) 7-779 
 
 City of Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, C. C & St. L,. Ry. Co. z/. (Ind.) 11-689 
 
 City of Johnson City v. Charleston C & C R. Co. (Tenn.) 12-866 
 
 City of Kankakee, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 6-417 
 
 City of Lansing v. Lansing, etc., R. Co. (Mich.) 5-719 
 
 City of Lincoln v. Lincoln St. R. Co. (U. S. ) 6-788 
 
 City of Louisville, Dennis Long & Co. v. (Ky.) 3-213 
 
 City of Mankato, Baumgartner v. (Minn.) 1-274, 287 
 
 City of Milwaukee, Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. (Wis.) 9-537 
 
 Milwaukee Electric R. & Light Co. v. (Wis.) 6-411 
 
 City of Naperville, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (111.) 8-702 
 
 City of New Haven, New Haven Steam Sawmill Co. v. (Conn.) . . 16-588 
 City of New Whatcom v. Bellingham Bay & B. C. R. Co. 
 
 (Wash.) 6-419 
 
 City of Orange, Morris & E. R. Co. v. (N. J.) 16-631 
 
 City of Oweniboro v. Owensboro & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 8-155 
 
 City of Philadelphia, Delaware County & P. Electric R. Co. v 
 
 (Pa. ) 1_ 28 
 
 City of Philadelphia v. Hestonville, M. & F. R. Co. (Pa.) 5-659 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. (Pa.) 5-720 
 
 V. Spring Garden Farmers' M. Co. (Pa.) 1-286 289 
 
 City of Pontiac, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (111.) 9-382 
 
 City of Raleigh v. North Carolina R. Co. (N. Car.) ] 23-953 
 
 City of St. Paul, Great Northern R. Co. v. (Minn.) 1-12 
 
 City of South Pasadena v. Los Angeles T. R. Co. (Cal.) 2-166 
 
 City of Terre Haute v. Evansville, etc., R. Co. (Ind.) 8-759, 760 
 
TABLE OF CASES 27 
 
 City of Worcester, Boston & A. R. Co. v. (Mass.) 23-679 
 
 City of York v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (Neb.) . . 14-200 
 
 City St. R. Co., Citizens' St. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 1-99 
 
 City & Suburban R. Co., Green v. (Md.) 1-198 
 
 Hedin v. (Ore.) 1-26S, 276, 277 
 
 McGrath v. (Ga.) 1-263 
 
 Smith V. (Ore.) S-163 
 
 Wallace v. (Ore.) 1-2S8, 264, 275 
 
 Claiborne v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.) 14-217 
 
 Clancy, Metropolitan W. S. El. R. Co. v. (111.) 3-164, 165 
 
 Clapp, People, Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. (N. Y.) 8-95 
 
 Clare v. New York & N. E. R. Co. (Mass.) 6-76 
 
 V. New York & N. E. R. Co. (Mass.) 13-569 
 
 Clark, County Treasurer, Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 (Kan.) 16-844 
 
 Clark V. Chicago & Alton R. Co. (Mo.) 2-307 
 
 V. Howard (C. C. A.) 13-743 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 8-355, 12-293 
 
 Pyle z/. (Utah) 5-156 
 
 Pyle f . (C. C. A.) 8-431 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. v. (Kan.) 2-460 
 
 Wright V. (Utah) S-156 
 
 V. Wright (C- C. A.) 8-431 
 
 Clarke, Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. (Ga. ) 5-219 
 
 V. Russell (C. C. A.) 17-68 
 
 Clarkson, Felton v. (Tenn.) 17-300 
 
 Clary, Georgia R. & B. Co. v. (Ga.) 11-856 
 
 Clay ton Electric Light Co. v. McKeesport, etc., R. Co. (Pa.) 6-777 
 
 Clayton, Texas & P. Ry. Co. z». (C. C. A.) 9-821 
 
 Texas&P. Ry. Co. v. (U. S.) 13-236 
 
 Cleary v. Pittsburgh, A. & M. Traction Co. (Pa.) 6-316 
 
 Clements v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. (Ala. ) : 19-266 
 
 Clement v. Wichita & S. W. R. Co. (Kan.) 3-10 
 
 Cleveland v. Bangor St. R. Co. (Me.) 1-336 
 
 Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. 
 
 Ballentine (CCA.) 14-831 
 
 Butts f. (CCA.) 23-100 
 
 V. City of Connersville (Ind.) 9-195 
 
 V. Gray (Ind.) 8- 48 
 
 V. Halvert (111.) 15-180, 
 
 Hoyt V. (Mich.) 9-818 
 
 V. Huddlestou (Ind. ) 7-553 
 
 1). Miller (Ind.) 9-684 
 
 V. Moline Plow Co. (Ind.) , 2-608, 717 
 
 z/. Moneyhun(Ind.).' 5-682 
 
 ». Munsell (111.) 23-579 
 
 Narramore v. (C C A.) 17-502 
 
 V. People, Jett (111.) , 14-846 
 
 V. People of the State of Illinois, Jett (U.S.) 17-227 
 
 V. Scantland (Ind.) 14-75 
 
 Schweinfurth v. (Ohio) 15-73 
 
 Scott V. (Ind.) 3-428, 429 
 
 State V. (Ind.) ., 23-336 
 
 V. Stephens (111.) 11-268 
 
 Stewart v. (Ind.) '. 13- 28 
 
 Sutherland v. (Ind.) 8-424 
 
 V. Tartt (C C A.) 18-226 
 
 Ullrich V. (Ind.) " 13-783 
 
 Varwig v. (Ohio) ■ 4-26S 
 
 Voss V. (Ind.) 3-427 
 
 Cleveland, L. &. W. Ry. Co. v. Ringley (Ohio) 18- 99 
 
 Cleveland, T. & V. Ry. Co. v. Marsh (Ohio) 20-54 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Kernochan (Ohio) 7-774 
 
 Clifford, Southern Ry. in Kentucky v. (Ky.) 21-229 
 
 Clinton v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (Neb.) 19-778 
 
28 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Clisby ». Mobile &0. R. Co. (Miss.) 22-179 
 
 Clonch, Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 3-240 
 
 Cloud, Denver Tramway Co. v. (Colo.) 2-162 
 
 Clune V. Ristine (CCA.) .• lS-761 
 
 Clyde V. Richmond & D. R. Co. (C C A.) 3-446 
 
 Clyde Steamship Company, Interstate Commerce Commission v. 
 
 (U. S.) 20-752 
 
 Clyde S. S. Co., Interstate Commerce Commission v. (C C A.). . 13-298 
 
 Coast Wne R. Co., Green v. (Ga.) 4-150 
 
 Coates V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (S. Dak.) 3-424 
 
 Cobb V. Boston Elevated Ry. (Mass.) 21-426 
 
 V. St. Louis & H. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 13-632 
 
 Cobleigh, Grand Trunk R. Co. z/. (C C A.) 7-762 
 
 Coburn v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. Co. (La.) >. 21-402 
 
 V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. (Pa.) 20-32 
 
 Coburn Trolley-Track Co. , McNee v. (Mass.) 10-765 
 
 Cocreham, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-541, 542, 543 
 
 Cody, Texas & P. R. Co. ii. (U. S.) 7^79 
 
 Coffee V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Miss.) 14-423 
 
 Coggins, Alabama G. S. Ry. Co. z-. (C C A.) 12-109 
 
 Cohen v. West Chicago St. R. Co. (CCA.) 1-261, 268, 271 
 
 Colburn, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. (Tex.) 6-787 
 
 Cole V. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. (Ga.) '. 12- 14 
 
 V. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co.. (Wis.) 17-749 
 
 V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 18-383 
 
 Coleman, Central R. Co. of Baltimore v. (Md.) 1-275 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 19-285 
 
 V. Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L Ry. Co. (Ky.) 21-453 
 
 V. Wrightsville & T. R. Co. (Ga.) 23-863 
 
 Coley V. North Carolina R. Co. (N. Car.) 21-891 
 
 V. North Carolina R. Co. (N. Car. ) 23-885 
 
 Coll V. Easton Transit Co. (Pa.) 11-722 
 
 Colonial City Traction Co. v. Kingston City R. Co. (N. Y.) 9-506 
 
 V. Kingston City R. Co. (N. Y.) 10-327 
 
 Colorado Cent. R. Co., Allen v. (Colo.) 3-446 
 
 Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., Southern Pac. Co. i*. (C C A.) 18-559 
 
 Columbia, etc., R. Co., AuU v. (S. Car.) 3-129 
 
 Columbus & R. R. Co. v. Christian (Ga.) 5-584 
 
 Columbus, etc., R. Co., Bagley v. (Ga.) 5-700 
 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. Appeals (C C A.) 22-209 
 
 Columbus Terminal & Transfer R. Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co. 
 
 (CCA.) 22-484 
 
 Comer v. Foley (Ga.) 5-250 
 
 V. Hill (Ga.) 11- 3 
 
 z/. Polk County (C C A.) 8-288 
 
 V. Shaw (Ga.) .. S-697 
 
 V. Stewart (Ga.) 4-263 
 
 Commercial Bank v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (111.) 4-263 
 
 Commercial Guano Co., Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 12-848 
 
 Commercial Ice Co. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 19-171 
 
 Commissioners of Hancock County, Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 (Ohio) 18-765 
 
 Northern Ohio Ry. Co. v. (Ohio) 18-767 
 
 Commissioners of Railroads, Detroit, Ft. W. & B. I. Ry. v. (Mich.). 22-732 
 
 Detroit, G. R. & W. R. Co. v. (Mich.) 14-174 
 
 Commissioners of Streets of Borough of Haddonfield, Moore v. 
 
 (N. J.) V 10-323 
 
 Commissioners of Wicomico County v. Baltimore, C.& A. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Md.). . ; 21-284 
 
 Committee of Tp. of Bloomfield, State v. (N. J.) 5-697 
 
 Commonwealth, Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 14-508 
 
 Chesapeake, etc. , R. Co, v. (Ky. ) 4-260 
 
 Hensel, Atty. Gen., v. Union Pass. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-99 
 
 Hodgensville & E- R. Co. v. (Ky.) 3-656 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z/. (Ky. ) 22-356, 23-326 
 
TABLE OF CASES 29 
 
 Commonwealth v, Keary (Pa.)- 20-471 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 1-68 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 4-193 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) S-644 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 13-125 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.). 15-8+1 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 18-297 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky. ) 6-61 
 
 t/. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 18-663 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) ..." 23-936 
 
 V. Mobile & O. R. Co. (Ky.) 23-185 
 
 V. New York, P. & O. R. Co. (Pa.) 14-145 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Va.) 20-360 
 
 Concord &M. R. Co., Connor z-. (N. H.) - 2-281 
 
 Valley z/. (N. H.) 9-128 
 
 Concord & M. R. R. v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 14-458 
 
 Burnham v. (N. H.) 16-320 
 
 Cutler V. (N. H.) 18-760 
 
 Davis V. (N. H.) 19-68 
 
 Story v.CH. H.) . 20-90 
 
 Concord R. R., Welch v. (N. H.) 16-830 
 
 Condran v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 2- 16 
 
 Cone V. Central R. Co. of New Jersey (N. J.) 12-278 
 
 Conery, City Blectric St. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 3-365 
 
 Coney Island & Brooklyn R. Co. v. Prospect Park & Coney Island 
 
 R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-222 
 
 Conkling- v. Erie R. Co. (N. J.). 15-61 
 
 Conlon,' Atchison, T. & S. F. Rv. Co. v. (Kan.) 15-195, 22- 76 
 
 Conn V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 15-838 
 
 Connell v. Qhesapeake & O. Ry. Co. ( Va.) 5-333 
 
 f. Chesapeake* O. Ry. Co. (Ky.) 19-236 
 
 Railroad Co. v. (Pa.) 5-716 
 
 Connelly z/. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.) 2-385 
 
 V. Trenton Pass. R. Co. Cons. (N. J.) 1-261, 277 
 
 Conner v. Citizens' Street R. Co. (Ind.) 7-287 
 
 Connors ». Chicag-o & N. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 18-75 
 
 Connor v. Concord & M. R. (N. H.) 2-281 
 
 V. Electric Traction Co. (Pa.) 4-263 
 
 Maysville & B. E. R. Co. v. (Ky.) ~ 1-63 
 
 Conoyer, Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 9-348 
 
 Conroy v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. (Wis. ) 8-714 
 
 Conroy, Robert T., Adm'r, New England Railroad Company v. 
 
 (U. S.) ; 16-380 
 
 Consolidated Cattle Co., Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan.). . 10-368 
 
 Consolidated City & C. P. R. Co. v. Carlson (Kan.) 7-274 
 
 Consolidated & C. P. R. Co. v. Wyatt (Kan.) '. . 9-756 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. Behr (N. J.) 8-770 
 
 V. Chenowith (N. J.) 5-599 
 
 Dodd z/. (N. J.) 1-325. 340 
 
 V. Haight (N. J.) ... 8-90 
 
 Hoiraarkz-. (N.J.) 9-380 
 
 V. Hone (N. J.) S-679, 9-249 
 
 V. Isley (N. J.) 5-457 
 
 Jackson v. (N. J.) 5-697 
 
 V. Knoth (N. J.) ; 10-844 
 
 V. Lambertson (N. J. ) 67-93 
 
 Lambertson v. (N. J.) . , 9, 355, 10-753 
 
 McCann ». (N. J.) 7-280 
 
 V. Scott(N. J.) 4-371 
 
 Sowash V. (Pa.) 12-124 
 
 V. Taborn (N. J.) .' 2-124 
 
 z/. Thalheimer (N. J.) 9-858 
 
 Whalen v. (N. J. App.) 11-207 
 
 Content v. New York, N. H.- & H. R. Co. (Mass. ) 3r-3(» 
 
30 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Continental Trust Co. of New York, Contracting- & Building- Co. 
 
 of Ky. V. (C. C. A.) 21-487 
 
 V. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co. (Ohio) 18-397 
 
 Continental Trust Co., R. I. Locomotive Works v. (C. C. A.) 21-481 
 
 V. Toledo St. L,. & R. C. R. Co. (Ohio)... 12-8S4 
 
 Contracting- & Building Co. of Kentucky v. Continental Trust 
 
 Co. of New York (C. C. A.) 21-487 
 
 Conway v. Chicago, etc. , Co. (Iowa) 8-7SS 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. z-. (111.) 11- 7 
 
 V. Lewiston & Auburn Horse R. Co. (Me. ) 2-339 
 
 V. Lewiston, etc., R. Co. (Me.) .3-769, 770 
 
 V. New Orleans & C. R. Co. (La.) 2-222, 387, 444 
 
 Cook V. Los Angeles & P. Electric Ry. Co. (Cal.) 23-69 
 
 Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 4-SS2 
 
 V. New York Kl. R. Co. (N. Y. ) 1-373, 376, 378 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car. ) 21-591 
 
 Cooke V. Baltimore Traction Co. (Md.) 1-255, 256, 263 
 
 Cookson z/. Pittsburgh & W. R. Co. (Pa.) 6-339 
 
 Cooley, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 12-553 
 
 Cooney , B altimore City Pass Ry . Co. v. (Md. ) , 11-759 
 
 V. Pullman Palace-Car Co. (Ala.). 18-588 
 
 Cooper, Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. (Ga.) 2-687 
 
 V. Georgia, C. & N. Ry. Co.( S. Car.) 16-12, 22-667 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 17-304 
 
 V. Raleigh & G. R. Co. (Ga.) 18-412 
 
 Southern Ry. in Kentucky v. (Ky.) 21-231 
 
 Coos Bay, R. & E. R. Co. & Nav. Co., Nosier v. (Ore.) 22-716 
 
 V. Siglin (Ore.) 11-714 
 
 Coppuck V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. (Pa.) 15-68 
 
 Corbett, Seattle & M. R. Co. v. (Wash.) 17-709 
 
 Corbin v. Winona & St. P. R. Co. (Minn.) 3-443 
 
 CorinneMill & Canal Stock Co. v. Johnson (U. S.) 1-593 
 
 Cornell v. Manistee & N. E. R. Co. (Mich.) 11-263 
 
 Corning v. Troy Iron & Nail Factory (N. Y.) 3-432 
 
 Corso V. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. (La. Ann.) 5-43 
 
 Costello V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (N. H.) 19-386 
 
 Coulter V. Great Northern R. Co. (N. Dak.) ' 4-336 
 
 Couly V. Sherman, etc., R. Co. (Tex.) 6-772 
 
 County Com'rs, Citizens' Electric, etc., Co. v. (Ohio) 8-769 
 
 County CoTi'rs of Middlesex, Inhabitants of Wayland v. (Mass.).. S-70S 
 
 County Court of Wood County, Neale v. (W. Va.) 7-252 
 
 Coursey v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 21-412 
 
 Courteen v. Kanawha Dispatch (Wis. ) 21-425 
 
 Courts V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) \\ S_223 
 
 Owensboro & N. Ry. Co. v. (Ky. ) 19-125 • 
 
 Covenia, Southern R. Co. v. (Ga.) ^. . . 10-551 
 
 Cowan, Neininger v. (C. C. A.). 18-492 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. &. (Ala. ) 22-150 
 
 Cowden v. Shreveport Belt Ry. Co. (La. ) '. ".'...'..".. 23-355 
 
 ' Cowen, Kallmerten v. (C. C. A.) 23-352 
 
 V. Ray (C. C. A.) ! ."i! .'i; ■■.'.; ! 21-531 
 
 Winters v. (Ohio) 12- 40 
 
 V. Winters (C. C. A.) 16-107 
 
 Cowles, Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Neb.) .'.'. .'.'..".'. ..,' \ '■ ii_ 33 
 
 Cox, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 7-379 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (Iowa). '.'.'.'.'.'..' 9-604 
 
 Lincoln St. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 4-273 
 
 ». Los Angeles Ter. R. Co. (Cal.) 1! 2^158 159 ^M 
 
 V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. (N. Car. ) ' 12-30^ 
 
 Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ohio) '. 7-152 
 
 St. Louis, I. M.. & S. R. Co. z/. (Ark.) "■ 2-2Rn 
 
 Terre Haute & I. R. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) ..'.'.'.'.'" 19-327 
 
 V. Vermont Cent. R. Co. (Mass.) 9-Sqi 
 
 Coyle z/. Pittsburgh. C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co! (Ind.) .".■. '.'..' .W 22-874 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 20-529 
 
TABLE OF CASES 31 
 
 Cozine, Ifexiugton Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-624 
 
 Crabtree, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 20-923 
 
 Crandall v. Des Moines, N. & W. R. Co. (Iowa) 9-420 
 
 V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 21-388 
 
 V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (R. I. ) S-S43 
 
 Crane v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 22-869 
 
 z;. Chicago, etc., K. Co. (Wis.) S-706 
 
 Crawford v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 16-628 
 
 V. Detroit, G. R. & W. R. Co. (Mich.) 22- 42 
 
 V. Hubbell (C. C.) 13-92 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 16-829 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 19-17 
 
 Craycroft, People v. (Cal.) 3-655 
 
 Creighton, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 15-713 
 
 Crescent City R. Co., Canal & C. R. Co. v. (L,a. ) 1-229 
 
 Cronan v. (La.) 6-225 
 
 Culbertson v. (La. ) 6-522 
 
 Hoelzel v. (La.) 8- 40 
 
 Nelson v. (La.) 7-192 
 
 V. New Orleans & C. R. Co. (La.) 4-402 
 
 Sciortino v. (La.) 6-526 
 
 Creswell v. Wilmington & N. R. Co. (Del.) 14-625 
 
 Crisswell v. Montana Cent. R. Co. (Mont. ) 3-652 
 
 Crockert, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 21-246 
 
 Croft V. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 11-652 
 
 Croll V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (Kan.) 5-608 
 
 Cromer v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. (Ga.) 12-318 
 
 Norfolk &W. Ry. Co. w. (Va.) 23-720 
 
 Cromwell, New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. (Va. ) 17-328 
 
 Cronan v. Crescent City R. Co. (La.) 6-225 
 
 Cross, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan.) 8-757, 758 
 
 V. California St. Cable R. Co. (Cal.) 1-262, 276 
 
 Grossman, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex. ) ; . . 3-425 
 
 Crosstown St. R. Co. of Buffalo, Bittner w. (N. Y.) 9-152 
 
 Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 14-780 
 
 Crow, Virginia & S. W. Ry. Co. v. (Tenn.) 23-506 
 
 Crowell Lumber & Grain Co., Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 7-223 
 
 Crowley v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 23-545 
 
 Crumbaugh, Denver Tramway Co. v. (Colo.) 10-875 
 
 Culbertson v. Crescent City R. Co. (La. ) 6-522 
 
 CuUen, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (111.) 19-523 
 
 V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) 3-453 
 
 Cully V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 9-872 
 
 Cumberland County, Grand Trunk R. Co. v. (Me. ) 3-434 
 
 Cumberland & P. R. Co., Frostburg Mining Co. v. (Md.) 2-568 
 
 V. State (Md.) 20-754 
 
 State, to Use of Price v. (Md.) 10-511 
 
 Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Morgan's L. & T. R. 
 
 Co. (La.) 13-71 
 
 ». Texas & P. Ry. Co. (La.) 18-399 
 
 V. United Electric R. Co. (Tenn.) 1-29S 
 
 Cummings v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 21-470 
 
 I/. Worcester L. & S. St. R. Co. (Mass.) 5-389 
 
 Cummins, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 21-774 
 
 Cunningham, Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 12-132 
 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal R. & Iron Co. v. (U. S.) 1-564 
 
 V. Los Angeles R. Co. (Cal.) 7-783 
 
 Curry v. Kansas, etc., R. Co. (Kan.) 8-755, 763 
 
 Curtis, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. iNeb.) 8-753, 762, 765 
 
 V. De Coursey (Pa.) 5-416 
 
 Cnshman, Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 14-259 
 
 Cutler V. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H.) 18-760 
 
 Czech V. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.) 7-374 
 
 Czezewzka v. Benton-Bellefontaine R. Co. (Mo.) 1-256, 258, 265, 267 
 
 Dages, Toledo & O. C. R. Co. i-. (Ohio). 8-533 
 
32 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Dairy v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa) ^J~cq« 
 
 Dakes V. Mvefs (U. S. C. C.) ' }rX^^ 
 
 Dale V. Atchison, T. & S. F. E. Co. (Kan.) 7-lOS 
 
 Dallas & O. C. R. Co. v. Reeman (Tex. Civ. App.) -i f^n 
 
 Dalton V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) • • - ^l-^o" 
 
 Daly V. Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co. (Mich.) 1-260, 2M 
 
 V. Kiel (La.) .^ ■ • • 22-320 
 
 Dampman v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) ^ -^Y' q1„ 
 
 Dan V. Citizens' St. R. Co. (Tenn.) i?~?c^ 
 
 Daubert v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (Pa.) ■ • •21-456 
 
 Danbury & B. H. R. Co., Shalley v. (Conn.) ^"289, 290 
 
 Dandridge, Mechanics' Trust Co. v. (Ky. ) »"?cn 
 
 Dangerfield v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Kan.). H"T^? 
 
 Daniels v. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. (S. Car.) 23-107 
 
 Uttle Rock & Ft. S. Rv. Co. v. (Ark.) '^^'^^ 
 
 Railroad Co. v. (Ga.) 5-714 
 
 V. Western & A. R. Co. (Ga.) 2-211, 280 
 
 Danville H. & W. R. Co. w. Kase (Pa.) 10-869 
 
 Danville St. C. Co. . Trowbridge Adm. v. (Va.) 1-256, 263 
 
 Darby, Alabama Midland Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) ' 13-lOS 
 
 Darwood v. Union Traction Co. (Pa.) .12-474 
 
 Dave V. Morgan's l/ouisian a & Texas R. & S. Co. (La.) 2-127 
 
 Davidson, Illinois Central R. Co. z/. (C. C. A.). 2-265 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. !>. (C. C. A.) 7-715 
 
 Davis V. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 21-821 
 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 19-710 
 
 Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. (111.) 2-581 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Wis.) 4-622 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.) 5-708, 710, 711 
 
 V. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H.) 19-68 
 
 V. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. (S. Car.) 5-324 
 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 12-832 
 
 V. Houston & S. Ry. Co. (La.) 22-751 
 
 Houston & Texas Cent. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-487 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 18-708 
 
 z/. Northwestern El. R. Co. (111.) 9-452 
 
 V. San Antonio & G. S. Ry. Co. (Tex. ) 15-449 
 
 State z>. (Mo.) 7-601 
 
 V. Texas & P. R. Co. (Tex.) .3-426, 10-301 
 
 Dawley v. Wagner Pal., etc., Co. (Mass.) 8-766 
 
 Dawson, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 18-30 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Va.) 18-592 
 
 Day V. New York, S. & W. R. Co. (N. J.) 4-313 
 
 Deakins, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Tenn.) 23-122 
 
 Dean v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 1S-55S 
 
 Deaver, Chicago, St. Paul, Minn. & O. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 2-545 
 
 Decker z/. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (Okla.) 2-118 
 
 De Coursey, Curtis v. (Pa.) 5-416 
 
 Dederichs v. Salt Lake City R. Co. (Utah) 4-259 
 
 Deery v. Camden & A. R. Co. (Pa.) 2-225 
 
 De Forge v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. (Mass.) 20-492 
 
 DeHam, San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.l 16-843 
 
 Deitzen , South Carolina & G. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 10-232 
 
 DeLacy, Northern Pac. R. Co. v. (Wash.) 1-596, 657 
 
 Delaney, Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. (111. ) 13-85'9 
 
 Delaware County & P. Electric R. Co. v. City of Philadelphia 
 
 (Pa.) 1-28 
 
 Delaware & H. Canal Co., Roberts v. (Pa.) 5-664 
 
 Scrantou & P. Traction Co. v. (Pa.). . . 7-537 
 
 V. Scranton & P. Traction Co. (Pa.) ' 7-537 
 
 Delaware, I. & W. R. Co. v. Reich (N.J.) .'. 11-313 
 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Ashley (C. C. A.) 2-212,300, 383, 386 
 
 V. Bullock (N. J.) 7-370 
 
 Bullock V. (N. J. App.) 11-837 
 
 Bush :/. (N. Y.) 21-516 
 
TABLE OF CASES 33 
 
 Delaware, L,. & W. R. Co., Daubert v. (Pa.) 21-456 
 
 Elston V. (Pa.).. 21-3S4 
 
 iy. Hardy (N. J.) 4-S77 
 
 Mt. Pleasant Coal Co. v. (Pa.) 23-568 
 
 V. Voss (N. J.) 12-820 
 
 Williams ». (N. Y.) 10-147 
 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co., Seamans v. (Pa.) 4-260 
 
 Delsol V. Spokane & Palouse Railway Co. (Idaho) 1-683 
 
 Delta & Pine Land Co., Ford z/. (U. S.) 6-395 
 
 Deming z/. Terminal Ry. of Buffalo (N. Y.) 23-815 
 
 Denmark v. Railroad Co. (N. Car. ) 5-710 
 
 Dennis, Long- & Co. v. City of Louisville (Ky. ) 3-213 
 
 V. Pittsburg & C. S. R. Co. (Pa.) , .2-108, 110, 220, 389 
 
 De Nobra, Albion Lumber Co. v. (C. C. A.) 3-564 
 
 Densmore, Chicago City R. Co. v. (111.) 6-794 
 
 Denver & B. P. R. T. Co. v. Dwyer (Colo. ) 2-18, 185, 300, 301, 383 
 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Bedell (Colo. App.) 12-141 
 
 V. Central Trust Co. of New York (CCA.) 19-513 
 
 Olin V. (Colo. ) 10-708 
 
 V. Pilgrim (Colo.) 8-249 
 
 V. Roller (CCA.) 18-595 
 
 V. Sipes (Colo.) 6-605 
 
 V. Spencer (Colo.) 10-536, 18-236 
 
 V. Thompson (Colo.) 14- 47 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Loreutzen (CCA.) 8-755, 763 
 
 V. Smock (Colo.) 7-773, 775, 776, 778 
 
 Denver Tramway Co. v. Cloud (Colo.) 2-162 
 
 V. Crumbaugh (Colo.) 10-875 
 
 V. Londoner, Mayor, (Colo.) 1-124 
 
 V. Nesbit (Colo.) 4-605 
 
 Depp, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 3-440 
 
 De Shong, St. Louis, etc. , R. Co. v. (Ark.) 6-773 
 
 Des Moines City R. Co. v. City of Des Moines (Iowa) 1-215 
 
 Des Moines, N. & W. R. Co., Crandall v. (Iowa) 9-420 
 
 Des Moines St. R. Co., McDivitt v. (Iowa) 6-106 
 
 Detroit, B. C & A. R. Co., Keating v. (Mich.) 2-222, 382, 386 
 
 Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co. v. City of Detroit (CCA.) 1-71 
 
 V. City of Detroit (Mich. ) 5-15 
 
 Daly V. (Mich.) 1-260, 263 
 
 Doherty v. (Mich.) 16-686 
 
 Graff V. (Mich. ) 5-447 
 
 Henderson v. (Mich.) 10-812 
 
 People V. (Mich.) 11-798 
 
 Detroit City R. Co. , City of Detroit z/. (C C A. ) 1-71 
 
 Fritz V. (Mich. ) 1-265 
 
 Detroit Electric Railway Co. , Nieboer v. (Mich. ) 23- 93 
 
 Rouse V. (Mich. ) 22-650 
 
 Wheeler v. (Mich.) 23-595 
 
 Detroit, Ft. W. &B. I. Ry. v. Commissioner of Railroads (Mich.) 
 
 22-732 
 
 Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., City of Detroit v. (Mich. ) 8-117 
 
 Mott V. (Mich.) 15-113 
 
 Pahlan v. (Mich.) 16-309 
 
 Phillips V. (Mich.) 6-319 
 
 Piskorowski v. (Mich.) 19-120 
 
 Potter V. (Mich.) 16-264 
 
 Sax V. (Mich.) 20-653 
 
 Detroit, G. R. & W. R. Co. v. Commissioner of Railroads (Mich.) .. 14-174 
 
 Crawford v. (Mich. ) 22- 42 
 
 M-ewethy v. (Mich ) 22-691 
 
 Vandercook v. (Mich.) 20-353 
 
 Detroit R. Co., Kennedy z/. (Mich.) 3-430 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission 
 
 (p. C. A.) , 5-700, 701, 702 
 
 Detroit St. R. Co., Bowdle v. (Mich.) 2-223 
 
 I D— 3 
 
34 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Detroit Suburban St. R. Co., Niemann 11. (Mich.) 1-172 
 
 Detroit, T. & M. Ry. Co., Hathaway v. (Mich.) 19-714 
 
 Deusten, Lehmann v. (Wis.) 10-857 
 
 Devoe v. New York, O. & W. Ry. Co. (N. J.) 15-124 
 
 Dewey v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 11-275 
 
 DeWhirst K. Boston, etc., R. Co. (Mass.) 6-785 
 
 Diamond Coal Co., Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. (Ohio) 16-232 
 
 Dick V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 23-71 
 
 Dickey z/. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 19-258 
 
 z;. Kansas City & Independence Rapid Transit Co. (Mo.).. 1-710 
 
 Dickson v. Epling- (111.) 9-403 
 
 Dillon V. Oregon, etc., R. Co. (Ore.) 5-713 
 
 Dingman, St. L,ouis, etc., R. Co. v. (Ark.).* 4-261 
 
 Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. Co. (C. C.) 13-314 
 
 V. Southern Exp. Co. (C. C. A.) . . . 19-468 
 
 Trammell &. (C. C. A.) 19-468 
 
 Distler v. Long Island R. Co. (N. Y.) 6-235 
 
 Dixey v. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa. ) 8-294 
 
 Dixie Cigar Co. v. Southern Express Co. (N. Car.) 10-863 
 
 Dixon V. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. (Ga.) 17-380 
 
 V. New England R. R. (Mass.) 22- 10 
 
 V. Railway Co. (Eng.) 5-700 
 
 Dixon, Lucy, Adm'x of Alexander Dixon, Deceased, R. H. 
 Chalkey, and Wm. Sidles, C. & O. Ry. Co., Plff. in 
 
 Err., z/. (U. S.) 21-79 
 
 Dixon's Adm'x. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 14-827 
 
 Doane v. Chicago City R. Co. (111.) 6-792 
 
 V. Lake St. EI. R. Co. (111.) 7-781, 782 
 
 Dobbins v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas (Tex.) 8-179 
 
 Dobson V. New Orleans & W. R. Co. (La.) 17-404 
 
 Dodd V. Consolidated Traction Co. (N. J.) 1-325, 340 
 
 Doherty v. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co. ( Mich.) 16-686 
 
 Dohn, Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. (Ind.) 14-543 
 
 Doing V. New York, O. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.» 9-69 
 
 Dolson V. Lake Shore <% M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 23-387 
 
 Donahue v. Boston & M. R. R. (Mass.) 20-526 
 
 Douey, Omaha, Hutchinson & Gulf R. Co. v. (Kan.) 3-144 
 
 Donovan, City of Detroit v. (Mich.) 23-520 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (Wis.) 5-318 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. z/. (Tenn.) 18-669 
 
 Dorsey, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 14-212 
 
 V. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. (Ga.) 21-566 
 
 V. Kan.sas City, P. & G. Ry. Co. (La.) 20-67 
 
 St. Louis, P. & N. Ry. Co. v. (111.) 21-280 
 
 Dotterer, Thomp.son v. (La.) 21- 14 
 
 Dotty V. Atlantic City R. Co. (N. J.) 18-157 
 
 Dougherty v. Kansas City & I. R. T. Co. (Mo.) 2-281 
 
 Douglas County, Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co. v. (Wis.) 14-178 
 
 Douglas, Fidelity Loan «& "Trust Co. v. (Iowa) 9-713 
 
 Douglass V. Kanawha & M. R. Co. (W. Va.) 10-883 
 
 Dover, etc., R. Co., Robinson v. (Ga.) 8-753 
 
 Downey v. Pittsburg, A. & M. Traction Co. (Pa.) 1-263, 276 
 
 Downing v. Morgan L. & T. Ry. & S. S. Co. (La.) 20-412 
 
 V. Outerbridge (C. C. A.) 10-861 
 
 Downs, Chattanooga, R. & S. Ry. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 21-493 
 
 Rouse V. (Kan.) 7-773, 776 
 
 Doyle V. Fitchburg R. Co. (Mass.) ■ S-2S7 
 
 V. Metropolitan El. R. Co. (N. Y.) ' ". 1-372 
 
 V. Toledo, S. & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) '.'..". 22-294 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 7-773 774 
 
 V. West End St. R. Co. (Mass.) 1-273,' 276 
 
 Drake v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. (Miss.) 21-141 
 
 Draper, Bigelow v. (N. Dak.) 7-771 
 
 DriscoU, Chicago Sa. E. I. R. Co. v. (111.) 12-644 
 
 Drisdale, McGhee v. (Ala.) ', 6-774 
 
TABLE OF CASES 35 
 
 Driver v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (Kan.) 10-58 
 
 Dry Fork R. Co., Ketterraau v. (W. Va.) 19-445 
 
 Dublin V. Taylor, B. & H. Ry. Co. (Tex.) 13-461 
 
 Duffy, Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. (111.) 23-361 
 
 Duluth & I. R. R. Co., Aske v. Minn.) 21-819 
 
 St. Louis County v. (Minn.) 19-273 
 
 Duluth, M. & N. R. Co., Wherry v. (Minn.) 4-72 
 
 Duluth, S. S. & A. R. Co., Cole ». (Wis.) 17-749 
 
 V. Doug-las County (Wis.) 14-178 
 
 Morris v. (CCA.) 22- 4S 
 
 Duluth St. R. Co., City of Duluth ». (Minn. ) . . 1-288 
 
 Ivundquist v. (Minn.) 4-S06 
 
 McKillop V. (Minn.) 1-171, 278 
 
 Wilson V. (Minn.) 4- S3 
 
 Duluih, etc., R. Co., Board of Com'rs, etc., v. (Minn.) 6-779 
 
 Dumas, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 23-956 
 
 Dunn V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (C. C A.) 21-236 
 
 Dunning v. Maine Cent. R. Co. (Me. ) 9-574 
 
 Dunseath v. Pittsburg, A. & M. Traction Co. (Pa.) 1-278 
 
 Durand's Adm'x v. New York & L. B. R. Co. (N. J.) 21-208 
 
 Durham, Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 16-606 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 2-260 
 
 Durham & N. R. Co., Lea v. (N. Car.) 23-765 
 
 Stanley v. (N. Car.) 9-208 
 
 Duvall, Omaha St. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 1-253, 269,270 
 
 Duvernet v. Morgan's L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co. (La.) 6-483 
 
 Dwyer, Denver & B. P. R. T. Co. v. (Colo.) 2-18, 185, 300, 301, 383 
 
 Dyche v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. (Miss.) 23-526 
 
 Dyer v. Fitchburg R. Co. (Mass. ) 11-473 
 
 Ban V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Wis.) 9-475 
 
 Early, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 12-859 
 
 East Omaha St. R. Co. v. Godola (Neb.) 7-300 
 
 East St. Louis Connecting Ry. Co. v. Eggman (111.) 9-438 
 
 V. Jarvis(C. C. A ) 15-459 
 
 East St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Belleville City F. Co. (111.) 3-94, 97 
 
 East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company v. Green 
 
 (Ga.) 2-299 
 
 t/. Interstate Commerce Commission (U. S.) 20-729 
 
 East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. (James, Intervener), Central 
 
 Trust Co. V. (Tenn.) 2-677, 718 
 
 East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. (Meredith, Intervener), Central 
 
 Trust Co. K. (C C A.) 2-159 
 
 East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Miller (Ga.) 2-216 
 
 East Tennessee & W. N. C R. Co. v. Cargille (Tenn.) 19-282 
 
 Witt V. (Tenn.) 8-380 
 
 Eastern & A. R. Co., Burnett v. (N. J.) 10-469 
 
 Eastern Ry. Co. of Minnesota, Hinton v. (Minn.) 11-125 
 
 McGrath z/. (Minn.) 13-768 
 
 Wallin V. (Minn.) 21-611 
 
 Weisel V. (Minn.) 17-446 
 
 Eastman v. Boston, etc. , R. Co. (Mass.) 3-435 
 
 V. Maine Cent. R. R. (N. H.) 17-203 
 
 Easton Transit Company, Callery v. (Pa.) 11-323 
 
 Easton Transit Co., Coll v. (Pa.) 11-722 
 
 Eaton V. Mclntire (Me.) 4-205 
 
 V. McNeill (Ore.) 8-680 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 18-391 
 
 Ebaugh, Pennsylvania Co. v. (Ind.) 4-200, 14-701 
 
 Ebsery v. Chicago City R. Co. (111.) 6-794 
 
 Eckles V. Norfolk, etc.. R. Co. (Va.) 5-707 
 
 Eckman v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (111.) 9-308 
 
 Eddy, McCann v. (Ky.) 2-633 
 
 Edgar, Rider z/. (Cal.) 2-472 
 
 Edgerly z/. Union St. R. Co. (N. H.) 6-795 
 
 Edloff, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-4S3 
 
36 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Edmonds, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-481 
 
 Edmonson, Gainesville, J. & S. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 10-154 
 
 Edmunson v. Pullman Palace-Car Co. (CCA.) 14-336 
 
 Edson V. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.) 22-187 
 
 Edwards v. Atlantic Coast L,ine R. Co. (N. Car.) 23-38 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 19-779 
 
 V. Poote (Mich.) 23-812 
 
 Fordyce v. (Ark.) 11-521 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. (Tex.) S-343 
 
 St. Louis, I. M.& S. R. Co. V. (C C. A.) 8-402 
 
 Eells V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.) 21-668 
 
 Eel River R. Co. v. State, Kistler, Prosecuting- Attorney, (Ind.).. 17-595 
 
 Egan V. Montana Cent. Ry. Co. (Mont.) : 20-72 
 
 Egeland, Northern Pac. R. Co. z/. (U. S.) •. 4-259 
 
 Eggman, East St. Louis Connecting R. Co. v. (111.) 9-438 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. (111.) 4-263 
 
 E. Harrisburg Pass. R. Co., Citizens' Pass. R. Co. v. (Pa.) 1-189 
 
 Ehlert, Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. (Ohio) 19-731 
 
 Eichengreen v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Tenn.) 3-4S3 
 
 Eichhorn v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 23-941 
 
 Eichorn v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. (Mo.) 2-279, 280, 385 
 
 Eidson V. Southern Ry. Co. (Miss.) 11-832 
 
 Eikleberry, Walker z/. (Okla.) 13-253 
 
 Elder, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan.) 5-309 
 
 Eldridge, North Chicago St. R. Go. v. (111.) 2-299, 301, 385 
 
 Electric Lighting Co. v. Mobile, etc., R. Co. (Ala.) 4-265 
 
 Electric R. Co. v. Carson (Ga.) 8-769, 770 
 
 Electric Traction Co., Blaney v. (Pa.) 10-560 
 
 Connor w. (Pa.) 4-263 
 
 Gross V. (Pa. ) : 6-780 
 
 Smith ». (Pa ) 12-422 
 
 Elgin Condensed Milk Co., St. Louis & S. W. Ry. Co. v. (111.) . . 13-112 
 
 Elgin, J. &E. Ry. Co. v. Duffy (ill.) 23-361 
 
 Elliott V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 15-805 
 
 Missouri, K. &. T. Ry. Co. v. (Ind. Ter.) . . : 14-587, 18-715 
 
 V. Newport St. R. Co. (R. I.) 2-299, 386, 388 
 
 V. Western & A. R. Co. (Ga.) 21-889 
 
 Ellis V. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.) 10-490 
 
 Burke v. (Tenn.) 19-695 
 
 V. Erie R. Co. (N. J.) 22-629 
 
 Gulf, C & S. F. R. Co. w. (U. S.) 6-752 
 
 Ellsworth V. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (Iowa) 2-80 
 
 V. Chicago & I. W. R. Co. (Iowa) 3- 5 
 
 Elmira, C & N. R. Co., Parker v. (N. Y.) 20-344 
 
 Elston V. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (Pa.) 21-354 
 
 Ely, Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. (Wash.) 22-90 
 
 Emmerson, Atchison, T. & S. P. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 8-663 
 
 Emminger, Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. (Neb. ) 12-188 
 
 Englehart, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 15-404 
 
 English V. Southern Pac. Co. (Utah) 4-63 
 
 Enix V. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 23- 54 
 
 Enochs V. Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. (Ind.) .' . S-349 
 
 Enright v. Pittsburgh Junction R. Co. (Pa.) 20-564 
 
 Enslen, South Covington, etc., St. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 7-785 
 
 Enyard (Northern Pac. Ry. Co., Intervener), Northern Counties 
 
 Inv. Trust, Limited, v. (Wash.) ,. 20-830 
 
 Ephland v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo.) '. .'. 7_s79 
 
 EpHng, Dickson z/. (111.) 9-403 
 
 Erickson, Trumbull i/. (C. C. A.) 17- 93 
 
 Erie Electric Motor Co. , Woeckner v. (Pa. ) 5-719 
 
 Erie & Pennsylvania R. Co., Jones v. (Pa.) " 3- 13 
 
 Erie R. Co., Conkling v. (N. J.) '.'.'. IS- 61 
 
 Ellis f. (N. J.) .■.'.■ 22-629 
 
 Gilbert z/. (C C A.) 18-15 
 
 Green Z'. (N. J.) ; . '. 19-308 
 
TABLE of: cases 37 
 
 Erie R. Co., In re (N. J.) 21-695 
 
 Rafferty v. {N. J.) 21-778 
 
 Sonn V. (N. J.) 22-389 
 
 Erie & W. Transp. Co., Mannheim Ins. Co. v. (Minn.) 13-161 
 
 Erslew v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. (La.) 6-436 
 
 Estill County, Richmond, N., I. & B. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 13-365 
 
 Etson V. Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co. (Mich.) S-718 
 
 Eureka & K. R. R. Co. v. California & N. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) . . . . 22-404 
 
 Evans V. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. (Ga.) 15-200 
 
 K. Chicago, St. P.,M. &0. R. Co. (Wis.) 1-27,61 
 
 V. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. (Ind.) 10-837 
 
 z/. Sherman, S. & S.R. Co. (Tex.) 5-184 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. in Kentucky v. (Ky.) 21-809 
 
 Evansville & R. R. Co. z/. Barnes (Ind.) 2-18 
 
 Evansville Street R. Co. v. Gentry (Ind. ) 5-500 
 
 Evansville & T. H. R. Co. , Hoi brook v. (Ga. ) 23-597, 598 
 
 z/. State, Town of Ft. Branch (Ind.) 11-278 
 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co., City of Terre Haute v. (Ind.) 8-759, 760 
 
 Everett v. Receivers of Richmond & D. R. Co. (N. Car.) 8-S23 
 
 Ex parte Kelly (Eug.) , . . . S-698 
 
 Ex parte Northeastern R. Co. (S. Car.) 21-99 
 
 Ex parte Rorke (Eng.) 5-698 
 
 Exton V. Central R. Co. of New Jersey (N. J.) 14-240 
 
 Fagg V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 22-171 
 
 Fairbanks v. Bangor, O. & O. Ry. Co. (Me ) 22-756 
 
 •Fairbanks, N. K., & Co., Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co- v. 
 
 (CCA.) 13-179 
 
 Fair Haven & W. R. Co., Baldwin v. (Conn.) 9-853 
 
 Brockett v. (Conn.) 20-406 
 
 Fairman v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) 9-83 
 
 Falk, Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. (Ohio) 17-751, 18-99 
 
 Farber v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo.) 2-166, 444, 7-700 
 
 Farley v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. (C C A.) 21-404 
 
 Farmers' & Drovers' Live-Stock Commission Firm, Louisville & 
 
 N. R. Co. V. (Ky.) 17-284 
 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., Boyle zy. (C C A.). 14-817 
 
 V. Carolina C. G. & C Ry. Co. (CCA.) 15-212 
 
 f. HousatonicR. Co. (N. Y.) 9-281 
 
 Huntington z/. (C. C A.) 14-817 
 
 Lackawanna Iron & Coal Company v. (U. S.) 17-561 
 
 Z'. Longworth (C. C A.) '. 9-201 
 
 V. Nestelle (C. C. A.) 11-877 
 
 V. New York & N. R. Co. (N. Y.) 7-321 
 
 z;. Northern Pac. R. Co. (Wis.) 3-450 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co. (C C A.) . . 9-81 
 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. v. Oregon Pac. K. Co. (Ore.) 7-780 
 
 Farmer z;. Myles (La. ) 23-732 
 
 Farmington Mercantile Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (Mass.). . 5- 59 
 
 Farmville&P. R. Co., Rudd v. (Va.) 3-656 
 
 Farnsworth, Lime Rock K. Co. v. (Me.) 3-13 
 
 Karquhar v. Alabama & V. R. Co. (Miss.) 20-538 
 
 Farrington, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Ind. Ter.) 11-854 
 
 V. Rutland R. Co. (Vt.) 19-248 
 
 Farrow v. Nashville, etc., R. Co. (Ala.) 5-704 
 
 Farwell, Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Neb.) 17-687 
 
 Faulkner, Ashland, C. & St. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 10-223 
 
 Faust V. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 15-146 
 
 Fay V. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 12-641 
 
 Feely, New York & New England R. Co. v. (Mass.) 2-103 
 
 Felska v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. (N. Y.) 7-772, 
 
 Felton V Clarkson (Tenn.) 17-300 
 
 V. Harbeson (CCA.) 20-131 
 
 V. Holbrook (Ky.) 17-146 
 
 V. Horner (Tenn.) 8-79 
 
 V. McCreary-McClellan Live-Stock Co. (Ky . ) 21- 9 
 
38 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Felton f . Spiro (C. C. A.). 10-865 
 
 Fennell z/. Harris (Pa.) 9-709 
 
 Highland Ave., etc., Co. w. (Ala.) 6-777 
 
 Ferguson v. Chicago, M. & St. E. Co. (Iowa) 8-241 
 
 Plessy z/. (U.,S.) 4-27/ 
 
 St. Louis,!. M. &S. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 10-634 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 22-350 
 
 Fidelity & Casualty Co., Phillipsburg Horse Car Co. v. (Pa. ) 2-415 
 
 Fidelity J nsurance. Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. Norfolk & W. 
 
 'R.Co.(C.C.) 12-873 
 
 Fidelity Loan & Trust Co. v. Douglas (Iowa) 9-713 
 
 Fillette v. Lynchburg & D. Co. (N. Car.) 2-388 
 
 Fink, Moon v. (Ga.) 10-848 
 
 Finkeldey v. Omnibus Cable Co. (Cal.) 5-393 
 
 Finkelston v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Wis.) 6-193 
 
 Finnegan v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.) 21-725 
 
 Finney, Georgia, S. & F. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 10-446 
 
 First Methodist Episcopal Church of Leavenworth City, Kan., 
 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. z/. (CCA.) 19-538 
 
 First Nat. Bank of Grand Junction v. Wyman (Colo.) 23-277 
 
 Fischer v. Catawissa R. Co. (Pa.) 4-310 
 
 Fish V. Chicago, St. P. & K. C Ry. Co. (Minn.) 23-409 
 
 Fisher, Kansas City & S. W. R. Co. v. (Kan. ) 3-11 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Ind.) 6-782, 785 
 
 V. Paxson (Pa.) 8-516 
 
 V. West Virginia & P. R. Co. (W. Va.) 4-86 
 
 FitchburgR. Co., Boyden v. (Vt.) 10-523 
 
 Doyle V. (Mass.) 5-257 
 
 Dyet V. (Mass.) 11-473 
 
 Jeffris V. (Wis.) 4-608 
 
 Kidder v. (Mass.) 3-453 
 
 Murray z*. (Mass.) 3-445 
 
 Swift River Co. z/. (Mass.) 8-512 
 
 Fitzgerald v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y. ) 9-434 
 
 Fitzgibbon v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 14-270 
 
 Flaherty v. Harrison (Wis.) 10-176 
 
 Flanagan, North Hudson County R. Co. z-. (N. J.) 1-265 
 
 V. People's Pass. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-268 
 
 V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. (Pa.) 8-119 
 
 Fleetwood, Railroad Co. v. (Ga.) 5-694 
 
 Fleishman v. Neversink Mountain R. Co. (Pa.) 4-261 
 
 V. Railroad Co. (Pa.) 5-717 
 
 Fleming z*. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Tenn.) 20-549 
 
 Fletcher v. Baltimore & P. R. Co. (U. S.) 9-229 
 
 Flewelling v. Lewiston & A. H. R. Co. (Me.) 6-501 
 
 Flint & P. M. R. Co., Buckley v. (Mich.) 15- 1 
 
 Hengstler Z). (Mich.) 20-707 
 
 Jacob V. (Mich.) 2-258, 260, 301, 383 
 
 Jarvis v. (Mich.) ll-ZVl 
 
 Jones V. (Mich.) 21-904 
 
 Flippin V. Kimball (CCA.) 11-256 
 
 Florence E. D. & W. V. R. Co. v. Lilley (Kan.) 3-25, 31 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Burney (Ga.^ .' 6-543 
 
 Daniels z/. (S. Car. ) 23-107 
 
 Davis V. (S. Car. ) 5-324 
 
 V. Foxworth (Fla.) 13-469 
 
 Garrick v. (S. Car. ) 13-541 
 
 Gillman v. (S. Car. ) 12-125 
 
 V. Lucas (Ga.) 16-818 
 
 Lynch v. (Ga.) 22-477 
 
 V. Mooney (Fla.) 12-721 
 
 Morris v. (Fla.) 22-559 
 
 z/. OcalaSt. & S. R. Co. (Fla.) 7-686 
 
 Richardson v. (S. Car.) 15-575 
 
 V. Rudulph (Ga.) 21- 6 
 
TABLE OF CASES 39 
 
 Florida Cent., etc., R. Co., Pitts v. (Ga.) 8-762 
 
 Florida, etc., R.'Co. v. Williams (Fla.) S-696, 709, 710, 719 
 
 Floyd V. Paducah Railway & Light Co. (Ky.) 23-167 
 
 Floytrup v. Boston & Maine R. Co. (Mass.) 2-273 
 
 Fluhrer V. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 17-463, 18-153 
 
 Flynn v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) '. 8-691 
 
 Foley V. Brunswick Traction Co. (N. J.) 23-621 
 
 Comer v. (Ga.) S-2S0 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. (Colo.) 1-62 
 
 Foote, Edwards v. (Mich.) 23-812 
 
 Merritt v. (Mich.) 23-43 
 
 Forbes, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. (Ark.) '. 6-788 
 
 Ford V. Chicagro, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 11-489 
 
 z;. Delta & Pine Land Co. (U. S.) 6-395 
 
 V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. (Ark.) 15-142 
 
 Fordyce v. Edwards (Ark. ) 11-521 
 
 Fullerton v. (Mo.) 2-279, 282, 10-729 
 
 Foreman v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 17-246 
 
 Forest County, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. (Wis.) 6-796 
 
 Forrest v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. (Pa.) 4-256 
 
 Forrester, Georgia R. & B. Co. v. (Ga.) 2-648 
 
 Forshee, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 18-467 
 
 Forsythe, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ky.).. 23-51 
 
 Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. f. (U. S.) 1-487 
 
 Ft. Madison St. Ry. Co., Snyder v. (Iowa) 11-53 
 
 Ft. Scott, W. & W. R. Co. V. Sparks (Kan.) 2-110, 157 
 
 Ft. St. Union Depot Co. v. Peninsular Stove Co. (Mich.) 3-30 
 
 Ft. Wayne & B. I. R. Co., Laethem z^. (Mich.) 1-259, 274 
 
 McCIellan v. (Mich.) 1-266, 268 
 
 Ft. Wayne & E. R. Co., Kingston v. (Mich.) 9-259 
 
 Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co., Ftson v. (Mich.) 5-718 
 
 Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Cushman (Tex.) 14-259 
 
 V. Hyatt (Tex ) . . . 3-397 
 
 V. Wood (Tex.) 2-542 
 
 Ft. Worth&R. G.Ry. Co., Gulf, C. & S. F. R.Co.z*. (Tex.),.. 3-30, 95, 97 
 
 Ft. Worth Ice Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & T. R. Co. (Tex.) 3-169 
 
 Foss V. Old Colony R. Co. (Mass.) 11-41 
 
 Foster z;. Chicago, R. I. & T. R. Co. (Tex.) 3- 1 
 
 V. London, Chatham & Dover R. Co. (Bug.) 1-717 
 
 Foulks, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 23-664 
 
 Fowler, Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 11-860 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. (Tex.) 3-424 
 
 St. Louis. O. H; & C. R. Co. v. (Mo.) 10-405 
 
 Fowlks V. Southern Ry. Co. ( Va.) 14-250 
 
 Fox V. Hartford & W. H. H. R. Co. (Conn.) ... 10-456 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. (Neb.) 12-863 
 
 V. Oakland Cousol. St. R. Co. (Cal.) 9-825 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 18-198 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. (Ohio) 21-690 
 
 Foyw. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Minn.) 2-646 
 
 Frankford S. P. C. Pass. R. Co., Kraut v. (Pa.) 1-292 
 
 Lottz/.(Pa.) 1-68 
 
 Frankford, etc., R. Co. v. Philadelphia (Pa.) 4-265 
 
 Frazier, Chicago, Kansas & W. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 2-206 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. (Tex.) , 3-381, 4-664 
 
 Freeman v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Tenn.) 22-49 
 
 Long z/. (N. Car.) 1-97 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 15-89 
 
 Freiday v. Sioux City R. T. Co. (Iowa) : 1-408 
 
 Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley R. Co. v. French (Neb.) . . . 4-365 
 
 Heumphreusz/. (S. Dak.) 2-546 
 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. Harlin (Neb.) .8-766, 767 
 
 z/. Root (Neb.) 8-754 
 
 V. Waters (Neb.) 8-753 
 
 French, Fremont, F. & M. V. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 4-365 
 
40 ^ TABLE OF CASES 
 
 French, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 3-434, 440 
 
 Friel, Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 8-126 
 
 Friend, Kimball w. ( Va. ) 8-451 
 
 Fries v. Wheeling & L,. E. R. Co. (Ohio) 6-489 
 
 Fritz V. Detroit City R. Co. (Mich.) 1-265 
 
 Frost, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex.) .3-422, 423 
 
 Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. (U. S. ) 5-707 
 
 Frostburg Mining Co. v. Cumberland & Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 ( Md. ) 2-568 
 
 Fuller V. Lake Shore & M. S. K. Co. (Mich>) 3-589 
 
 Fullerton v. Fordyce (Mo. ) 2-279, 282, 10-729 
 
 Fulmore v. St. I*aul City Ry. Co. (Minn.) 11-636 
 
 Fulton V. Bullard (CCA.) 14-547 
 
 Funk V. Traction Co. (Pa.) 5-715 
 
 Gableraan, Louis J., jr., z*. Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Rail- 
 way Company (U. S.). 20-505 
 
 Gage V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Miss.) 8-377 
 
 Gahagan v. Boston & M. R. H. (N. H.) 23-141 
 
 Gaines, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 5-226 
 
 Gainesville, J. & S. R. Co. v. Edmonson (Ga.) 10-154 
 
 Galbraith v. West End St. R. Co. (Mass.) 3-628 
 
 Galesburg & G. E. R. Co. v. Milroy (111. ) 19-277 
 
 Galey, Chicago & Southwestern R. Co. v. (Ind.) 3-234 
 
 Gallagher, Hedding w. (N. H. ) 17-192 
 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. Bohan (Tex. Civ. App.) 12-490 
 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Adams (Tex.) 20-274 
 
 Bonnet v. (Tex. ) 3-437 
 
 V. Davis (Tex.) 12-832 
 
 z/. Gormley (Tex.) 9-468 
 
 ■ V. Hertzig (Tex, Civ. App.) 12-846 
 
 V. Hunt & Gray (Tex.) 2-731 
 
 Jackson v. (Tex. ) 8-236 
 
 V. Kieff (Tex. ) 20-238 
 
 McCray v. (Tex.) 3-276 
 
 V. Nass (Tex.) 20-306 
 
 Norwood V. (Tex ) 3-395 
 
 V. State (Tex.) 3-449 
 
 V. Zantzinger (Tex.) 13-840, 16-679 
 
 Galveston & W. R. Co. v. City of Galveston (Tex.) 7-72 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. City of Galveston (Tex.) 7-779 
 
 Gamraagez/. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. (Ga.) 5-709 
 
 Gannon v New Orleans City, etc., R. Co. (La.) 6-792 
 
 Gans, St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 21-498 
 
 Garbutt, Railey v. (Ga . ) 20-211 
 
 Gardiner, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) . 6-534 
 
 Gardner, New Jersey Traction Co. v. (N. J.) 2-259 
 
 New Jersey Traction Co. v. (N. J. ) 9-843 
 
 I'. New Orleans <S N. B. R. Co. (Miss.) 21-865 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car. ) 20- 82 
 
 V. Waycross, etc., R. Co. (Ga.) S-694 
 
 Garland v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga. ) 18-759 
 
 Garner v. Trumbull (C. C. A.) 15-589 
 
 Garrett v. Lake Roland Elevated R. Co. (Md.) 1-385 
 
 Port Blakely Mill Co. w. (C. C. A,) .'. .' ' 16-363 
 
 z;. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) " 18-529 
 
 Garrick v.. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. (S. Car.) ...... 13-541 
 
 Garthright, Richmond R., etc., Co. v. (Va. ) 4-257, 263, 264 
 
 Gassett, Alabama Midland R. Co. v. (Ga. ) 5-607 
 
 Gate City Co-op. Grocery Co , St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.).. 23-875 
 
 Gaulden v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co. (La.) 23-909 
 
 Gavigan v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. (Mich.) ..'.'.'. 5-523 
 
 Geist, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. (Neb.) . . . ■. \\ 5-421 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Neb.) \ 22-364 
 
 Gentry, Evansville Street R. Co. z/. (Ind.) 5-SOO 
 
 Gentry, Texas «& P. R. Co. v. (U.S.) 4-559 
 
TABLE OF CASES 41 
 
 Georges. Mobile, etc., R. Co. (Ala.) 4-2S7, 258 
 
 Railroad Co. v. (Ala.) S-708 
 
 V. Washington County R. Co. (Me.) 15-850 
 
 Georgia & A. Ry. Co. v. Pound (Ga.) 17-398 
 
 V. Rawson (Ga.) .' 19-463 
 
 Georgia, C. & N. Ry. Co., Cooper v. (S. Car.) 16-12, 22-667 
 
 V. Watkins (Ga.) 3-429 
 
 Wolff z/. (Ga.)... 1-^64 
 
 , Georgia, Hennington v. (U. S. ) 4-488 
 
 Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., Banks v. (Ga.) 20-225 
 
 V. Churchill (Ga.) 21-17 
 
 City Council of Augusta z/. (Ga.) 7-384 
 
 V. Clarke (Ga.) 5-219 
 
 V. Clary (Ga.) 11-856 
 
 Cromer v. (Ga.) 12-318 
 
 V. Cromer (Ga.) 12-318 
 
 V. Forrester (Ga.) 2-648 
 
 Grady v. (Ga.) 20-400 
 
 Johnson v. (Ga.) 16- 89 
 
 ». Keating (Ga.) 5-331 
 
 Pennsylvania Steel Co. Z). (Ga. ) 2-685 
 
 Phillips z/. (Ga.) 2-110 
 
 V. Phillips (Ga.). 2-473 
 
 Smith V. (Ga.) 21-20 
 
 Strom V. (Ga.) 13-849 
 
 Georgia R. Co., American National Bank v. (Ga.) 2-618 
 
 V. Johnson (Ga.) 21-810 
 
 Kerr v. (Ga.) 14-837 
 
 ' Worlds z/. (Ga.) 5-514 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Bohler (Ga.) 8-766, 767 
 
 Killian v. (Ga.)...'. 5-694, 695, 709 
 
 McElroy v. (Ga.) 5-697 
 
 V. Richmond (Ga. ) 5-694, 707 
 
 Georgia S. & F. Ry. Co. v. Barton (Ga.) 10-446 
 
 v. Finney (Ga.) 10-446 
 
 Hicks ». (Ga.) 14-279 
 
 Mclver z/. (Ga.) 15-703 
 
 V. Mclver (Ga. ) 15-703 
 
 V. Sanders (Ga.) 18-206 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Equipment Co. (Ga.) 15-295 
 
 V. Wisenbaker (Ga.) 22-186 
 
 Germain Fruit Co. v. California S. R. Co. (Cal.) 22-362 
 
 Gibbons v. Wisconsin Valley R. Co. (Wis.) 5-323 
 
 Gibson, Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 5-441 
 
 Missouri Pac. K. Co. v. (Kan.) 3-494 
 
 Gideonsen v. Union Depot Co. (Mo. ) 2-388 
 
 Gidley, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 13-214 
 
 Gieselman, International & G. N. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-446 
 
 G. I.: etc., R. Co., Adams v. (S. Dak.) 8-765 
 
 Gilbert v. Erie R. Co. (C. C. A.) 18-15 
 
 Gill, St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. z;. (U. S.) 2-63 
 
 Gillan v. Minneapolis St. P. & S. Ste. Marie R. Co. (Wis.) 2-145 
 
 Gillett, Walker z/. (Kao.) 10-140 
 
 Gillin V. Patten & S. R. Co. (Me.) 16-508 
 
 Gilman v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.) 8-478 
 
 V. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. (S. Car.) 12-125 
 
 Gilton V. Hestonville, N. & P. P. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-292 
 
 Ginley. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Tenu.) 11-443 
 
 Girton V. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (Pa.) 21-157 
 
 Girvin ». New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 20-547 
 
 Glade Creek & R. R. Co., Kay Z'. (W. Va.) 17-695 
 
 Gladson v. State of Minnesota (U. S.) 7-558 
 
 Glenn v. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (N. Car.) 21-585 
 
 Glenny, Chicago* A. R. Co. z/.' (111.) 12-839 
 
 Glover v. Charleston & S. Ry . Co. (S. Car. ) 17-102 
 
43 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Glover, Memphis & C. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 22-70S 
 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., Limited, w. (C. C. A.) 21-272 
 
 Savannah, F. & W. Ey. Co. v. (Ga.) 13-566 
 
 V. Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. (Ga. ) 13-566 
 
 Glynn v. Central R. R. of New Jersey (Mass.) 17-482 
 
 Gobleigh v. Grand Trunk R. Co. (Vt.) 5-44S 
 
 Gochenour, Union Pac. R. Co. v. (Kan. ) 3-288 
 
 Godbout V. St. Paul Union Depot Co. (Minn.) 16-821 
 
 Goddard v. Boston & M. W. Co. (Mass.) 21-423 
 
 Godola, East Omaha St. R. Co. v. (Neb.) . . . .' 7-300 
 
 Goff, Chicago P. & M. R. Co. v. (111.) 3-136 
 
 Goldberg- v. Ahnapee & W. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 17-65 
 
 Goodhart v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 5-364- 
 
 Goodin, Atlantic City R. Co. v. (N. J.) 14-291 
 
 Goodloe V. Memphis & C. R. Co. (Ala.) 2-444 
 
 Goodrich z;. Burlington, C. R: & N. R. Co. (Iowa) 3-620, 10-719 
 
 V. Kansas City, C. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo ) 19-137 
 
 Good well V. Montana Cent. R. Co. (Mont.) 4-419 
 
 Goodwin, Union Stock- Yards Co. v. (Neb.) 12-502 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 12-219 
 
 Goorin v. AUe'gheny Traction Co. (Pa.) '. 9-864 
 
 Gordon Heights Ry. Co., Williamson v. (Del. ) 14-809 
 
 Gordon, Mayor, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Mo.) 19-561 
 
 Gorg-as v. Railroad Co. (Pa.) 3-131 
 
 Grade Crossing Comr's of City of Buffalo, In re (N. Y.) . 21-746 
 
 Gradert v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 20-1 18 
 
 Grady v. Georgia R. R. & Banking Co. (Ga ) 20-400 
 
 Graff V. Detroit Citizens' Street R. Co. (Mich.) , 5-447 
 
 Graham, Boston & M. R. R. v. (Mass.) "22-553 
 
 Graham, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 3-433 
 
 Graham v. McNeill (Wash.) .' 12-149 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.) 4-256, 260 
 
 Grand Ave. Ry. Co., Ruckert v. (Mo.) 22-641 
 
 Grand Island & W. C. R. Co. v. Swinbank (Neb. ) 9-870 
 
 Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Butler (U. S ) . . . ; 1-594 
 
 Grand Tower & Cape Girardeau Co. v. Wolton (111. ) 1-686 
 
 Grand Trunk Ry. Co., Bledsoe v. (Mich.) 20-927 
 
 Boothby z/. (N. H.) 3-65S 
 
 Bradley v. (Mich. ) 2-281 
 
 Casey z;. (N. H.) 16-361 
 
 V. Central Vermont R. Co. (Vt.) 11-693, 12-865 
 
 Costello V. (N. H.) 19-386 
 
 V. Cumberland County (Me.) 3-43+ 
 
 Gobleigh v. (Vt.) 5-445 
 
 Kilpatrick v. (Vt.) 20-300 
 
 Trudell z/. (Mich.) 20-316 
 
 Wheeler z;. (N. H.) 23-84 
 
 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada, Baldwin z;. (Mich.) ' 23-117 
 
 V. Coblei^h (CCA.) ' .' 7-769 
 
 Graney v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. (Mo.). ' 8-187 
 
 Granite State Fire Ins. Co., Omaha & R. V. Ry. Go. v. (Neb.) 14-140 
 
 Grant, Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. (111.) .■ ".'.'.'. ii-823 
 
 z/. Los Angeles, etc., R. Co. (Cal.) "7I779 730 
 
 Grant St. Electric R. Co., Vasele v. (Wash.) 9-75 
 
 Graven v. MacLeod (C. C A.) ....."...! 14-305 
 
 Graves, Cincinnati, N, O. & T. P. Ry. Co.'s Receiver Z'. (Ky.).." 16-177 
 
 Gray v. Boston & M. R. R. (Mass.) " 8_48l 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (111.) .'.'..'.'.'.'." 21-252 
 
 Cleveland, C, C & St. L. R. Co. z/. (Ind.) " 8-48 
 
 Gray bill v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) .'..".'..".." 20-178 
 
 Great Eastern R. Co., Meux v. (Eng. ) 2-464 
 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. , Ausk v. (N. Dak.) .".."....".". 21-851 
 
 Baker v. (Minn.) 2 '-396 
 
 Baldwins. (Minn.) i...' 19-202 
 
 Barrett v. (Minn.) 12-742 
 
TABLE OF CASES '43 
 
 Great Northern Ry. Co., Baxter v. (Minn. ) 14-85 
 
 Blomquist v. (Minn.) 4-439 
 
 Brennau Lumber Co. v. (Minn.) 15-478 
 
 Cameron v. (N. Dak.) 12-520 
 
 V. City of St. Paul (Minn.) 1-12 
 
 Coulter V. (N. Dak.) 4-336 
 
 Crandall f. (Minn.) 21-388 
 
 Czech V. (Minn.) 7-374 
 
 Haug-». (N. Dak.) 12- 25 
 
 Hillary v. (Minn.) 4-51 
 
 Hooper ». (Minn.) 19- 1 
 
 Jenson v. (Minn.) 11-253 
 
 Johnson v. (N. Dak.) 11- 76 
 
 V. Kasischke (CCA.) 19-406 
 
 V. Keyes (N. Dak.) 13-128 
 
 Koralewski ». (Minn.) 23-918 
 
 Kreuzer v. (Minn.) 21-912 
 
 Lemery v. (Minn. ) 21-257 
 
 McKibbin z;. (Minn.) 16-155 
 
 McTavish v. (N. Dak.) 14-59 
 
 Mareng-o v. (Minn.) 23-660 
 
 Merritt v, (Minn.) 19-775 
 
 Minneapolis Sash & Door Co. v. (Minn.) 21-750 
 
 Munch V. (Minn.) 12-586 
 
 Olson V. (Minn. ) 7-241 
 
 O'Neill z/. (Minn.) 17-415 
 
 V. Palmer (Eng.) 2- 99 
 
 . Pearsall v. (U. S.) 3-503 
 
 Schmidt v. (Minn.) 21-95 
 
 Sloniker v. (Minn.) 13-819 
 
 Sours V. (Minn.) 23-457 
 
 Starr v. (Minn.) 7-778 
 
 Steenerson z/. (Minn.) 8-559 
 
 Thompson v. (Minn.) 19-421 
 
 Turner v. (Wash.) : .5-238 
 
 Village ofWayzata t;. (Minn.) 7-360 
 
 Williams v. (Minn. ) 7-230 
 
 Wolf z/. (Minn.) 12-619 
 
 Young- z/. (N. Dak.) 14-72 
 
 Green, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan.) 6-786 
 
 V. Chicago & W. M. R. Co. (Mich.) 6-317 
 
 V. City & Suburban R. Co. (Md.) 1-198 
 
 Z'. Coast Line R. Co. (Ga.) 4-150 
 
 East Tennessee. V. & G. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 2-299 
 
 V. Erie R. Co. (N. J.) 19-308 
 
 V. South-Bound R. Co. (Ga.) 21-664 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.) 13-511, 21- 26 
 
 Walker v. (Kan.) 14-366 
 
 Green County, Carpenter v. (Ala.) 23-191 
 
 Greenlee v. Southern Ry. Co. N. Car.) 11-45 
 
 Greenthal, St. Louis I. M. & Sr R. Co. ». (U. S.) 6-261 
 
 Greenville & H. Ry: Co., Attorney General, Morris & Cumings 
 
 Dredging Co. z/ (N. J.) 21-728 
 
 Greenwood, etc., R. Co. v. Strang (U. S ) 6-788 
 
 Gregg V. Mercantile Trust Co. (C C A.) 22-484 
 
 Gregory v. Chicago, etc. , R. Co. ( Iowa) 6-773. 775 
 
 Grieve v. Dlinois Cent. R. Co. (Iowa) ; 9-669 
 
 GrifBn z^. Brunswick & N. R. Co. (Ga.) ■ 21-808 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. w (111.) 17-767 
 
 V. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. (Fla.). . . . ; 1-64 
 
 Roy V. (Wash. ) 22-596 
 
 Griffith, Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. (Ark.) 9-846 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. (Neb.) .3-167, 168 
 
 Grimmelman, Union Pac. R. Co. v. (Iowa) 8-321 
 
 Grimmer v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.), 3-609 
 
44 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Groeck, Southern Pac. E. Co. v. (IT. S.) 1-593, 617 
 
 Groesbeck v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Wis.) 5-177 
 
 Gross V. Electric Traction Co (Pa.) ,^i« 
 
 Illinois Cent R. Co. v. (Miss.) , fe? 
 
 Groves, Chicag-o, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.). ■ 3-*=^ 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Okla.) c f^? 
 
 Grunst v. Chicago & W. M. R. Co. (Mich.) • • =-373 
 
 Guarantee Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. Philadelphia, R. & N. E. 
 
 R. Co. ( Conn . ) 12-872 
 
 Guhl V. Whitcomb (Wis.) rt,^ 
 
 Guiun V. Ohio River R. Co. (W. Va.) o 'T»I 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., Amory Mfg. Co. v. (Tex.) 8-472 
 
 V. Bolton .(Ind. Ter.) 16-130 
 
 V. Grossman (Tex.) 3-425 
 
 V. Edloff (Tex.) 3-453 
 
 V. Ellis (U. S.) 6-752 
 
 V. Eowler (Tex.) 3-424 
 
 V. Frost (Tex.). .-. 3-422, 423 
 
 V. Ft. Worth & R. G. R. Co. (Tex.) '. 3-30, 95, 97 
 
 V. Hayter (Tex.) 18-46 
 
 V. Hodges (Tex.) 2-574 
 
 V. Johnson (Tex.) 11-291, 14-82, 15-664 
 
 V. Kelly (Tex.) 3-439 
 
 V. Moorman (Tex. Civ. App.) 11-157 
 
 V. Oakes (Tex.) 19-395 
 
 V. Pendery (Tex.) 2-301, 318, 319 
 
 V. Reagan (Tex.) ; 3-427, 433 
 
 V. Richards (Tex. ) 1-668 
 
 V. Smith (Tex. ) 2-222 
 
 V. Sparger (Tex. ) 2-161 
 
 V. Stanley (Tenn.) 2-480 
 
 V. Warlick (Ind. Ter.) 4-32 
 
 V. Yates (Tex.) 2-541 
 
 z/. Younger (Tex.) 8-84 
 
 Gulf & Ship Island R., Co. v. Hewes (U. S ) 23-510 
 
 Gulf «& S. I. R. Co., Mississippi Railroad Commission v. (Miss.'.. 21-864 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Jones (lud.) .* 5-693, 695 
 
 V. Milam County (Tex.) 7-780 
 
 z/. Rowland (Tex.) 6-775 
 
 Terry v. (Tex.) 5-714, 715 
 
 V. Warner (Tex.) 4-262 
 
 Gumbel v. Illinois Cent. K. Co. (La.) 4-452 
 
 Gunn V. New York, N. H. & H. R Co. (Mass.) 14-830 
 
 V. Ohio River R. Co. (W. Va.) 6-275 
 
 Gusraan v. Caffery Cent. Refinery & R. Co., Limited, (La.) 8-463 
 
 Gustafson v. Hamm (Minn.) 1-43, 45, 46 
 
 Gvvyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. Carolina Cent.' R. Co. (N. Car.) 21-429 
 
 Guy, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. (Ky.) 6-774 
 
 Haber, Missouri, K. & T. Ry . Co. v. (Kan.) ■. 3-471 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. z/. (U. S.) 13-37 
 
 Hafiner v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (Va.) 12-556 
 
 Hague, Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 4-476 
 
 Haight, Consolidated Traction Co. v. (N. J. ) 8-90 
 
 Hale, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 10-73 
 
 V. New York & N. E. R. Co. (Mass.) 16-535 
 
 Haley v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. (Ala.) 7-770, 780 
 
 Hall V. Cedar Rapids & M. C. by. Co. (Iowa) 23-316 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 18- 26 
 
 Louisville & W. R. Co. v. (Ga. ) 14- 7 
 
 z/. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (W. Va.) 8-632 
 
 V. Ogden City St. R. Co. (Utah) 4-77 
 
 Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. (Ga.) 14-229 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Tenn ) 23-276 
 
 Hallett V. Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C. A ) 22-209 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 22-446 
 
TABLE OF CASES 45 
 
 Halton V. Southern Ey. Co. (N. Car.) 19-776 
 
 Halvert, Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. K. Co. v. (111.) lS-180 
 
 Hamilton v. Chicag-o, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Iowa) 8-526 
 
 Massachusetts Loan & Trust Co. w. (C. C. A.) 11-771 
 
 V. Pittsburg-, B. & L. E. R. Co. (Pa.) 13-376 
 
 V. Pittsburg & L,. E. R. Co. (Pa.) 10- 70 
 
 V. West End R. Co. (Mass.) 2-221 
 
 Hamlet Hay Co., New York, C. & St. Iv. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 9-291 
 
 Hamlin v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 4-S46 
 
 Hamm, Gustafson v. (Minn.) 1-43, 45, 46 
 
 Hammond & B. I. R. Co., Lyon v. (111.) 9-337 
 
 Hammond, Nashville C. & St. L. R. Co, v. (Ala.) 1-683, 716, 718 
 
 Hampton v. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (N. Car.) 7-SlO 
 
 Handley v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Kan.) 16-674 
 
 Haner v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Idaho) 19-628 
 
 Hanks v. Bridg-man (Eng-.) 3-6S6 
 
 Hanlon v. Union Pac. R. Co. (Neb.) 1-701 
 
 Hanna, Southern Railway in Kentucky n. (Ky.) 1S-S24 
 
 Hannibal* St. J. R. Co. z-. Totman (Mo.) 16-695 
 
 Haunigan v. Lehigh & H. R. Ry. Co. (N. Y.) 12-605 
 
 Hansley v. Jamesville & Washington R. Co. (N. Car.) 2-26 
 
 Hanson v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.) 12-404 
 
 Hanlon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Iowa) 16-101 
 
 Harada, Southern Pac. Co. z;. (CCA.) 22-375 
 
 Harbeson, Felton z;. (C C. A.) 20-131 
 
 Harbin, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 18-692 
 
 Harby, Texas & P. Ry. Co. z/. (C C A.) 15-737 
 
 Hardage, Atlanta Consolidated St. R, Co. z/. (Ga.) 2-158, 162 
 
 Harden v. North Carolina R. Co. (N. Car.) 23-895 
 
 V. Chattanooga Southern R. Co. (Ga.) 22-632 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. (Ga.) 10-250 
 
 Harding v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Iowa) 6-615 
 
 V. Lvun & B. R. Co. (Mass. ) 12-865 . 
 
 San Antonio & A. R. Co. v. (Tex. ) 3-389 
 
 Hardison v. Atlantic & N. C R. Co. (N. Car.) 11-848 
 
 Hardy v. Alaba:ma & V. R. Co. (Miss.) , 3-655 
 
 V. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 12-565 
 
 Delaware L. & W. R. Co. v. (N. J.) 4-577 
 
 V. Milwaukee St. R. Co. (Wis. ) 2-223, 224, 389 
 
 Harkins v. Pittsburg, A. & M. Traction Co. (Pa.) 3-302, 430 
 
 Harlin, Fremont, etc. , R. Co. v. (Neb.) 8-766, 767 
 
 Harper v, Barnard (Iowa) 5-697 
 
 V. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa.) 4-257 
 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 21- 77 
 
 Harrell, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 11-859 
 
 Harrellson v. Kansas City & A. R. Co. (Mo.) 16-848 
 
 Harriman v. Pullman Palace-Car Co. (C. C. A.) 10-277 
 
 Harrington, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (111. ) 23-429 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Tenn.) 17-135 
 
 Harris, Boyd v. (Pa.) 4-472 
 
 Pennell z/. (Pa.).. 9-709 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 21-119 
 
 Schimpf V. (Pa. ) 11-470 
 
 United States v. (U. S.) 6-773, 17-582 
 
 Harrisburg & M. Electric R. Co., Northern Cent. R. Co. v. (Pa.).. 6-151 
 
 Harrisburg& p. R. Co., Keller v. (Pa.) 3-130 
 
 Harrisburg, etc., R. Co., Harrisburg, etc.. Turnpike Road Co. v. 
 
 (Pa.) 6-780 
 
 Harrisburg Traction Co., Kepner v. (Pa.) . . ■ 8-493 
 
 Harrisburg, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Harrisburg, etc., R. Co. 
 
 ( Pa. ) 6-780 
 
 Harrison, B'laherty Z'. (Wis.) 10-176 
 
 V. Mercantile Co. (C C A.) 22-484 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 13-270 
 
 V. Sutter St. Ry. Co. (Cal.) 8-200,23-809 
 
46 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Harrison, Terre Haute & I. R. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) lS-272 
 
 Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. 
 
 Paul Railway Company (U. S.) 16-779 
 
 Hartford & W. H. H. R. Co., Fox v. (Conn.) 10-456 
 
 Hartwell, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 4-SSO 
 
 Harvey, Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. (Ga.) 10-77 
 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co. (Miss.) 20-SSl 
 
 Hassen v. Nassau Electric R. Co. (N. Y.) 12- 1 
 
 Hasting-s v. Montana Union R. Co. (Mont. ) 5-533 
 
 Hathaway v. Detroit, T. & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 19-714 
 
 Haug- V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (N. Dak.) 12- 25 • 
 
 Haun V. Rio Grande W. Rv. Co. (Utah) ; 19-370 
 
 Haus V. Jefferson, M. & I. R. Co. (Ind.) 1-27 
 
 Hausman, Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) . . 17-237 
 
 Hauss V. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. (CCA.) 22-864 
 
 Haver v. Central R. Co. (N. J. App.) 12-261 
 
 V. Central R. Co. of New Jersey (N. J.) 17-490 
 
 Hawkins, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-213, 380 
 
 Hayes v. Southern Pac. Co. (Utah) 11-419 
 
 Hays, Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan. App.) 11-654 
 
 Tacoma Ry. & Power Co. z/. (C C A.) 23-58 
 
 Hayter, Gulf, C & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 18-46 
 
 Head, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 19-302 
 
 Hearn v. New York, P. & N. R. Co. (Md.) 15-54 
 
 Hebert v. Louisiana W. R. R. (La.) 20-87 
 
 Heck, tvouisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. (Ind. ) 11-382 
 
 Hecker v. Oregon R. Co. (Ore. ) 23- 33 
 
 Heckle v. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.) 15-584 
 
 Hedding v. Gallagher (N. H.) 17-192 
 
 Hedge, St. Joseph & I. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 2-220, 300, 301, 382, 387, 444 
 
 Hedges v. West Shore R. Co. (N. Y. ) 5-647 
 
 Hedin v. City &. Suburban R. Co. (Ore.) 1-265, 276, 277 
 
 Heenan v. Bridgport Traction Co. (Conn.) 5-398 
 
 Heitman's Adm'r, Bergen County Traction Co. v. (1^. J. ) 11-286 
 
 Hellenthal, Baltimore & O. R. Co. z-. (C C. A.) 13-774 
 
 Heller v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co. (Mich.) 3-599 
 
 Helm V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 3-440 
 
 Helman v. Pittsburg, C. C & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ohio) 11-641 
 
 Helms, Baltimore Traction Co. v. (Md.) 6-651 
 
 Hemmi v. Chicago & G. W. R. Co. (Iowa) 8-547 
 
 Henavie v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 21-31 
 
 Henderson v. Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co. (Mich.) 10-812 
 
 Hendrian, Indiana, D. & W. Ry. Co. v. (111. ) 22-392 
 
 Hendrix v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ala.) 23-272 
 
 Hengstler z/. Flint & P. M. R. Co. (Mich.) .'.'.' 20-707 
 
 Henneberry, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (111.) 1-46 
 
 Hennen, Central Trust Co. of New York v. (C. C. A.) '.'.'.. 13-409 
 
 Hennessey, Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 16-515 
 
 Hennington v. Georgia (U. S.) 4-488 
 
 Henrie, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 6-790 
 
 Henry, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. (Kan.) 2-418 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 12-482 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Cd. v. (Ky.) .....'...'.!.." 11-405 
 
 Herbert, Lucas v. (Ind.) .'..'!. 7-729 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.) 11- 94 
 
 Herndon v. Southern R. Co. (C C A.) 8-765 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) .....'.'. .'.".'.' 23-464 
 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. (Ala.) ..'.'..'.". 7-124 
 
 Hernsheim v. Newport News, etc., Co. (Ky.) " 5-772 
 
 Hertert, Treasurer, z;. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa)!..... 21-672 
 Hertzig, Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.). ... " 12-846 
 Hestonville, M. & F. Pass. R. Co., City of Philadelphia z;. (Pa.).. 5-659 
 
 Gilton V. (Pa.) " i_292 
 
 Smedley z/. (Pa.) 9-649 
 
 Heumphreus v. Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley R. Co" 
 
 (S.Dak.) : 2-546 
 
TABLE OF CASES 47 
 
 Hewes, Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. v. (U. S.). 23-SlO 
 
 Heyward v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) 10-260 
 
 Hibernian Society, Ivake Roland, etc., R. Co. v. (Md.) 5-718 
 
 Hickey v. St. Paul City R. Co. (Minn.) 1-263 
 
 Washing-ton & G. R. Co. z/. (D. C.) 9-865 
 
 Hickman, H. W., Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. (U. S.) 23-493 
 
 Hickman v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (Mo.) , 15-375 
 
 Hicks, Atty. Gen., Askew v. Smith (Wis.) 20-694 
 
 Hicks V. Citizens' R. Co. (Mo.) 1-2SS, 262, 265, 276 
 
 V. Georg-iaS. & F. Ry. Co. (Ga.) 14-279 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 21-217 
 
 Higgins V. Southern R. Co. (Ga.) 5-694 
 
 Higsiinson, Smyth, Attorney General, v. (U. S.) 10- 1 
 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. Birmingham Railway & Electric 
 
 Co. (Ala.) 9-502 
 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. Robinson (Ala.) 19-357 
 
 Highland Ave. & Belt R. Co. v. Swope (Ala.) 13-856 
 
 Highland Ave., etc., Co. v. Fennell (Ala.) 6-778 
 
 Highland, etc., R. Co. v. Sampson (Ala.) 5-715, 717, 718, 719, 720 
 
 Hill, Comer z/. (Ga.) 11- 3 
 
 ». Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 8-229 
 
 Hillary v. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.) 4-51 
 
 Hilliard, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky.) S-S39 
 
 Hiltner, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 20-279 
 
 Hinchman v. Point Defiance R. Co. (Wash.) 4-265 
 
 Hinds, Shreveport & R. R. Val. Ry. Co. v. (La.) 13-325 
 
 Hine, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 14-382 
 
 Hinshaw v. Raleigh & A. A. L. R. Co. (N. Car.) 3-558 
 
 Hinton v. Eastern Ry. Co. of Minnesota (Minn.) 11-125 
 
 Hitizz'. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. (Wis.) 3-611 
 
 Hocker, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-522 
 
 Hodgensville & E. R. Co. v. Com. (Ky.) 3-656 
 
 Hodges V. Baltimore Union Pass. R. Co. (Md.). , 1-119 
 
 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-274 
 
 V. Kimball (CCA.) 19-755 
 
 V. Southern R. Co. (N. Car.) 8-46 
 
 Hoehn v. Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. (111.) 2-261, 383 
 
 Hoelsel v. Crescent City R. Co. (La.) 8-40 
 
 Hoffman v. King (N. Y.) 16-764 
 
 V. Union Pac. Rv. Co. (Kaa. App. ) 13-220 
 
 Hofstetter, Baltimore Trust & Guarantee Co. v. (CCA.) 10-783 
 
 Hogan V. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.) 3-571 
 
 Hoimark v. Consolidated Traction Co. (N. J. ) 9-380 
 
 Holbrook v. Evansville & T. H. R. Co. (Ga.) 23-597, 598 
 
 Felton V. (Ky.) 17-146 
 
 Holden, Kansas City P. & G. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 16-116 
 
 Philadelphia & B. C R. Co. v. (Md.) 22-192 
 
 V. Rutland R. Co. (Vt.) 21-168 
 
 Holiday, Mobile & O. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 23-9SS 
 
 Holland, Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 12-476 
 
 HoUaway v. Sioux City & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 17-363 
 
 HoUenbeck v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo. ) 3-350, 8-277 
 
 HoUoway v. Sioux City & P. R. Co. (Iowa) 10-306 
 
 Holman v. Union St. R. Co. of Saginaw (Mich.) 9-105 
 
 Holmes, Alabama & V. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 10-270 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Miss.) 10-270 
 
 Macon & I. S. Electric St. Ry. Co. z'. (Ga.) 12-385 
 
 Holsomback, Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 19-351 
 
 Holt V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.) 7-775 
 
 Holton, Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. (Ky.) ; 8-336 
 
 Homestead St. R. Co. v. Pittsburg & H. Electric St. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.) 1-97, 98 
 
 Hone, Consolidated Traction Co. w. (N. J. ) 5-679, 9-249 
 
 Honey, City of Aberdeen v. (Wash.) 1-163 
 
 Hood, Pittsburg, C & St. L. Ry. Co. w. (C C A. ) 15-648 
 
48 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Hood, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 19-166 
 
 Hooe, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 4-264 
 
 Louisville Southern R. Co. v. (Ky. ) 14-808 
 
 HookZ'. Chicag^o & A. R. Co. (Mo.) 3-447 
 
 - Vy Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 21-787 
 
 Hooper v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 19- 1 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 17-752 
 
 Hoover v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. ( W. Va. ) 13-573 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Ind. Ter.) 23-73 
 
 Hopkins, Bowes z/. (C. C. A.) 9-641 
 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. (Ala. ) 3-99 
 
 Hopson, Louisville, etc., R. Co. ». (Miss.) 4-256 
 
 Hord V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 23-756 
 
 Hornbeck, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 9-238 
 
 Home, Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. (Tenn.) 19-509 
 
 Horner, JFelton v. (Tenn.) 8-79 
 
 Horton v. Norwalk Tramway Co. (Conn.) 3-299 
 
 Hosea, Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. (Ind. ) 14-692 
 
 Hoskins, Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. v. (Ky.) 10-346, 11-832 
 
 Houchins' Adm'r, Norfolk & W. R. Co. t/. (Va.) 8-616 
 
 Houlihan, Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. (Ind.) 21-915 
 
 Housatonic R Co., Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. (N. Y.) 9-281 
 
 House, Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 4-261 
 
 Houston, Cent. A. & N. R. Co. v. Bollong (Ark.) 2-18 
 
 Brashear v. (La.) 2-185, 262, 293 
 
 Houston City Street R. Co. v. Richart (Tex.) 1-290, 291 
 
 Houston, EJ. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Runnels (Tex.) 12-80a 
 
 Houston & S. Ry. Co., Davis v. (La.) 22-751 
 
 Houston & Texas Cent. R. Co. z/. Davis (Tex.) 2-487 
 
 z/. Kelly (Tex.) 3-444 
 
 Lipscomb v. (Tex.) 23-401 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. of City of New York v. (Tex.) ... 13-149 
 
 V. Nixon (Tex.) 3-435 
 
 z/. O'Neal (Tex.) 12-374 
 
 V. Quill (Tex.) 12-736 
 
 V. Rowell (Tex.) 11-597 
 
 V. Rutherford (Tex.) 21-710 
 
 w. Smith (Tex.) 2-177 
 
 V. State (Tex. ) . , 3-449 
 
 Hovenden v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 6-778 
 
 Howard, Anderson v. (CCA.) 1-595 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 21- 15 
 
 Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. (U. S.) , 17-660 
 
 Clark p.. (C. C. A.) 13-743 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga. ) 18-758 
 
 Howell, Louisville, etc. , R. Co. v. (Ind. ) , 6-782 786 
 
 Hoyt V. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. (Mich.) 9-818 
 
 Hubbell, Crawford z;. (N. Y.) 1 13-92 
 
 Huber v. Brown (Wash.) 10-884 
 
 Huddleston, Cleveland, C, C & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ind.) . 7-553 
 
 Huff V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.) 17-762 
 
 Huffman f. Mich. Cent. R. Co. (Mich.) ..." S-542 
 
 St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 2-157, 162 
 
 Hughes, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. (Kan.). . . 2-248 
 
 V. Charleston & W. C Ry. Co. (Ga.) !!.'." 11-541 
 
 Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) '.\\ 11-541 
 
 V. Chicago & Alton R. Co. (Mo.) ' ' 2-284 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 12-560 
 
 Huidekoper, Robinson v. (Ga.) • 5-216 
 
 Humble, Emnla, Texas & Pacific Railway Companv v. (U. S ) 20-8''l 
 
 Humble, Texas & P. Ry. Co. z/. (CCA.) ' ". ' 17- §3^ 
 
 Humphreys v. Perry (U. S.) ' . 2_47'> 
 
 Hundley v. Louisville, N. & R. Co. (Ky.) \\\ 12-749 
 
 Hunt & Gray, Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio R. Co. v. 
 (Tex.) 2-731 
 
TABLE OF CASES 49 
 
 Hunt!'. Hurd (CCA.) 18-741 
 
 V. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. (Tex.) 2-734 
 
 Hunter v. Kansas City & M. R. & Bridge Co. (CCA.) 10-620 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-366 
 
 V. Montana Cent. Ry. Co. (Mont.) 16-615 
 
 Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. (Ky.) 17-204 
 
 V. Randolph (N. Car.) ' 22- 79 
 
 Huntington v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (C C A.) 14-817 
 
 Huntress v. Boston, etc., R. Co. (N. H) 4-2S7, 260 
 
 Huntting Elevator Company v. Bosworth, Receiver of the Chi- 
 cago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company, (U. S.) 19-651 
 
 Hurd, Boston & M. R. R. z;. (C C. A.) 21-674 
 
 Hunt z/. (C C A.) 18-741 
 
 Hurst V. Kansas City, P. & G. R. Co. (Mo.) 21-899 
 
 , St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 17-324 
 
 Hutcberson v. Louisville «& N. R. Co. (Ky.) 15-846 
 
 Hutchesou v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 18-293, 21-476 
 
 Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.) 5-714 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 20-700 
 
 Hutto V. South Bound R. Co. (S. Car. ) 22-724 
 
 Hyatt, Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 4-44 
 
 Fort "Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-397 
 
 Southern Pac. Co.' v. (Cal.) 20-576 
 
 Hygienic Plate-Ice Mfg. Co. v. Raleigh & Augusta Air-Line R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.) 18- 78 
 
 laquiuta v. Citizens' Traction Co. (Pa. ) 1-276 
 
 V. Traction Co. (Pa.) 5-717 
 
 Ihlenberg, Illinois Cent. R. Co. z/. (C C A.) 5-573 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Abernathey (Tenu.) 22-206 
 
 V. Arnola (Miss.) 20-945 
 
 V. Ashline (111.) 9-702 
 
 z/. Beebe (111.) 11-163 
 
 V. Bentz (CCA.) 18-540 
 
 V. Billington (Ky.) 2-109 
 
 Blank z/. (111.) 16- 6 
 
 V. Bogard (Miss. ) 18-410 
 
 V. Bolton (Tenn.) 9-868 
 
 Brown v. (Ky.) 6-772 
 
 Z). Brown (Ky.) . 16-827 
 
 V. Brown (Miss.) 19-681 
 
 V. Carter (111. ) 8-485 
 
 z/. City of Chicago (111.) 3-181 
 
 V. City of Kankakee (111.) 6-417 
 
 V. Coleman (Ky.). 19-285 
 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky.) 22-356, 23-326 
 
 V. Crockert (Miss.) 21-246 
 
 V. Davidson (C C. A.) 2-265, 7-715 
 
 V. Davis (Tenn.) ; 18-708 
 
 V. Foulks (111. ) 23-664 
 
 Freeman v. (Tenn.) 22- 49 
 
 Gage V. (Miss. ) 8-377 
 
 Grieve v. (Iowa) 9-669 
 
 V. Griffin (111.) 17-767 
 
 V. Gross (Miss. ) 10-356 
 
 Gumbel z-. (La.) 4-452 
 
 Hanlon v. (Iowa) 16-101 
 
 V. Harris (Miss.) 21-119 
 
 V. Hilliard (Ky.) 5-539 
 
 Holmes v. (Miss. ) 10-270 
 
 V. Ihlenberg (C C A.) 5-573 
 
 V. Jackson (Ky.) 23-677 
 
 Jones z/. (Miss.) 14-839 
 
 V. Jones (CCA.) 15-16 
 
 V. Josey (Ky.) 20-869 
 
 Keatley v. (Iowa) 9- 1 
 
 ID— 4 
 
so TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. King- (111.) 13-829 
 
 V. Kuhn (Tenn.) 22-324 
 
 V. Le Bla.nc (Miss.) 11-838, 12-877 
 
 McDonald v. (111.) 20-309 
 
 McDonnell v. (Iowa) 11-534 
 
 McVey v. (Miss.) 3-371 
 
 Meyer v. (111.) 12-694 
 
 Meyers v. (L,a.) 6-786 
 
 z/. Mizell (Ky.) 6-337 
 
 z;. Nail (Ky.) 16-828 
 
 Newberg-er Cotton Co. v. (Miss. ) 10-334 
 
 V. O'Connell (111.) 4-260 
 
 V. O'Connor (111.) 20-816 
 
 V. O'Keefe (111.) 9-611 
 
 V. Radford (Ky.) 23-124 
 
 Eothars v. (Miss.) 1S-18S 
 
 z/. Sanders (111.) 11-861 
 
 V. Southern Seating & Cabinet Co. (Tenn.) 18-276 
 
 V. State (Miss ) 1- 68 
 
 V. State of Illinois, Butler (U. S. ) 4-354 
 
 V. Stewart (Ky.) 21-874 
 
 V. Swisher (111.) 16-421 
 
 V. Thomas (Miss.) .'. 10-846 
 
 V. Tilman (Tenn.). 7-73S 
 
 V. Town of Normal (111.) 13-367 
 
 Ward V. (Ky.) 18-689 
 
 V. West (Ky. ) i 21-239 
 
 V. Wilson (Ky .) 21-644 
 
 Winston v. (Ky.) 23-454 
 
 Inabnett v. St. L,ouis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 20-590 
 
 Indiana, D. & W. Ry. Co. v. Hendrian (111.) 22-392 
 
 Indiana Horseshoe Co., Pittsburg, C. & St. X,. Ry. Co. v. (Ind.).. 18- 83 
 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. Bundy (Ind.) 14-660 
 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Robinson (Ind.) 23-181, 628 
 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. Dohn (Ind.) 14-543 
 
 V. Houlihan (Ind.) 21-915 
 
 Ingram, Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 1-64 
 
 Inhabitants of East Orange, Newark Pass. R. Co. v. (N. J.) 1-220 
 
 Inhabitants of Wayland v. County Com'rs of Middlesex (Mass.).. 5-705 
 
 Inhabitants of Worcester v. Western R. Corp. (Mass.) 5-705 
 
 Inness v. Boston, R. B. & L,. R. Co. (Mass.). ... 9-819 
 
 In re American Transp. & Nav. Co. (N. J.) 3-26 
 
 City of Buffalo (N. Y.) \',\\ 22-502 
 
 Erie R. Co. (N. J.) 21-695 
 
 Grade Crossing Com'rs of City of Buffalo (N. Y. ) . . . . 21-746 
 
 Jersey City & B. Ry. Co. (N. J.) \\ 23-281 
 
 Jones (N. Y. ) 1-349 
 
 Lloyd & Railway Act (Eng.) 5-698 
 
 Long Island R. Co. (N. Y.) *. ■■■."■.; 3_ 25 
 
 Lord Gerard & London & Northwestern R. Co. (Eng.). . .' 1-717 
 
 Mayo's Estate (S. Car.) " " ' 21- og 
 
 Metropolitan El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1340 
 
 Milford & M. R. R. (N. H.) '.'.'.'.'.'. 15-818 
 
 Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Nicolin (Minn.) ...... 13-44S 
 
 Opinion of the Justices (N. H.) \\ 3_447 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.) ' " ' 22-178 
 
 Railroad Crossing in Town of Old Orchard (Me.) ........ 10-870 
 
 Rhode Island Locomotive Works (Ohio) 1 S-^Q7 
 
 Shelton St. R. Co. (Conn.) ojofi 
 
 Southern Boulevard R. Co. (N. Y.) tJt^ 
 
 West Shore & O. Terminal Co. (N. J.) ."..'.'.'" 22-178 
 
 Inter-County St. R. Co., Lehigh Coal & N. Co. v. (Pa.) '. .' i-igg 286 
 
 Thomas v. (Pa. ) " iLifiq 
 
 International & G. N. R. Co. v. Best (Tex.) ...!!'.'.! 17-153 
 
 Branch v. (Tex.) ' " _" i2-378 
 
TABLE OF CASES 5l 
 
 International & G. N. E. Co. v. Gieselman (Tex. ) 3-446 
 
 V. L,ee (Tex. ) 3-434, 441 
 
 V. MulUken (Tex.) 2-224, 387, 444 
 
 z-. Satterwhite (Tex. Civ. App.) 12-214 
 
 V. Yarborough (Tex. App ) 7-733 
 
 International Trust Co. v. T. B. Townsend Brick & Contract- 
 ing: Co. (C. C. A.) lS-310 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alabama Midland R. Co. 
 
 (CCA.) 3-638 
 
 V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C. C. A.) S-703 
 
 V. Bellaire, etc., R. Co. (U. S.) 7-768 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 4-223 
 
 V. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. (U. S.) 4-223, 673 
 
 V. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. (CCA.) S-703 
 
 V. Clyde S. S. Co. (CCA.) 13-298 
 
 V. Clyde Steamship Company (U. S.) 20-751 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. t/. (C C. A.) S-700, 701, 702 
 
 East Tennessee, Virginia & Georg-ia' Railway Company 
 
 Z'. (U. S. ) 20-729 
 
 V. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (Pa.) S-702, 704 
 
 V. Northeastern R. Co. (S. Car.) 4-23S 
 
 Texas Pac. R. Co. z'. (U. S.) 5-86 
 
 V. Western & Atlantic Railroad Company (U. S.) 20-751 
 
 V. "Western & A. R. Co. (C C A.) 13-298 
 
 Intoxicating Iviquors, State v, (Me.) 20-511 
 
 lonnone v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.). 16-359 
 
 Iowa Cent. Ry. Co., Bach v. (Iowa) 20-161 
 
 Dairy v. (Iowa) 21-743 
 
 Enix V. (Iowa) 23-54 
 
 Wimber v. (Iowa) \ . . 23-476 
 
 Ireton, Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Kan. ) 23-843 
 
 Irwin, Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. (Ga.) 8-768 
 
 Iseman v. South Carolina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.) 11-219 
 
 Isley, Consolidated Traction Co. Z). (N. J.) 5-457 
 
 Jackson v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co. (Miss.) 14-392 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-216 
 
 V. Consolidated Traction Co. (N. J.) 5-697 
 
 V. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. (Tex.) 8-236 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky. ) 23-677 
 
 V. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. (Mo.) 19-99 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 4-437 
 
 V. Norfolk & Western R. Co. (W. Va.) 6-455 
 
 V. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. (La.) 18-444 
 
 Jackson County, Oregon & C. R. Co. v. (Ore.) 22- 98 
 
 Jackson Electric Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Lowry (Miss.) 23-103 
 
 Jackson L. & S. R. Co., State z'. (C C. A.) 1-597 
 
 Jackson & S. St. R. R. v. Simmons (Tenn.) 23-236 
 
 Western & 4, R. Co. v. (Ga.) 21-296 
 
 Jacksonville TerminaTCo., State, Lamar, Atty. Gen., v. (Fla.). . 16-727 
 
 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. v. Adams (Fla.) 3-25, 27, 28, 29, 30 
 
 Griffin z/. (Fla.) 1-64 
 
 Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) 9-S82 
 
 Jacob V. Flint & P. M. R. Co. (Mich.) 2-258, 260, 301, 383 
 
 Jacobson, Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railway Company v. 
 
 (U. S.) 19-634 
 
 Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. (Minn.) 13-228 
 
 Jagger Z). People's St. R. Co. (Pa.) 8-771 
 
 Jamestown & N. R. Co. v. Jones (N. Dak. ) 11-879 
 
 Jamesville & Washington R. Co., Hansley v. (N. Car.) 2-26 
 
 Jamison, Missouri, K. &T. R. Co. z/. (Tex.) 3-442 
 
 Jarvis, East St. Louis Connecting Ry. Co. v. (C C A.) 15-459 
 
 V. Flint & P. M. R. Co. (Mich.) 22-312 
 
 Jefferson Ave. R. Co., Sullivan v. (Mo.) 3-432 
 
 Jefferson & L. P. Ry. Co., Orleans & J. Ry. Co. v. (La.) 16-699 
 
 Jefferson M. & I. R. Co., Haus v. (Ind.) 1-27 
 
52 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Jeffries v. Seaboard A. t,. E. Co. (N. Car.) 23-339 
 
 Jeffris V. Fitchburg- R. Co. (Wis.) 4-608 
 
 Jenning-s, Chicag-o & E. I. R. Co. v. (111.) 22-127 
 
 Jenson v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 11-2S3 
 
 Jersey City & B. Ry. Co., In re (N. J.) 23-281 
 
 Jersey City, etc., R. Co., Buttelli z-. (N. J.). 7-784, 785 
 
 J. J. Douglas Co. V. Minnesota Transfer R. Co. (Minn.) 2-671 
 
 Johnson v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Vt.) 10-374 
 
 V. Charleston & S. Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 12-761, 18-556 
 
 Chattanoogra EJlectric R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 8-758 
 
 V. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 15-683 
 
 Corinne Mill, Canal & Stock Co. w. (U. S.) 1-593 
 
 V. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. (Ga. ) 1 6- 89 
 
 Georgia R. Co. v. (Ga.) 21-840 
 
 V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (N. Dak.) 11-76 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 11-291, 14-82, 15-694 
 
 ». I^ouisville & N. R. Co. (Ala.) 2-213,300 
 
 I<ouisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 6-729 
 
 Metropolitan St. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 1-267 
 
 V. Miller (Pa.) 3-657 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 12-824 
 
 V. Old Colony R. Co. (R. I.) 1-64 
 
 V. Railroad Co. (Pa.) 2-259 
 
 w. Reading City Pass. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-255,264,275 
 
 z/. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. (Utah) 13-691 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car. ) 12-272 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 23-840 
 
 V. Stewart (Ark. ) 3-651 
 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-439 
 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 4-441 
 
 V. Western N. Y. & P. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 22-309 
 
 Johnston, Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 20-909 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 12-286 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. (Neb. ) 2-601 
 
 JoUiffe ■!>. Brown (Wash. ) 3-254 
 
 Jones, Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. (Ala.) 8-383 
 
 Alabama Min. R. Co. v. (Ala. ) 15-752 
 
 V. Boston & M. R. R. Co. (Mass.) 2-17 
 
 V. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.). 23-261 
 
 V. Erie & Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 3-18 
 
 V. Flint ife P. M. R. Co. (Mich.) 21-904 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. (lud. Ter.) 5-693, 695 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Miss.) 14-839 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. ». (C. C. A.) 15-16 
 
 In re (N. Y.) 1_349 
 
 Jamestown & N. R. Co. v. (N. Dak.) 11-879 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 23-224 
 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) 21-200 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 11-185 
 
 V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.) " 11-414 
 
 New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. (Md.) 23-528 
 
 V. Oregon Short-Line R. Co. (Idaho) 14_ 26 
 
 Owen V. (C. C. A. ) .".'.'' 17-543 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. ». (U. S. ) ' 2-389 
 
 V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co. (Wash.) ,', 6-789 
 
 V. Texas & P. R. Co. (La.) \\\\ 2-382 
 
 V. Van Bochove (Mich.) '...".* 1-664 
 
 Joost V. Bennett (Cal.) " iS-2S2 
 
 Joplin & W. R. Co. V. Kanisas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. (Mo.). '. '. \ 8-16S 
 
 Jordan v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 3-435 436 
 
 St. Louis, L M. &S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 13-681 
 
 Joseph, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ala. ) 18-659 
 
 Josey, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 20-869 
 
 Judd V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (Ky.) 11-517 
 
 Judice V. Southern Pac. R. Co. (La.) 2-185 
 
TABLE OF CASES S3 
 
 Judson V. Central Vermont R. Co. (N. Y.) IS- 7 
 
 Julius V. Pittsburgh, A. & M. Traction Co. (Pa. ) 9-S23 
 
 Kahn jy. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co. (N. Car.) 2-474 
 
 Kalfur V. Broadway Ferry & M. Ave. R. Co. (N. Y.) 12-850 
 
 Kallmerten v. Cowen (C. C. A.) 23-352 
 
 Kanawha Dispatch, Courteen v. (Wis.) 21-425 
 
 Kanawha &M. R. Co., Douglass v. (W. Va.) 10-883 
 
 Kanawha, etc., R. Co., Blankenship v.(W. Va.) 8-768 
 
 Kansas & A. V. R. Co. v. Ayers (Ark.) 6-628 
 
 ICansas & C. P. R. Co., Phipps v. (Kan.) 7-247 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co., Curry v. (Kan.) 8-7SS, 763 
 
 V. King (Ark.) 7-780 
 
 V. Phipps (Kan. App.) 5-698, 699 
 
 Kansas City & A. R. Co., Harrelson v. (Mo.) 16-848 
 
 Kansas City, C. & S. Ry. Co., Goodrich v. (Mo.) 19-137 
 
 Kansas City El. R. Co., Earth v. (Mo.) 10-281 
 
 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Becker (Ark.) 16-348 
 
 Jackson v. (Mo.) 19-99 
 
 Joplin & W. R. Co. V. (Mo.) 8-165 
 
 V. King (Ark.) 14- 44 
 
 Lumberman's Mut. Ins. Co. v. (Mo.) ; 14-127 
 
 Matheson v. (Kan.) 17-738 
 
 Moore v. (Mo.) 12-580 
 
 V. Sharp (Ark. ) 7-710 
 
 w. Sokol (Ark.) 2-148 
 
 Kansas City & I. R. Co., McDonald v. (Mo.) 2-258, 262 
 
 Kansas City & I. R. T. Co., Dickey v. (Mo.) 1-710 
 
 Dougherty r. (Mo.) 2-281 
 
 Moore v. (Mo.) 1-254 
 
 Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co., Broslin v. (Ala.) 9- 99 
 
 Cantrell v. (Miss.) 14-30 
 
 Lusby V. (Miss.) 3-447 
 
 St. Clair v. (Miss.) 20-426 
 
 V. Southern Railway News Co. (Mo ) 14-528 
 
 Kansas City & M. Railway & Bridge Co., Hunter v. (C. C. A.).. . 10-620 
 
 Kansas City & N. C. R. Co. v. Shoemaker (Mo.) 20-496 
 
 Kansas City & O. R. Co. v. Rogers iNeb. ) 4-617 
 
 Kansas City & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Fisher (Kan.) 3-11 
 
 Kansas City, O. & S. Ry. Co., Scarritt v. (Mo.) 15-809 
 
 Kansas City, P. & G.Ry. Co. v. Barnett (Ark.) 22-81 
 
 V. Board of Waterworks Imp. Dist. No. 1 (Ark.) 20-265 
 
 Dorsey z^. (La.) 20-67 
 
 V. Holden (Ark.) 16-116 
 
 Hurst V. (Mo.) 21-899 
 
 V. Pace (Ark ) . . . 21-433 
 
 V. Parker (Ark.) 22-441 
 
 V. Williams (liid. Ter.) 19-361 
 
 Kansas City R. Co. v. Whitehead (Ala.) 4-262 
 
 Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., Kellerman v. (Mo.) 3-290 
 
 Kansas City S. B. Ry. Co. v. McElroy (Mo.) 22-397 
 
 Union Elevator Co. v. (Mo.) 3-130, 165, 167 
 
 Kansas City, S. & G. Ry. Co., State, Smart v. (La.) 14-461 
 
 V. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. (La.) 6-212 
 
 Kansas City, S. & M. R. Co., Musick v. iMo.) 3-28 
 
 Kansas Citv S. Ry. Co. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs of Arkansas 
 
 (Ark.). . .'. 21-178 
 
 Gaulden ». (La; ) 23-909 
 
 Kansas City, W. & N. W. R. Co. v. Way (Kan.) 13-363 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Becker (Ark.) 8-758, 759 
 
 Haley v. (Ala.) 7-770, 780 
 
 V. Lackey (Ala.) 7-769, 772, 777 
 
 V. McGahey (Ark.) 7-767 
 
 Kansas Farmers' Ins Co., Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan. 
 
 App.) 11-847 
 
 Kansas & T. Coal Ry. Co. v. Northwestern Coal & Mining Co. 
 
 (Mo.) 20-593 
 
54 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Kase, Danville, H. & W. R. Co. v. (Pa.) 10-869 
 
 Kasischke, Great Northern Ry. Co. z/. (C. C. A. ) 19-406 
 
 Kates V. Atlanta Bag-g-ag-e & Cab Co. (Ga.) -^^^12 
 
 V. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Ga.) "^'^ 
 
 Kaufman ». Tacoma, O. & G. H. R. Co. (Wash.) 1-169, 170, 171 
 
 Kavanaug-h v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 21-755 
 
 Central of Georgia R> . Co. z/. (CCA.) ^„ i? 
 
 Kay V. Glade Creek & R. R. Co. (W. Va.) ?nt 
 
 Keary, Commonwealth v. (Pa.) 20-471 
 
 Keating- v. Detroit, B. C. & A. R. Co. (Mich.) 2-222, 382, 386 
 
 Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. (Ga.) S-331 
 
 Keatley v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Iowa) 9- 1 
 
 Keefer, I^ouisville N. A. & C R. Co. v. (Ind.) S- 26 
 
 Keegan, Valley Ry. Co. v. (C C A.) 11-507 
 
 Keeny, Atlanta Consolidated St. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 5-305 
 
 Keilbach v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (N. Dak.) 14-28 
 
 Keist V. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 16-297 
 
 Keith, IvOuisviUe & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 19-180 
 
 Keller z/. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (Pa.) 4-263 
 
 Keller v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (Pa.) 19-197 
 
 V. Harrisburg & P. R. Co. (Pa.) 3-130 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 12-89 
 
 Kellertaan v. Kansas City, St. J. & C B. R. Co. (Mo.) 3-290 
 
 Kellogg V. Smith (Mass.) 23-80 
 
 Kelley, Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 13-568 
 
 Kelly, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (111.) 17-52 
 
 Ex parte (Eng.) 5-698 
 
 Gulf, C & S. F. R. Co. V. (Tex.) 3-439 
 
 Houston & T. C R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-444 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 7-165 
 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. w. (C C A.) 13-816 
 
 ». Wakefield & S. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.) 23-67 
 
 Kelsey, Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. (111.) 16-82 
 
 Kendrick, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. (Tex.) 2-179 
 
 Kennedy-Cahill, West Chicago St. R. Co. v. (111.) 6-794 
 
 Kennedy v. Detroit R. Co. (Mich.) 3-430 
 
 Metropolitan St. R. Co. w. (C C. A.) 9-509 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car ) 21-121 
 
 Kennelly, West Chicago St. R. Co. v. (111.) 9-359 
 
 Kenneson v. West End St. R. Co. (Mass.) 9-445 
 
 Kent V. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. (Miss.) 21-332 
 
 Kentucky Cent. R. Co., Bacon v. (Ky.) 1-718 
 
 V. Biddle (Ky.) 3-6S6 
 
 Kentucky & I. Bridge Co., Willis z/. (Ky.) 11-324 
 
 Kentucky, Louisville & Nashville R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 3-525 
 
 Kentucky Wagon Manufacturing Co. v. Ohio St. Mississippi R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.) 2-722 
 
 Kenwood, Pennsylvania Co. v. (111.) 9-557 
 
 Kepner v. Harrisburg Traction Co. (Pa. ) 8-493 
 
 Kerner z;. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. (Ind.) 9-328 
 
 Kernochan, Cleveland, etc. , R. Co. v. (Ohio) 7-774 
 
 V. New York El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-378 
 
 Kerr v. Georgia R. Co. (Ga.) 14-837 
 
 Kerrigan v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 16-835 
 
 Ketterman v. Dry Eork R. Co. (W. Va.) 19-445 
 
 Keyes, Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. (N. Dak.) 13-128 
 
 Great Northern Ry, Co. v. (N. Dak.) 13-128 
 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. (N. Dak.) 13-128 
 
 Kice, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.). . , 20- 44 
 
 Kidder v. Pitchburg R. Co. (Mass.) 3-453 
 
 Kieff, Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 20-238 
 
 Kiel, Daly v. (La.). 22-320 
 
 Kierzenkowski v. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa.) 9-533 
 
 Killian v. Georgia R., etc., Co. (Ga, ) 5-694, 695, 709 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 22-639 
 
. TABLE OF CASES 55 
 
 Kilpatrick v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. (Ind. Ter.). 23-244 
 
 V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Vt.) 20-300 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 17-212 
 
 Kimball v. Borden (Va.) 15-519 
 
 Flippin z/. (C. C. A.) 11-256 
 
 V. Friend (Va.) 8-451 
 
 Hodges v.{C.Q..K.) 19-755 
 
 Kincade v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 14-559 
 
 King-, Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. z-. (C. C. A.) 17-167 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 14-659 
 
 Hoffman v. (N. Y.) 16-764 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 13-829 
 
 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 14-44 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. (Ark.) 7-789 
 
 Miller v. (N. Y.) 21-376 
 
 V. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. (Va.) ; . . . 23-701 
 
 Kingman, Louisville <& N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 5-401 
 
 Kingsbury v. Missouri, K. &. T. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 19-719 
 
 Kingsley, Wabash R. Co. v. (111. ) 13-835 
 
 Kingston City R. Co., Colonial City Traction Co. v. (N. Y.) 
 
 9-506, 10-327 
 
 Kingston v. Ft. Wayne & E. R. Co. (Mich.) 9-259 
 
 Kinnare, Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (111.) 21-328 
 
 Walker z'.(U. S.) 6- 63 
 
 Kinney v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Kv.) 3-652 
 
 Kirby, Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. v. (Md.) 18-248 
 
 Kird V. New Orleans & N. W. R. Co. (La.) 20-930 
 
 Kirk V. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (W. Va. ) 4-105 
 
 Kirkham, Missouri, K. & T. Rv. Co. v. (Kan. ) 21-845 
 
 Kishlar v. Southern Pac. R. Co. (Cal.) 23-948 
 
 Kittel V. Augusta, T. & G. R. Co. (N. Y.) 11-876 
 
 Kizer v. Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. (Ark ) 13-288 
 
 Klinkler v. Wheeling Steel, etc., Co. (W. Va.) 8-764 
 
 Knanp, Chicago & B. I. R. Co. v. (111.) 14-828 
 
 I/. Chicago & W. M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 13-857 
 
 Knight, State (Pennsylvania R. Co., Prosecutor) z/. (N. J.) 3-374 
 
 Knoth, Consolidated Traction Co. v. (N. J.) 10-844 
 
 Knot V. Southern Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 12-684 
 
 Knowles, Cenlral Ry. Co. v. (111.) 22-795 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 6-781 
 
 Kuowlton V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) 16-573 
 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. (Del.) 20-172 
 
 Kobs, Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 1-61, 64 
 
 Kolbz/. Union R. Co. (R. I.) 21-811 
 
 Konold V. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. (Utah) 17-450 
 
 Koontz, Wheeling & L. E. R. Co. v. (Ohio). 16-827 
 
 Koralewski v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 23-918 
 
 Kowalski v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 23-32 
 
 Kramer v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 20-329 
 
 Krantz v. Rio Grande Western R. Co. (Utah) 2-432 
 
 Kraut V. Frankford S. P. C. Pass. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-292 
 
 Krayenbuhl, Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 4-483 
 
 Kreager, Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. (Ohio) , 18-99 
 
 Kreuzer v. Great Northern Ry. Co. iMinn.). 21-912 
 
 V. Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.) 12-343 
 
 Kuhn, Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. (Miss.) 19-466 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 22-324 
 
 KflshequaR. Co. v. Pittsburgh, S. & N. R. Co. (Pa.). 23-160 
 
 Lacey, Washington Southern R. Co. v. (Va.) :... 6-778, 779, 782 
 
 Lackawanna Iron & Coal Company v. Farmers' Loan & Trust 
 
 Company (U. S.) • 17-561 
 
 Lackey, Kansas City, etc, R. Co. v. (Ala,); ,. 7-769, 772, 777 
 
 La Crosse City R. Co , Cawley v. (Wis:) 12-453 
 
 Thoresen z/. (Wis.).......... • 6-101,1-259,261,274 
 
 Laethem v. Ft. Wayne & B. I. R. Co. (Mich.) 1-259, 274 
 
56 TABLE OF CASES . 
 
 Laib V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 8-lSO 
 
 Laird, Atlantic & P. R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 8-365 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa) ' 7-772, 776 
 
 * V. Pittsburgr Traction Co. (Pa.) 2-161 
 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co., Berry z;. (Ind.) 3-654 
 
 V. Commissioners of Hancock County (Ohio) 18-765 
 
 Evans V. (Ind.) 10-837 
 
 V. Falk (Ohio) 17-751, 18- 99 
 
 Hauss z/. (C. C. A.) 22-864 
 
 Hosea B. TuUis v. (U. S.) 16-462 
 
 V. Morrissey (111.) 12-624 
 
 Tullis K. (C. C. A.) 20-335 
 
 V. Wilson (111.) 20-164 
 
 Lake Brie, etc., R. Co. v. Weisel (Ohio) 5-714 
 
 Lake Roland Elevated R. Co., Birch v. (Md.) 5-640 
 
 Garrett w. (Md.) 1-38S 
 
 V. McKewen (Md.) 1-260 
 
 z;. "Webster (Md.) 1-360 
 
 Lake Roland, etc., R. Co. v. Hibernian Society (Md.) 5-718 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., Allen v. (Ohio) 9-25 
 
 V, Andrews (Ohio) 12-545 
 
 V. Baltimore & Ohio & Chicago R. Co. (111. ) 3-57 
 
 Bond V. (Mich.) 12-447, 23-156 
 
 Chamberlain v. (Mich.) 17-241 
 
 V. Chicago (111.) 3-188 
 
 V. Conway (111.) 11- 7 
 
 Dolson V. (Mich.) 23-387 
 
 V. Ehlert (Ohio) 19-731 
 
 Fluhrer v. (Mich.) 17-463, 18-153 
 
 Fuller V. (Mich.) 3-589 
 
 Gavigan v. (Mich.) 5-S23 
 
 V. Keisey (111.) 16-82 
 
 Law V. (Mich.) 15-95 
 
 Mann z/. (Mich.) 21-325 
 
 V. National Ltve-Stock Bank (111.) 13- 1 
 
 V. Peterson (Ind.) 3-427 
 
 Pfaffenback v. (Ind ) 2-318 
 
 Smith V. (Mich.) 8-496 
 
 V. Smith (U. S.) 14-511 
 
 Stahl V. (Mich.) 11-90 
 
 V. State of Ohio, Lawrence (U. S.) ; 16-26 
 
 Voorhees v. (Pa.) 16r-316 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., Mathews v. (Mich.) 6-791 
 
 Walker v. (Mich. ) 6-779 
 
 Lake St. El. R. Co., Doane v. (111.) 7-781, 782 
 
 z/. Ziegler (C. C. A.) 23- 1 
 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal R. & Iron Co. v. Cunningham (U. S.).. 1-S64 
 
 Lambertson, Consolidated Traction Co. v. (N. J.) 6-793 
 
 V. Consolidated Traction Co. (N. J. ) 9-35S, 10-753 
 
 Lamkin, Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. (Miss.) 21-867 
 
 Lamoureux v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 9-245 
 
 Lampkin v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. (Ala.) 2-425 
 
 V. McCormick (La.) 21-713 
 
 Lancaster City St. R. Co., Musser v. (Pa.) 5-718, 719 
 
 Lancaster Mills of Clinton, Mass.. Thomas v. (C. C. A.) 2-662 
 
 Lane v. Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co. (Wash.) 14-436 
 
 Lang V. Brady (Conn.) 21-843 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. (Ky.) 6-775, 776, 779 
 
 Lansford, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 18-697 
 
 Lansing City Electric R. Co., Montgomery v. (Mich.) 1-260, 268 
 
 Lansing, etc., R. Co., City of Lansing v. (Mich.) 5-719 
 
 La Pointe v. Boston & M. R. R. (Mass.) 23-105 
 
 Larned, C. G., Mercantile Real Estate & Live Stock Co. v. 
 
 Omaha, Hutchinson & Gulf R. Co. (Kan.) 3-23 
 
 Larsson v. McClure (Wis.) 8-763 
 
TABLE OF CASES 57 
 
 Lash's Administrator, Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. (Va.) 3-S69 
 
 Latrobe, State, Baltimore C. & P. B. R. Co. v. (Md.) 1-99, 118 
 
 Latta V. Lonsdale (C. C. A.) 21-270 
 
 Lau, Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. (Neb.) 13-108 
 
 Laufer v. Bridgeport Traction Co. (Conn.) 7-787, 788 
 
 Laughrey, Burton v. (Mont.) 3-6S7 
 
 Lauricella, Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-219, 220, 221, 382 
 
 Law V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. (Mich.) 15-95 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 18-286 
 
 Lawhorn v. Millen & S. R. Co. (Ga.) : 5-551 
 
 Lawrence v. Atchison, etc., R. Co. (Kan.) 6-777 
 
 Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. (Miss.) 8-59 
 
 Lawson, Chattanooga Electric Ry. Co. v. (Tenu.) 12-669 
 
 Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. (Tenn.) 19-252 
 
 Lay V. Railroad Co. (N. Car.) S-710 
 
 Lea V. Durham & N. R. Co. (N. Car.) 23-765 
 
 Leake z/. Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. Car.) 14-739 
 
 Leathers, St. Louis, etc., R. Co v. (Ark.) 4-261 
 
 Leavitt v. Bangor & A. R. Co. (Me.) 7-354 
 
 Lebanon & A. St. R. Co. , Westheffer v. (Pa. ) 1-170 
 
 Lebanon & St. R. Co., Yingst v. (Pa.) 1-259, 266 
 
 Lebanon, etc.. Turnpike R. Co. z/. Purdy (Ky.) 7-778 
 
 Le Blanc, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 11-838, 12-877 
 
 Lee V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. ^Ky.) 6-783 
 
 Chicago, R. L & P. Ry. Co. z). (C C. A.) 14-264 
 
 International & G. N. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-434, 441 
 
 V. International & G. N. R. Co. (Tex.) 5-376 
 
 St. Louis I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v (Ark.) 23-320 
 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co. (Cal. ) 7-656 
 
 Lehigh Coal & N. Co. v. Inter-County St. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-198, 286 
 
 Lehigh & H. R. Ry. Co., Hannigau v. (N. Y.) 12-605 
 
 z/. Marchant (C. C. A.) 10-748 
 
 Lehigh Valley R. Co., Belts v. (Pa.) 14-299 
 
 Girton v. (Pa.) 21-157 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commission v. (Pa.) 5-702, 704 
 
 Lonzer v. (Pa. ) 21-333 
 
 Murray v. (Conn. ) 4-210 
 
 Lehmann v. Deuster (Wis.) 10-857 
 
 Leisy Brewing Co , Rock Island & P. Ry. Co. v. (111. ) 13-340 
 
 Leitch V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.) 6-777, 782 
 
 LelHs V. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.) 18-545 
 
 Lemasters v. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.) 20-296 
 
 Lemery v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.) 11- 17 
 
 V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 21-257 
 
 Leonard v. Boston & A. R. R. (Mass.) 13-825 
 
 V. Whitcomb (Wis ) 7-520 
 
 Leroy & C. ^ al. Air-Line R. Co. v. Sidell (Kan. ) 21-741 
 
 Lersch, Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. (Ohio) , 14-835 
 
 Lessard v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 17-211 
 
 Levin v. Second Ave. Traction Co. (Pa.) 23-318 
 
 Lewis V. Long Island R. Co. (N. Y.) 18- 1 
 
 Northern Pac. R Co v. (U. S.) 4-258. 262 
 
 w. Pennsylvania R. Co (N.J.) 3-413 
 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 6-333 
 
 V. President, etc. , Del. & H. C. Co. (N. Y. ) 2-192 
 
 V. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. (Utah) 14-822 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) '. 20-483 
 
 Lewiston & A. H. R. Co.. Conway v. (Me.) 2-339 
 
 Flewelling v. (Me.) 6-501 
 
 Lewiston, etc., R. Co., Bangs v. (Me.) 7-785, 786 
 
 Conway v. (Me.) 8-769, 770 
 
 Lexington & E. Ry. Co. v. Lyons (Ky.) 11-212 
 
 Lexington Ry. Co. v. Cozine (Ky.) 23-624 
 
 Lezinsky v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 12-55 
 
 Lieberman v. Third Ave. R. Co. (N. Y. City Ct.) ; 12-858 
 
58 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Ligare v. Chicag-o, M. & N. R. Co. (111.) 9-52 
 
 V. Chicag-o, etc., R. Co. (111.) ■♦"SSo 
 
 Lightcap, Philadelphia Traction Co. v. (C. C. A.) \-2i\ 
 
 Ligon, Alabama* V. R. Co. z/. (Miss.) 9-198 
 
 Lilley, Florence E. D. & W. V. It, Co. v. (Kan.) 3-25, 31 
 
 Limburger v. San Antonio R. T. Co. (Tex.) 1-169, 171, 323. 324 
 
 Lime Rock R. Co. v. Farnsworth (Me.) • 3-13 
 
 Unam, St. Louis. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 21- 5 
 
 Linck's Adm'r v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (K v. ) : • 16-831 
 
 Lincoln St. R. Co., City of Lincoln v. (U. S.) 6-788 
 
 V. Cox (Neb.) 4-273 
 
 Lindell R. Co., O'Rourke v. (Mo.) 9-675 
 
 Lindsay, Chaddick v. (Okla.) 8-754, 755 
 
 Lingenfelter v. Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Ho. (Ind.) 16-690 
 
 Lion z-. Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. (Md.) 23-538 
 
 Lippman, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. Z". (Ga.) .... 18-640 
 
 Lipscomb v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. (Tex.) 23-401 
 
 Little, Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 9-427 
 
 V. Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. Car.) 7-769, 772, 779 
 
 V. Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 22-209 
 
 V. Superior R. T. R. Co. (Wis. ) 1-260, 265, 276 
 
 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Alister (Ark. ) 3-447 
 
 w. Birnie (Ark.) 1-645 
 
 V. Daniels (Ark.) 19-609 
 
 Martin v. (Ark.) 3-441 
 
 V. Smith (Ark.) 13-699 
 
 V. Wells (Ark) 3-427 
 
 V. Wilson (Ark. ) 14-32 
 
 Little Rock, H. S. & T. Ry. Co. v. Spencer (Ark.) 12-861 
 
 Little Rock & M. R. Co. z;. Barry (C. C. A.) 11-453 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co..t/. Odom (Ark.) 6-773 
 
 z/. Stevenson (Ark.) 5-704 
 
 Littlejohn v. Richmond & D. R. Co. (S. Car.) 9-873 
 
 Liveright, Pennsylvania Co. v. (Ind.) 2-455,3-427 
 
 Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.) 15-530 
 
 Livingston v. Metropolitan El. R. Co. (N. Y. ) 1-374-5-6 
 
 Lloyd & Railway Act, In re (Eng.) S-698 
 
 Lochneisen, Omaha St. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 1-273 
 
 Lockwood V. Wabash R. Co. (Mo.) ■. . 1-16 
 
 Loeser v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Wis.) 8-421 
 
 Logan, McNamara v. (Ala.), ; 5-708 
 
 London, Chatham & Dover R. Co., Foster v. (Eng.)... 1-717 
 
 London & Northwestern R. Co. , Norton v. ( Eng. ) 1-717 
 
 Londoner, Mayor, Denver Tramway Co. v. (Colo.) 1-124 
 
 Long, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan. App.) 6-774 
 
 V. Chicago, R. I. & T. Ry. Co. (Tex ) 18-386 
 
 V. Freeman (N. Car.) 1-97 
 
 Long Island R. Co., Beacher v. (N. Y.) 12-295 17-199 
 
 Distler z/. (N. Y.) 6-235 
 
 Inre(N.Y.) 3^25 
 
 Lewis z;. (N. Y.) 18- 1 
 
 Longworth, Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v (C. C. A.) 9-201 
 
 Lonsdale, Latta v- (C. C. A.) 21-270 
 
 Lonzer v. Lehigh Val. R. Co. (Pa.) . 21-333 
 
 Lord Gerard & London & Northwestern R. Co., In re (Eng.). . 1-717 
 
 Lorentzen, Denver, etc., R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 8-755. 763 
 
 Los Angeles & P. ElectricRy. Co., Cook v. (Cal.) 23- 69 
 
 Los Angeles, P. & G. R. Co. v. Rumpp (Cal.).. ' . 
 
 3-130,132,133,136,137,168 
 
 Los Angeles R. Co., Cunningham v. (Cal.) 7-783 
 
 Los Angeles, etc., R. Co., Grant v. (Cal.) l-ll'), 780 
 
 Los Angeles Traction Co., Bassett v. iCal.) 22- 5 
 
 Storirs v. (Cal. ) ; 22-704 
 
 Los Angeles T. R. Co., City of South Pasadena v. (Cal.) 2-166 
 
 Cox V. (Cal. ) 2-158, 159, 162 
 
TABLE OF CASES 59 
 
 Los Angeles T. R. Co., Raub v. (Cal.) 2-223, 224, 282 
 
 Lott V. Frankford & S. P. C. Pass. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-68 
 
 Loughridge, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga. ) 23-387 
 
 Louisiana & N. W. R. Co., Wilson v. (La. ) 14-648 
 
 Louisiana Western Extension Ry. Co. v. Carstens (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.) 12-781 
 
 Louisiana W. R. R., Hebert v. (La.) 20- 87 
 
 Louisville Banking Co., Louisville N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. (U. S.).. 15-345 
 
 Louisville Bridge Co., McHugh v. (Ky.) 23-946 
 
 Louisville E. & St. L. C. R. Co., New York Security & T. Co. v. 
 
 (Ind.) 11-878 
 
 Louisville, H. & St. L. R. Co. v. Bowlds (Ky. ) 23-553 
 
 Baxter v. (111.) 6-618 
 
 Brown v. (Ky.) 23-883 
 
 V. Heck (Ind.) 11-382 
 
 z/. Keefer (Ind.) 5-26 
 
 Louisville Trust Co. z-. (U. S.) 15-256 
 
 V. Louisville Trust Co. (U. S. ) 15-345 
 
 V. McAfee (Ind.) 3-436 
 
 V. Patchen (111.) 10-852 
 
 V. Schmidt (Ind.) 6-571 
 
 Terry v. (Ind. ) 3-442, 443 
 
 V. Wagner (Ind.) 14-706 
 
 Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Anchors (Ala.) 11-657 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co., Anderson v. (CCA.) 2-166 
 
 Arnold v. (Ky.) . 19-272 
 
 V. Bailey (Tenn.) 2-17 
 
 Becker v. (Ky.) 20-803 
 
 Behlraer v. (S. Car.) 3-426 
 
 Behlmer z/. (C. C. A. ) 9-620 
 
 V. Behlmer (U. S.) 10-778, 18-167 
 
 V. Bell (Ky.) 8-413 
 
 z/. Bernard (Ky.) 6-55 
 
 Berry v. (Ky. ) 20-401 
 
 Beyer v. (Ala.) 9-819 
 
 V. Bizzell (Ala.) 23-615 
 
 V. Blair (Tenn.) 17-159 
 
 V. Bodine (Ky.) * , 19-SSl 
 
 V. Bowcock (Ky.) 17-421 
 
 V. Bowen (Ky. ) 9-276 
 
 V. Breckinridge (Ky.) 3-428 
 
 V. Breeden (Ky.) 23-131 
 
 V. Brinton (Ky.) 19-153 
 
 Brown w. (Ky . ) 10-55 
 
 V. Brown (Ala.) 14-794 
 
 Carden v. (Ky .) ~ 10-872 
 
 V. Cayce (Ky . ) 3-656 
 
 V. Central Trust Co. of New York (CCA.) 14-820 
 
 V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (Ky.) 16-539 
 
 Chicago, St. L. & N. O. Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 19-688 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & Tex. Pac. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 2-409 
 
 Clark V. (Ky.)... .8-355, 12-293 
 
 V. Clark (Ky.) 12-407 
 
 Coffee V. (Miss.) 14-423 
 
 Commonwealth v. (Ky.) 6-61, 23-936 
 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1- 68 
 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky.) 4-193 
 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky. ) 5-644 
 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky.) 13-125 
 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky. ) 1 5-841 
 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky.) 18-297, 663 
 
 Conn z/. (Ky.) 15-838 
 
 V. Cooley (Ky.) 12-553 
 
 V. Cooper (Ky. ) 17-304 
 
 Courts V. (Kv.) 5-223 
 
60 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Creig-hton (Ky.) -^^"Bl 
 
 Cully V. (Ky.) 9-872 
 
 V. Cummins (Ky.) 21-774 
 
 V. Depp(Ky.) 3-440 
 
 Dick z/. (Ky.) 23-71 
 
 Durham v. (Ky.) 2-260 
 
 V. Edmonds (Ky.) 23-481 
 
 Kichengreen v. (Tena.) 3-4S3 
 
 Eichhorn v. (Ky.) 23-941 
 
 Elliot V. (Ky.) 1S-80S 
 
 V. Ellis (Ky.) 2-132 
 
 Fagg- &. (Ky.) 22-171 
 
 V. Farmers' & Drovers' Live-Stock Commission Firm 
 
 (Ky.) 17-284 
 
 Fleming v. (Tenn.) 20-S49 
 
 V. Gaines (Ky.) S-226 
 
 V. Gidley (Ala.) 13-214 
 
 V. Graham (Ky.) 3-433 
 
 V. Hale(Ky.) 10-73 
 
 Harrington v. (Tenn. ) 17-135 
 
 V. Hartwell (Ky.) : 4-SSO 
 
 V. Head (Ky.) 19-302 
 
 Helm t/ (Ky.) 3-440 
 
 V. Henry (Ky.) 11-405 
 
 .V. Hiltner (Ky.) ... 20-279 
 
 V. Hine (Ala.) 14-382 
 
 V. Hocker (Ky.) 23-522 
 
 Z'.Hooe(Ky.) 4-264 
 
 Hughes I/. (Ky. ) 12-560 
 
 Huudley v. (Ky.) 12-749 
 
 Hutcherson z/. (Ky.) 15-846 
 
 Hutcheson v. (Ky.) 18-293, 21-476 
 
 V. Jackson (Ky . ) 4-437 
 
 Johnson v. (Ala.) 2-213, 300 
 
 V. Juhnson (Ky.) 6-729 
 
 V. Jones (Ala.) 23-224 
 
 I/. Keith (Ky.) 19-180 
 
 V. Keller (Ky.) 12-89 
 
 V. Kelly I Ky.) 7-165 
 
 V Kentucky (U. S.) 3-525 
 
 V. Kice (Ky.) 20-44 
 
 V Kingman (Ky.) 5-401 
 
 Kinney z;. (Ky.) 3-652 
 
 Lampkin v. (Ala) 2-425 
 
 z'. Lansford (C. C. A.) 18-697 
 
 Linck V. (Ky. ) 16-831 
 
 V. Louisville S. R. Co. (Ky.) 8-161 
 
 f. McElwain (Ky.) 3-309 
 
 V. McEwan (Ky.) 2-438, 17-208 
 
 z;. Malone (Ala.) 10-878 
 
 V. Marbury Lumber Co. (Ala. ) 18-508 
 
 z/. Mattingly (Ky.) 8-319 
 
 V. Mercantile Trust Co. (CCA.) 22-484 
 
 V. Miller 19-500 
 
 V. Milliken (Ky.) 14-742 
 
 Morris v. (Ky. ) 20-368 
 
 V. Morris (Ky.) • 21-380 
 
 Mouton V. (Ala.) 20-673 
 
 V. Murphree (Ala.) 21-758 
 
 V. Nehan (Ky.) 23-201 
 
 z/. Odill (Tenn.) 2-647 
 
 Page z/. (Ala.) 21-1 
 
 Pence v. (Ky.) 23-807 
 
 V. Penrod (Ky.) 17-759 
 
 V. Pittman (Ky.). 18-329, 23- 55 
 
TABLE OF CASES 61 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Pittsburg & K. Coal Co. (Ky.) 23-332 
 
 V. Queen City Coal Co. (Ky.) 4-3S9 
 
 V. Quick (Ala.) 20-25 
 
 V. Ray (Tenn.) 11-174 
 
 V. Ricketts (Ky.) ^ 6-186 
 
 V. Ricketts (Ky.) 2-282 
 
 Rogers z/. (C. C.) 12-813 
 
 V. Ross (Ky.l 17-432 
 
 V. Samuels (Kv.) 18-374 
 
 V. Sander (Ky.) 10-S28 
 
 V. Scanlon (Ky.) 22-833 
 
 V. Scott (Ky.) 17-261 
 
 zi. Shearer (Ky.) 20-138 
 
 Shelton t-. (Ky.) 8-678 
 
 V. Sides (Ala.) 21- 90 
 
 V. Simpson (Ky.) 23-S92 
 
 Smith V. (Ky.) 19-1S7 
 
 ». Smith (Ala.) 23-218 
 
 V. Smith (Ky.) 10-506, 15-613 
 
 Spink V. (Ky.) 16-86 
 
 V. Spinks (Ga.) 12- 48 
 
 V. Spring-Water Distilling Co. (Ky.) 15-527 
 
 Stacker v. (Tenn. ) . . . .• 20-704 
 
 V. Stewart (Ala.) . 21-34 
 
 V. Stewart (Miss.) 21-855 
 
 V. Stock (Ky.) 15-713 
 
 V. Stuber (C. C. A.) 22-840 
 
 Swan V. (Tenn.) 20-446 
 
 z/. Taafe (Ky.) 15-693 
 
 V. Tarter (Ky.) 7-607 
 
 V. Tennessee Brewing Co. (Tenn.) 4-661 
 
 The Shinkle, Wilson & Kreis Co. v. [C C. A.) 4-677 
 
 Thompson v. (Ky ) 21-665 
 
 V. Thompson (Ky.) 23-48 
 
 V. Thornton (Ky.) 19-229 
 
 Thurman z/. (Ky.) 3-652 
 
 V. Tinkham (Ky.) 13-800 
 
 V. Tow (Ky.) 21-441 
 
 V. Truett (CCA.) 23-823 
 
 V. Tucker (Ky.) 23-876 
 
 V. Vancleave (Ky.) '. 21-477 
 
 V. Veach (Ky.) 11-24 
 
 V. Vestal (Ky.) 12-633 
 
 V. Victory (Ky.) 12-538 
 
 Virginia Coal & Iron Co. v. (Va.) 21-261 
 
 V. Vittitoe (Ky. ) .•. . . 8-666 
 
 K. Wade (Ky.) 5-371 
 
 Walker v. (Ala.) 4-658 
 
 V. Walker (Ky.) 21-473 
 
 V. Ward (Ky.) 10-544 
 
 Ward V. (Ky.) 23-462 
 
 Warfield v. (Tenn.) 17-135 
 
 Watson V. (Tenn.) 18-115 
 
 zi. Webster (Tenn.) 22-410 
 
 V. Williams (Ala.) 9-252 
 
 V. Williams (Ky.) 11-338 
 
 Woody. (Ky.) 8-711 
 
 Wood V. (Tenn.) 11-525 
 
 V. Woods (Ala.) 11-872 
 
 V. York (Ala.) 23-470 
 
 Louisville & N. Terminal Co., Baker v. (Tenn.) 20-946 
 
 Louisville Ry. Co., Lutz v. (Ky.) 12-280 
 
 V. Park (Ky.) 2-211,212, 221, 384,385, 389 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Allgood (Ala.) 6-771 
 
 V. Bernheim (Ala.) 8-753, 754 
 
62 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 L,ouisville, etc., R. Co., Fisher v. (Ind.) 6-782, 78S 
 
 ». Guy (Ky.) • 6-774 
 
 V. Hopson (Miss.) 4-256 
 
 V. Howell (Ind.) 6-782, 786 
 
 V. Miles (Ky.) 6-774 
 
 V. Miller (Ala.) S-323, 324 
 
 V. Porter (Ind.) S-700 
 
 Thomas v. (Ky.) 5-708 
 
 Ward V. (Tenn.) 7-776 
 
 Louisville, St. L. & T. Ry. Co. v. Taylor (Ky.) 1-718 
 
 V. Terry's Adm'x (Ky.) 13-770 
 
 Louisville, St. R. Co., Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 8-161 
 
 Louisville Southern R. Co. v. Hooe (Ky.) 14-808 
 
 V. Tucker (Ky.) 12-805 
 
 Louisville Trust Co. v. City of Cincinnati (CT. S.) 6-113 
 
 V. Louisville N. A. & C. Ry. Co. (U. S.) 15-256 
 
 Louisville N. A. & C. Ry. C. z/. (U. S.) 15-345 
 
 Louisville & W. R. Co. v. Hall (Ga.) 14- 7 
 
 Love, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan.) 4-256 - 
 
 Lovejoy v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. (W. Va.) 4-262 
 
 Lowe, Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 10-398 
 
 V. Volp (Eng.) 3-656 
 
 Lowell V. Washing-tou County R. Co. (Me.) 9-115 
 
 Lowry, Jackson Electric Ry., Lig-ht & Power Co. v. (Miss.) 23-103 
 
 Lucas V. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 20-366 
 
 Florida Cent. &P. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 16-818 
 
 V. Herbert (Ind.) 7-729 
 
 Ludlum, St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 23-851 
 
 Luening, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. z;. (Kan.) 1-61 
 
 Lumberman's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.) 14-127 
 
 Lumis V. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa.) 10-847 
 
 Lumley !<. Wabash R. Co. (U. S.) 6-81 
 
 Lumpkin z/. Southern R. Co. (Ga.) 4-4S8 
 
 Lund V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Neb.) 14-826 
 
 Lundquist v. Buluth St. R. Co. (Minn.) 4-S06 
 
 Ltisby V. Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. (Miss.) 3-447 
 
 Lutz V. Louisville Ry . Co. (Ky . ) 12-280 
 
 Lyoan, Missouri, etc., R. Co. z/. (Kan.) 6-781 
 
 Lykens & W. Val. St. Ry. Co., Williams Val. R. Co. v. (Pa.) 16-718 
 
 Lyman v. Suburban R. Co. (Ill ) 21-828 
 
 Lynch, County Treasurer, Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. 
 
 (Utah) 13-868 
 
 Lynch V. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. (Ga.) 22-477 
 
 Lynch, Treasurer of Salt Lake County, Union Refrigerator Tran- 
 sit Company v. (U. S.) 17-588 
 
 Lynchburg & D. R. Co., TiUett v. (N. Car.) 2-167, 300, 388 
 
 Lynn V. Antrim Lumber Co., Limited, (La.) 21-598 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 21-570 
 
 Lynn & B. R. Co., Harding v. (Mass.) 12-865 
 
 Nichols V. (Mass.) 9-844 
 
 Lyon, Chicago, etc., K. Co. z/. (Neb.) 8-764 
 
 V. Hammond & B. I. R. Co. (111.) 9_337 
 
 Lyons, Lexington & E. Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 11-212 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. (Neb.) 12-610 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. (Pa. ) 2-259 
 
 Pittsburgh, Ft. W. C. R. Co. v. (111.) 3-657 
 
 Texas Central R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-316 
 
 McAdam v. Central R. & Electric Co. (Conn.) 5_ 7 
 
 McAdoo V. Railroad Co. (N. Car.) ' S_7io 
 
 McAfee, Louisville N. A. & C. R. Co. v. (Ind.) '. 3-435 
 
 McAnally v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 17-741 
 
 McArver v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car. ) 23-772 
 
 McCadden v. Abbot (Wis.) , 3-651 
 
 McCafEerty v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 16-122 
 
TABLE OF CASES 63 
 
 McCall V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 23-760 
 
 McCann v. Consolidated Traction Co. (N. J.) 7-280 
 
 V. Eddy (Mo.) 2-633 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. z/. (U. S.) 16-185 
 
 V. Newark & S. O. R. Co. (N. J. ) 4-382 
 
 McCanna v. New England R. Co. (R. I.) 10-485 
 
 McCarley, McGhee &. (C. C. A.) 19-216 
 
 McCarthy v. Whitcomb (Wis.) 20-860 
 
 McCarty, Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 5-507 
 
 McClellan v. Ft. Wayne & B. I. R. Co. (Mich.) 1-266, 268 
 
 McClure, Larsson v. (Wis.) 8-763 
 
 McColgan v. Baltimore Belt R. Co. (Md.1 7-778 
 
 McConnell, County Treasurer, Bras (Burlington, C. R. & N. R. 
 
 Co., Intervener) v. (Iowa) 23-127 
 
 McCooK V. Bryan (Okla.) S-699 
 
 McCord V. Cammell (Eng.).. •- 3-4S1, 452 
 
 McCormick, Lampkln v. (La.) 21-713 
 
 McCoy V. Milwaukee S. R. Co. (Wis.) 1-267, 273 
 
 V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. ( Va. ) 22-838 
 
 V. Sioux City •& P. R. Co. (Iowa) 10-306 
 
 McCray v. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. (Tex.) 3-276 
 
 McCreary-McClellan Live-Stock Co. , Felton v. (Ky. ) 21- 9 
 
 McCreery v. Ohio River R. Co. (W. Va ) 8-755, 20-875 
 
 McCullen v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 18-500 
 
 McCuUough, St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-429, 430 
 
 McCune v. Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C. A ) 22-209 
 
 McCurrie z/. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.) 12-170 
 
 McCuskerz/. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 21-351 
 
 McDade, Augusta Southern R. Co. v. (Ga.) 12-548 
 
 McDivitt V. Des Moines St. R. Co. (Iowa) 6-106 
 
 McDonald v. Boston & Maine R. Co. (Me.) 2-293 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (111.) 20-309 
 
 V. Kansas City & I. R. Co. (Mo.) 2-2S8, 262 
 
 V. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (Va.) 8-SS2 
 
 McDonnell v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 11-534 
 
 V. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 12-175 
 
 McDonough, Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. (Tenn.) S-169 
 
 McDougal, Spencer ». (U. S.) 1-595 
 
 McDowell V. Benson (Ga. ) 10-161 
 
 McElmurry, Austin & N. W. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-445 
 
 McElroy v. Georgia, etc., R. Co. (Ga.) 5-697 
 
 Kansas City S. B. Ry. Co. v. (Mo.) '. 22-397 
 
 McElveen v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 15-842 
 
 McElwain, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 3-309 
 
 McEwau, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky. ) 17-208 
 
 McEwen & Murray, Limited, New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. (La.). 7-742 
 
 McEarlan v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 22-16 
 
 McGahey, Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. (Ark.) 7-767 
 
 McGarry, Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. (W. Va.) 6-787 
 
 McGeary v. Old Colony R. R. (R. I.) 14-764 
 
 McGhee v. Bell (Ky.) 9-345, 11-519 
 
 ». Drisdale (Ala.) 6-774 
 
 V. McCarley (CCA.) 19-216 
 
 V. Reynolds (Ala.) 10-49, 22- 17 
 
 McGhee, Receiver, American Sugar Refining Co. v. (Ga. ) 2-697 
 
 McGill, Alabama Midland Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 14-20 
 
 V. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. (Iowa) 20-790 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. (Ariz.) 3-653 
 
 McGinn v. Piatt (Mass.) 19-245 
 
 McGinnis, Chicago, etc.,R. Co. v. (Neb.) 7-774 
 
 Rome St. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 1-256 
 
 McGlamorv, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v.- (Tex.) 3-434 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. (Tex.) 5-696 
 
 McGovern v. Smith (Vt.) 23-690 
 
 McGrath v. City & Suburban R. Co. (Ga.) 1-263 
 
64 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 McGrath v. Eastern Ry. Co. of Minnesota (Minn.) 13-768 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 3-424 
 
 I'. North Jersey St. Ry. Co. (N. J.) 22-790 
 
 McGraw v. Chicaffo, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Neb.) 18-764 
 
 McGuiref. Vicksburg, S. &P. R. Co. (La.) ; 1-68 
 
 McHenry, Wells County v. (N. Dak.) 10-190 
 
 McHugh V. Louisville Bridg^e Co. (Ky.) 23-946 
 
 Mcllhaney v. Southern R. Co. (N. Car.) 6-693, 11-100 
 
 Mclntire, Eaton v. (Me.) 4-20S 
 
 Mclver, Georgia S. ■& F. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 15-703 
 
 McKeesport St. R. Co., Borough of McKeesport v. (Pa.) . .1-171, 286, 291 
 
 McKeesport, etc., R. Co., Clayton Electric Co. v. (Pa.) 6-777 
 
 McKennon v. St. Louis, I. M & S. Ky. Co. (Ark.) 21-527 
 
 McKeon v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Wis.) 8-219 
 
 McKewen, Lake Roland Elevated R. Co. v. (Md.) " 1-260 
 
 McKibben v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 16-155 
 
 McKillop V. Duluth St. R. Co. (Minn.) 1-171, 278 
 
 McKinley, Ohio Valley R. Co. v. (Ky.) 3-439, 443 
 
 McLane, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex ) 2-263 
 
 McManatnee v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo.) , 5-474 
 
 McManes, Philadelphia v. (Pa.) 3-652 
 
 McMillin v. Southern Ry. Co. (Miss.) 14-37 
 
 McNamara v. Logan (Ala.) 5-708 
 
 McNee v. Coburn Trolley-Track Co. (Mass.) 10-765 
 
 McNeeley, New Orleatls, Pt. J. & G. I. R. R. v. (La.) ' 3-135 
 
 McNeill, Eaton v. (Ore.) 8-680 
 
 Graham v. (Wash. ) .* 12-149 
 
 Richmond v. (Ore.) 10-691 
 
 Walker v. (Wash.) : 11-738 
 
 McNulta, Stelk v. (C. C. A.) 22-778 
 
 McNulty V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 8-685 
 
 ; V. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. (111.) 9-2SS 
 
 McPeak v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo.) 2-226 
 
 McPeck V. Central Vt. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 9-828 
 
 McTavish v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (N. Dak.). 14-59 
 
 McVey v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. ( W. Va.) 13-788 
 
 V- Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Miss.) 3-371 
 
 Mackay, Northern Pac. R. Co. z*. (C. C. A ) 1-596 
 
 Mackrall v. Omaha & St. L. R. Co. (Iowa) 19-59 
 
 MacLeod, Graven z/. (C. C. A.) 14-305 
 
 Macon Consol. St. R. Co., Perry v. (Ga.) 10-819 
 
 Macon, D. & S. R. Co. v. Moore (Ga.) 15-842 
 
 Macon & I. S. Electric St. Ry. Co. v. Holmes (Ga.) 12-385 
 
 Macon & N. Ry. Co., Whatley v, (Ga.) 11-425 
 
 Macon v. Paducah St. Ry. Co. (Ky.) 22-614 
 
 Macon, etc. , R. Co. v. Moore (Ga.) 5-355 
 
 Macoy v. Sioux City & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 17-363 
 
 Madden v. Port Royal & W. C. R. Co. (S. Car.) 2-279, 280, 384. 389 
 
 Maddox v. Newport News, etc., Co. (Ky.) 6-791 
 
 Magee, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. (Tex.) 15-186 
 
 Magoun, Robbins v. (Iowa) 7-783 
 
 Mahaffy v. Beech Creek R. Co. (Pa.) 3-131, 165 
 
 Maher v. Union Pac. D. & G. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 20-644 
 
 Mahony, Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 8-44] 
 
 Maine Cent. R. Co. , Chase v. (Mass.) 6-343 
 
 Dunning v. (Me. ) 9-574 
 
 Oakes v. (Me. ) 22-190 
 
 State V. (Me.) 8-758 
 
 Taylors. (Me.) 2-614 
 
 V. Waterville, etc., Co. (Me.) 8-756, 757 
 
 Maine Cent. R. R., Eastman z^. (N. H ) 17-203 
 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (Iowa) 9-299 
 
 Malarin, Perry v. (Cal. ) 2-219 
 
 Malmstrom v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Wash.) 12-329 
 
 Malone, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 10-878 
 
TABLE OF CASES 65 
 
 Maloney, Beattyville & C. G. E. Co. v. (Ky.) 14-2+ 
 
 Malott V. Shimer (Ind.) lS-774 
 
 Manchester & L,. R. R., State z/. (N. H. ) 21-734 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield & L,incolushire R. Co., Brooks v. (Engr.).. . 3- 27 
 
 Taylor v. (Eng-.) 2-388 
 
 Manhattan R. Co., Butler w. (N. Y.) 2-383, 386 
 
 Connelly v. (N. Y.) 2-38S 
 
 Graham z-. (N. Y.) 4-256,260 
 
 Hog-an w. (N. Y.) 3-571 
 
 Hunter v. (N. Y.) 1-366 
 
 Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New 
 
 York z/. (N. Y.) 1-409 
 
 Shepard i'. (N. Y.) 1-371 
 
 Sutro V. (N. Y.) 1-373, 374 
 
 Volkmar ». (N. Y.) 1-453, 454 
 
 White z/. (N. Y.) 1-351 
 
 Manhattan Trust Co., Sioux City O. & W. Ry. Co. v. (C. C. A.). . 15-430 
 
 Trust Co. of North America z;. (U. S,) 6-220 
 
 Manistee & N. E. R. Co. , Cornell v. (Mich.) 11-263 
 
 Mankey v. Chicag-o, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (S. Dak.) 21-248 
 
 Mann v. Lake Shore & M. S; Ry. Co. (Mich.) 21-325 
 
 V. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa.) 4-260 
 
 Mannheim Ins. Co. v. Erie & W. Transp. Co. (Minn. ) 13-161 
 
 Manning, West Chicago St. R. Co. v. (111.) 9-364 
 
 V. West End St. R. Co. (Mass.) 6-793 
 
 Manlon, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (U. S.) •. .. 9-850 
 
 Marble, Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. (Mich.) 7-780 
 
 Marbury Lumber Co., Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 18-508 
 
 Marchant, Lehigh & H. R. R. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) 10-748 
 
 Marchant v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (U. S.) 3- 31 
 
 Marengo v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 23-660 
 
 Marion St. R. Co., Sirk v. (Ind. App.) 2-223 
 
 Market St. Ry. Co., Board of Railroad Com'rs of State of Cali- 
 fornia V. (Cal ) 23- 21 
 
 Schneider v. (Cal.) 23-692 
 
 Marpole, Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. ( Va.) 16-291 
 
 Marrs, St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. (Ark.) 2-647 
 
 Marsh, Cleveland T. & V. R. Co. v. (Ohio) 20-54 
 
 Marshall, Norfolk & W. R. Co. z/. ( Va.) 2-220, 221 
 
 V. Pontiac, O. & N. R. Co. (Mich.) 20-341 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 23- 82 
 
 Martin v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (U. S.) 6-600 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 12- 4 
 
 V. Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. (Ark.) 3-441 
 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 23-683 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Kan.) 7-576 
 
 Omaha Street R. Co. z/. (Neb.) 4- 1 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. z;. (CCA.) 23-449 
 
 V. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 23-170 
 
 Pittsburgh, C, C & St. L. Ry. Co. v. (Ind.) 23-485 
 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. (Ga.) 2-475 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. (111.) 2-317, 318, 319 
 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 21-301 
 
 Mason v. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 19- 83 
 
 Massachusetts Loan & Trust Co. v. Hamilton (CCA.). 11-771 
 
 Masterson v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis. ) ; . . . 14-395 
 
 Matheson z/. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. (Kan.) 17-738 
 
 Mathews v Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (Kan.) 12-255 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. (Mich.) 6-791 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 6-361 
 
 Matthews, Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 14- 89 
 
 V. Charleston & S. R. Co. (S. Car.) 2-109 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo.) 10-673 
 
 Matter of Atlantic Ave. El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-364 
 
 Matter of Southern Boulevard Co. (N. Y.) 3-30, 31 
 
 ID— 5 
 
66 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Matting-ly, Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 8-319 
 
 Nashville, C. & St. L,. Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 11-736 
 
 Matz V. Chicago & A. R. Co. (Mo.) 10-592 
 
 Mauzy, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Va.) 20-647 
 
 Maxson v. Michig-an Cent. R. Co. (Mich. ) 14-823 
 
 Maxwell v. Southern Pac. R. Co. (La.) 3-42S 
 
 May V. Carbondale Traction Co. (Pa.) 1-171 
 
 V. West Jersey & S. R. Co. (N. J.) 13-517 
 
 Mayes v. Southern R. Co. (N. Car.) 6-778, 779 
 
 Maynard, Attorney General, Moore, American Express Com- 
 pany z/. (U. S.) 17-530 
 
 Mayo's Estate, In re (S. Car.) 21-99 
 
 Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York v. 
 
 Manhattan Railway Co. (N. Y.) 1-409 
 
 Mayor, etc., of City of Baltimore v. Baltimore Trust & Guar- 
 antee Co. (U. S.) 7-624 
 
 Mayor, etc. , of City of Hoboken , Tallon v. (N. J. ) 7-545 
 
 Mayor, etc., of City of Newark, Paterson, N. & N. Y. R. Co. v. 
 
 (N.J.) 10-182 
 
 V. State Board of Taxation (N. J.) 23-308 
 
 State (Theberath, Prosecutor) v. (N.J.) 1-176 
 
 Mayor, etc., of New Brunswick, State (Barr, Prosecutor) v. 
 
 (N. J. ) 3-170 
 
 Mayor, etc., of Jersey City, New Jersey Junction R. Co. v. 
 
 (N. J. ) 14-192 
 
 State (Kennelly, Prosecutor) w. (N. J.) 1-98, 99, 169, 220, 322 
 
 Mayor, etc., of Ocean City, Baltimore, C. & A. Rj. Co. v. (Md.). . 14-195 
 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. Ball (Ky.) 20-186 
 
 V. Connor iKy.) 1- 63 
 
 z;. Holton (Ky.). 8-336 
 
 V. Ingram (Ky.) 1-63, 64 
 
 Pollock V. (Ky.) 14-821 
 
 Means v. Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. Car.) 14-363 
 
 Mechanics' Trust Co. v. Dandridge (Ky.) 8-348 
 
 Mechler, San Antonio St. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 1-257, 258, 265, 279 
 
 Medairy, Northen Cent. R. Co. v. (Md.) 7-526 
 
 Medaris, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 12-698 
 
 Medberry v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 17-494 
 
 Meech, Chicago & E. R. Co. v. (111.) 7-667 
 
 Meixner, Cicero & Proviso St. R. Co. v. (111. ) 4-246 
 
 Meloche v- Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Mich.) 10- 82 
 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Glover (Miss.) 22-708 
 
 Goodloe V. (Ala. ) 2-444 
 
 V. Hopkins (Ala ) 3-99 
 
 V. Martin (Ala. ) ".'. .'. 23-683 
 
 Menaugh v. Bedford Belt Ry. Co. (Ind.) ; 22- 1 
 
 Mendenhall, Oddie v. (Minn.) 22-880 
 
 Mensing v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich. ) ...'.'.*. 12-223 
 
 Mercantile Trust Co., Adams & Westlake Co. v. (C. C. A.). .'..... 22-484 
 V. Atlantic & P. R. Co. (Postal Telegraph Co., Inter- 
 vener) (C. C. ) 1_683 
 
 Baltimore &. O. S. W. R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 22-484 
 
 Carlisle v. (CCA.) 22-209 
 
 Columbus Terminal & Transfer R. Co. v. (C C A.")'..'.'. ' 22-484 
 
 Gregg w. (CCA.) ".'.'.'.'. 22-484 
 
 Hallett w. (C C A.) 22-209 
 
 Harrison v. (C C A.) ....!.' 22-484 
 
 Little V. (C. C. A.) 22-209 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. z-. (C C A.) '.'.'.'..'.'. 22-484 
 
 McCune v. (C C A.) , 22-209 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. (C C. A.) !!.!.! 22-209 
 
 Monsarrat v. (C C. A.) I'X-^cic, 
 
 Parrottz/. (CCA.) '.;;; 22-209 
 
 Railroad Equipment Co. z/. (C. C A. ) | " 22-144 
 
 V. Second Nat. Bank of Sandusky (C. C. A.) \'.\\ 22-209 
 
TABLE OF CASES 67 
 
 Mercantile Trust Co., Sinks &. (C. C. A.) 22-209 
 
 Stewart z/. (C. C. A.) 22-209, 484 
 
 Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. v. Atlanta Stone, Coal & Lumber 
 
 Co. (Ala.) 8-102 
 
 V. Southern Iron Car-Line Co. (Ala.) 8-102 
 
 Mercer, Walker v. (Kan.) 18-159 
 
 Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. v. Hoskins (Ky.) 10-346, 11-832 
 
 Meridian Water Works Co., New Orleans & N. EJ. R. Co v. 
 
 (CCA.) 3-4S1 
 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo.) 22-158 
 
 Merrill, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 17-470 
 
 V. Pacific Transfer Co. (Cal.) 21-143 
 
 Merritt z/. Foote (Mich.) 23-43 
 
 V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 19-775 
 
 z/. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 2-223 
 
 Mesic V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. (N. Car.) 7-770 
 
 Metcalf , Union Pac. R. Co. v. (Neb. ) 7-768 
 
 Metropolitan El. R. Co., Adler w. (N. Y.) 1-371 
 
 Doyle z/. (N. Y.) 1-372 
 
 In re (N. Y.) 1-349 
 
 Livingston v. (N. Y.). 1-374, 375, 376 
 
 Oherfelder v. (N. Y.) 1-349 
 
 Sixth Ave. R. Co. v. (N. Y.) 1-373, 376, 378 
 
 SperbK. (N. Y.) 1-372, 374 
 
 Wood V. (N. Y.) 6-788 
 
 Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. Johnson (Ga.) 1-267 
 
 V. Kennedy (C. C A.). . 9-509 
 
 Lezinsky z;. (C C A.) 12-55 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. of City of New York v. Houston & T. C 
 
 R. Co. (Tex.) 13-149 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co. (C C A.) 22-209 
 
 V. Railroad Equipment Co. (C. C A.) 22-144 
 
 V. Second Nat. Bank (CCA.) 22-209 
 
 Metropolitan West Side El. R. Co. , Chicago West Division R. Co. 
 
 V. (111.) 3- 45 
 
 V. Clancy (111.) 3-164, 165 
 
 V. Springer (111.) : 9-731 
 
 V. Stickney (111.) 3-147 
 
 Mener v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. (S. Dak. ) 2-493 
 
 Meux V. Great Eastern Railwav Co. (Eng.) 2-464 
 
 Mewethy v. Detroit, G. R. & W. Co. (Mich.) 22-691 
 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. Jones (CCA.) 21-200 
 
 V. Lauricella (Tex.) 2-219, 220, 221, 382 
 
 Mexican Cent.Ry. Co., Limited, v. Glover (C C A.) 21-272 
 
 Meyer, Atchison, T. & S. E. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 21-764 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (111.) 12-694 
 
 Meyers, Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. z/. (CCA.) 2-225-262 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (La.) 6-786 
 
 Miami Powder Co. v. Port Royal & W. C R. Co. (S. Car.) 4-426 
 
 Michaels, Southern Kan. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 8-761, 764 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co., Pinnegan v. (Mich.) 21-725 
 
 Huffman v. (Mich.) 5-542 
 
 Lellis V. (Mich.) 18-545 
 
 Maxson v. (Mich.) 14-823 
 
 Mensing i;. (Mich.) 12-223 
 
 V. Pere Marquette R. Co. (Mich.) , 23-864 
 
 Redson v. (Micfi. ) 15-687 
 
 Sheltrawn v. (Mich.) 23-711 
 
 Willett V. (Mich. ) 9-18 
 
 Mickelson v. New East Tintic Ry. Co. (Utah) 20-8SS 
 
 Middle Georgia & A. Ry . Co. v. Barnett (Ga.) 12-532 
 
 Slack V. (Ga.) 12-569 
 
 V. Reynolds (Ga.) 8-763 
 
 Middlesborough Ry. Co. v. Webster (Ky.) 14-209 
 
 Milam County, Gulf, C & S. P. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 7-780 
 
68 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 MUam V. Southern Ry. Co. (S.Car.) 18-253 
 
 Miles, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. (Ky.) 6-774 
 
 St. Louis &S. F. R. Co. V. (C. C. A.) 10-585 
 
 Milford & M. R. R., In re (N. H.) 15-818 
 
 Military Interstate Ass'n of Savannah v. Savannah, T. & I. of H. 
 
 Ry. (Ga.) 14-824 
 
 Millen & S. R. Co., Lawhorn z-. (Ga.) 5-551 
 
 Miller Grain & Elevator Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co. (Mo.) 8- 1 
 
 Miller, Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 21-339 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 9-684 
 
 East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 2-216 
 
 Johnson v. (Pa.) 3-657 
 
 V. King (N. Y.) 21-376 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 19-500 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. (Ala. ) 5-323, 324 
 
 New Jersey Electric R. Co. z/. (N. J.) 6-519 
 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. (Mass.) 3-655 
 
 Railroad Co. v. (Ga.) 5-714 
 
 V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co. (Minn.) 5-718 
 
 V. Terre Haute & I. R. Co. (Ind.) 3-442 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. (Ind.) 23-843 
 
 V. Welling-ton & P. R. Co. (N. Car.) 20-557 
 
 Miller, Sheriff, Southern Ry. Co. in Mississippi v. (Miss.) 22-680 
 
 Milliken, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 14-742 
 
 Mills V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.) 5-323 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan.) 7-770 
 
 V. Seattle & M. R. Co. (Wash.) 1-718 
 
 Millsaps, Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 17-269 
 
 Milroy, Galesburg & G. E. R. Co. v. (111.) 19-277 
 
 Milwaukee Electric R. & Light Co. v. City of Milwaukee (Wis.).. 6-411 
 
 Milwaukee, etc., Elec. R. Co., Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. (Wis.) 7-787 
 
 Milwaukee L., H. & T. Co., Younkiu v. (Wis.) 23-500 
 
 Milwaukee & L. W. R. Co., Stoltz v. (Wis.) 15-820 
 
 Milwaukee St. R. Co., Block v. (Wis.) 1-329 
 
 Hardy I/. (Wis) 2-223, 224, 389 
 
 McCoy V. (Wis.) 1-267, 273 
 
 Schmitt V. (Wis.) 2-156, 161 
 
 Sleusby z/. (Wis.) 9-527 
 
 Mingus, Atlantic & P. R. Co. z;. (N. Mex. ) 9-881 
 
 Mink, Reynolds w. (C. C. A. ) 23-924 
 
 Minneapolis Sash & Door Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.).. 21-750 
 Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Cedar Rapids, G. & N. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Iowa) 23-152 
 
 Church V. (S. Dak.) 21-382 
 
 McGill V. (Iowa) 20-790 
 
 Minneapolis Western R. Co. v. (Minn. ) 1-725 
 
 V. Nicolin, In re (Minn. ) 13-445 
 
 Olson V. (Minn. ) 14-770 
 
 Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. (Minn.) 17-630 
 
 Wagen v. (Minn.). 17-438 
 
 Minneapolis, St. P. & Saulte Ste. Marie R. Co. , Gillan v. (Wis.)'. .' 2-145 
 
 V. Marble (Mich.) " 7_78o 
 
 Shea V. (Minn.) ...'..'... 2-608 
 
 Southard v. (Minn. ) 2-677 
 
 Minneapolis & S. Ste. M. R. Co. Shea v. (Minn.) 2-677 717 
 
 Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., Wilson v. (Minn.) 12-425 
 
 Minneapolis Western R. Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co'. 
 
 (Minn.) " i_725 
 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., Mitchelson v. (Minn.) 7-768 
 
 Minnesota Transfer. Ry. Co., J. J. Douglas Co. v. (Minn.). ...... 2-671 
 
 Woehrle v. (Minn.) ..'.'.'... 19-529 
 
 Mire V. Yazoo & M. Val. R. Co. (La.) ........'.'.'.'.'." 21-761 
 
 Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Gulf & S. I. R. Co. (Miss.)'.'.".'. 21-864 
 Missouri & T. R. F. & L. Co. v. Cape Girardeau & S. W. R. Co 
 
 (U.S.) S_703 
 
TABLE OF CASES 69 
 
 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Bag-ley (Kan.) 13-259 
 
 Och r. (Mo.) 2-343 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., Boggs v. (Mo.) 18-379 
 
 V. Bowles (Ind. Ter.) ; 8- 12 
 
 V. Byrne (Ind. Ter. ) 13- 17 
 
 V. Byrne (CCA.) 18-573 
 
 V. Cocreham (Tex.) 2-541, 542, 543 
 
 I/. Cook(U. S.) 4-552 
 
 V. Edwards (Tex.) 5-343 
 
 Eichorn v. (Mo.) 2-279, 280, 385 
 
 V. Elliott (Ind. Ter.) 14-587 
 
 V. Elliott (CCA.) 18-715 
 
 V. Earring-ton (Ind. Ter.) 11-854 
 
 V. Haber (Kan.) 3-471 
 
 V. Haber (U. S.) .' 1 . . . 13- 37 
 
 Hickman v. (Mo.) 15-375 
 
 V. Hickman, H. W., (U. S.) 23-493 
 
 Hunt V. (Tex.) 2-734 
 
 V. Jamison (Tex.) 3-442 
 
 V. Johnson (Tex.) ' 12-824 
 
 Kingsbury v. (Mo.) 19-719 
 
 V. Kirkham (Kan.) 21-845 
 
 V. McCann (U. S.) 16-185 
 
 V. McGlamory (Tex.) 3-434 
 
 V. Medaris (Kan.) 12-698 
 
 V. Merrill (Kan.) 17-470 
 
 V. Roberts (Tex. App.) 11-21 
 
 V. Sanders (Tex. ) 3-428 
 
 V. Shockma'n (Kan.) 12-880 
 
 V. Truskett (Ind. Ter.) 17-273 
 
 V. Truskett (CCA.) 19-618 
 
 V. Turley (CCA.) 10-380 
 
 V. Ward (Ind. Ter.) 11-328 
 
 V. "Woods (Tex.) 2-519 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Belcher (Tex.) 3-498 
 
 Dobbins v. (Tex. ) 8-179 
 
 v. Kendrick (Tex.) 2-179 
 
 V. Magee (Tex.) 15-186 
 
 V. Overfield (Tex. Civ. App.) 12-207 
 
 V. Rogers (Tex.) 8-141 
 
 Washington v. (Tex.) 11-829 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bennett's Estate (Kan.) 7-534 
 
 Blackmore v. (Mo.) 21-360 
 
 Chamberlain I-. (Mo.) 3-401 
 
 V. Crowell Lumber & Grain Co. (Neb.) 7-223 
 
 Ephlandz/. (Mo.) 7-579 
 
 Parber ». (Mo.) 2-166, 444, 7-700 
 
 V. Pox (Neb.) 12-863 
 
 z/. Geist (Neb.) S-421 
 
 Geist V. (Neb.) 22-364 
 
 z;. Gibson (Kan.) 3-494 
 
 Handley v. (Kan.) 16-674 
 
 V. Henrie (Kan.) 6-790 
 
 Hollenbeck v. (Mo.) 3-350, 8-277 
 
 Hook V. (Mo.) 21-787 
 
 Hutchinson v. (Mo.) 20-700 
 
 V. Eau (Neb.) 13-108 
 
 V. Lyons (Neb.) 12-610 
 
 V. McGrath (Kan.) 3-424 
 
 McManamee v. (Mo.) 5-474 
 
 McPeak v. (Mo.) 2-226 
 
 Matthews v. (Mo.) 10-673 
 
 V. Moffatt (Kan.) 3-488, 12-397 
 
 Paddock v. (Mo.) 17-310 
 
 V. Prewitt (Kan.) 13-807 
 
70 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., Schmitt v. (Mo.) 20-216 
 
 Sharp V. (Mo.) 21- 47 
 
 V. Smith (Ark.) 2- 89 
 
 State, Cass County v. (Mo.). . lS-175 
 
 State of Missouri, Bettis v. (Mo. App.) 7-66 
 
 V. State of Nebraska, Board of Transportation (U. S. ) . . 6-157 
 
 Tanner v. (Mo.) 20-809 
 
 Thompson v. (Neb.) 8-761, 762 
 
 V. Tietken (Neb.) S-262 
 
 Wardz;. (Mo.) 19- 30 
 
 V. Wichita Wholesale Grocery Co. (Kan. ) 2-S60 
 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. Colburn (Tex.) 6-787 
 
 V. L,ycan (Kan. ) 6-781 
 
 z/. McGlamory (Tex.) '■ 5-696 
 
 V. Spellman (Tex.) 3-438 
 
 Mitchell V. Boston, etc., R. Co. (N. H.) 4-256 
 
 V. Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. Car.) 13-201 
 
 V. Nashville, C. & St. L,. R. Co. (Tenn.) 10-775 
 
 V. Rochester R. Co. (N. Y.) 8-21S 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (Miss.) 18-126 
 
 V. Tacoma R. & M. Co. (Wash.) 1-258, 262, 264, 266, 269, 274 
 
 Mitchelson v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. (Minn. ) 7-768 
 
 Mizell, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 6-r337 
 
 Moats, Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 15-645 
 
 Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Alabama M. R. Co. (Ala.).. 10-128 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co., Clisby v. (Miss.) 22-179 
 
 Commonwealth z/. (Ky.) 23-185 
 
 V. Donovan (Tenn.) 18-669 
 
 V. Holiday (Miss.) 23-955 
 
 V. Postal Tel. Cable Co. (Two Cases) (Tenn.). . . . : 10-867 
 
 V. Postal Tel. Cable Co. (Ala.) 13-423 
 
 V. Postal Tel. Cable Co. (Miss.) 18-364 
 
 Roberds v. (Miss.) 7-93 
 
 V. Tiernan (Tenn.) 15-564 
 
 V. Whayne (Ky.) 23-319 
 
 z/. Wilson (C. C. A.) 6-97 
 
 Zackery v. (Miss.). 6-267 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co., Electric Lighting- Co. v. (Ala.) 4-265 
 
 George v. (Ala.) 4-257, 258 
 
 V. House (Tenn.) 4-261 
 
 Waters v. (Miss.) 6-771, 772 
 
 V. Weems (Miss.) 7-788 
 
 Mochell, Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. (111.) 23-927 
 
 MofFatt, Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 3-488, 1-2-397 
 
 Moline Plow Co., Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ind.) . .2-608, 717 
 
 Moneyhun, Cleveland, C. , C. & St. L,. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 5-682 
 
 Monsarrat v. Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 22-505 
 
 V. Robinson (CCA.) 22-505 
 
 Montana Cent. Ry. Co. , Crisswell v. (Mont.) 3-652 
 
 Egan V. (Mont.) , 2Q- 72 
 
 Goodwell V. (Mont.) 4-419 
 
 Hunter v. (Mont.) 16-615 
 
 Sweeney v. (Mont.) 22-540 
 
 Montana Ore-Purchasing Co. v. Boston & M. Con. C. & S. M. 
 
 Co. (Mont.) 10-754 
 
 Butte &B. Con. Min. Co. v. (Mont.) 10-754 
 
 Montana Ry. Co., State, Nolan, Atty. Gen., v. (Mont.) 11-353 
 
 Montana Union R. Co., Beckstead v. (Mont.) 9-273 
 
 Butte A. & P. R. Co. v. (Mont.) 3-25, 95, 96, 99 
 
 Hastings z/. (Mont.) 5-533 
 
 Montgomery County Passenger R. Co. , Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 (Pa.) 1-190 
 
 Montgomery v. Lansing City Electric R. Co. (Mich.) .1-260, 268 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 9-T92 
 
 V. Santa Ana & W. R. Co. (Cal.) 1-44 61 
 
TABLE OF CASES 71 
 
 Mooers v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 17-7S3 
 
 Moon V. Fink (Ga.) 10-848 
 
 Mooney, Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. (Fla.) 12-721 
 
 Moore, Atty. Gen., v. American Fxp. Co. (Mich.) 13-95 
 
 Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 12-84 
 
 V. Charlotte Electric St. Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 22-785 
 
 V. Commissioner of Streets of Borough of Haddonfield 
 
 (N. J.) 10-323 
 
 V. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 12-580 
 
 V. Kansas City & I. R. T. Co. (Mo.) 1-254 
 
 Macon, D. & S. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 15-842 
 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. v. (Ga.) S-355 
 
 V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 14-210 
 
 New York, S. & W. R. Co. z*. (C. C. A.) 21-462 
 
 Pittsburg:, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. (Ind.) 14-678 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 20-896 
 
 Moorer, Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. (Ala.) 9-742 
 
 Moorman, Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 11-157 
 
 Morbey v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 12-687 
 
 Morehouse, Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. (Wis. ) 23-413 
 
 Morgan, Comptroller, People. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. 
 
 (N. Y.) 22-527 
 
 Morgan's I^ouisiana & T. R. Co., Coburn v. (La.) IX-'iOl 
 
 Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. (La.) 13-71 
 
 Morgan's Louisiana &T. R. & S. S. Co., Dave I-. (La.) 2-127 
 
 Downing v. (La.) 20-412 
 
 Duvernet v. (La.) 6-483 
 
 Vincent v. (La.) 5-463 
 
 Morgan v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo.) 20-372 
 
 Morris v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co. (C. C. A. ) 22-45 
 
 V, Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. (Fla.) 22-559 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 20-368 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 21-380 
 
 Morris & E. R. Co. v. City of Orange (N. J.) 16-631 
 
 Morrissey, Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. (111.) 12-624 
 
 Morrow, Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 5-262 
 
 V. St. Paul City Ry. Co. (Minn.) 12-836 
 
 Mosby, Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. .(Va.) 4-633 
 
 Moseley v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (Neb.) 15-426 
 
 Mosier v. Oregon R. «& Nav. Co. (Ore.) 21-508 
 
 Mosnat v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 21-609 
 
 Moss V. North Carolina R. Co. (N. Car.) 12-19 
 
 V. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa.) 6-690 
 
 Mott V. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 15-113 
 
 Mound City Street R. Co., Watson v. (Mo.) 3-385 
 
 Mt. Pleasant Coal Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (Pa.) 23-568 
 
 Mouton V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ala. ) 20-673 
 
 Mueller v. Chicago, B. & N. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 12-137 
 
 Mugford V. Boston & M. R. R. (Mass.) 16-684 
 
 Muldoon V. Seattle City R. Co. (Wash.) 2-110 
 
 Mulford, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (111.) 5-229 
 
 MuUiken, International & G. N. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-224, 387, 444 
 
 Munch V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 12-586 
 
 Munsell, Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. (111. ) 23-579 
 
 Murowski, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (111.) 15-697 
 
 Murphey, Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 21-555 
 
 Murphree, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 21-758 
 
 Murray v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (CCA.) 13-278 
 
 V. FitchburK R. Co. (Mass.) .' 3-445 
 
 V. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (Conn.) 4-210 
 
 Muscatine N. & S. R. Co. , Westbrook v. (Iowa) 23-835 
 
 Musick v.. Kansas City, S. & M. R. Co. (Mo.) 3-28 
 
 Musser v. Lancaster City St. R. Co. (Pa.) 5-718, 719 
 
 Musser Sawtry, L. L. & M. Co., Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 (CCA.) 1-618 
 
72 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Myers, Chattanooga S. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 19-776 
 
 V. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (C. C. A. ) 14-749 
 
 Dakes z/. (C. C. A.).... 1-59S 
 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. z/. (U. S.) 15-391 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) , • • • 16-672 
 
 Myles, Farmer v. (L,a.) 23-732 
 
 Nail, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 16-828 
 
 Narramore v. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 17-S02 
 
 Narron v. Wilmington & W. R. Co. (N. Car.) 13-852 
 
 Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Hammond (Ala.) 1-683, 716, 718 
 
 V. Lawson (Tenn. ) 19-252 
 
 V. Mattingly (Ky.) 11-736 
 
 Mitchell V. (Tenn.) 10-775 
 
 Payne v. (.Tenn.) 22-677 
 
 Towusend v. (Tenn.) 21- 7 
 
 Nashville & D. R. Co. v. State (Ala.) 23-202 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co., Farrow v. (Ala.) S-704 
 
 Nashville St. R. R. v. O'Bryan (Tenn.) '. 22-902 
 
 Nass, Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 20-306 
 
 Nassau Electric R. Co., Hassen v. (N. Y.) 12- 1 
 
 Nathan v. Charlotte St. R. Co. (N. Car.) S-709 
 
 National Docks Co., Pennsylvania R. Co. v. (N. J.) 4-256 
 
 National Docks & N. J. J. C. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 . (N. J.) 3-82,98, 132, 133, 169, 170 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. w. (N. J.) 3-132, 166 
 
 State (Pennsylvania R. Co., Pros.) v. (N. J.) 3-25, 26, 97 
 
 National Live-Stock Bank, L,ake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. (111.). . 13- 1 
 
 Neal V. Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. Car.) 18-51 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car) 20-941 
 
 Neale v. County Court of Wood County (W. Va.) 7-252 
 
 Nebraska Meal Mills v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. (Ark.) . 7-591 
 
 Need, Chicago, Kansas & Western R. Co. v. (Kan.) 3-236 
 
 Nehan, Louisville & N. R. Co. w. (Ky.) . 23-201 
 
 Neidliuger, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga. ) 17-758 
 
 Neininger v. Cowan (C. C. A.) , 18-492 
 
 Nelling v. Chicago, St. P. & K. C. R. Co. (Iowa) 4-539 
 
 Nelson, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (111.) 1-274, 2-384, 385 
 
 V. Crescent City R. Co. (La.) 7-192 
 
 V. Salt Lake R. T. Co. (Utah) 2-156 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. ( Utah) 14-374 
 
 Nesbit, Denver Tramway Co. v. (Colo. ) 4-605 
 
 Nesbitt, Paris M. & S. P. R. Co. v. (Tex. ) 3-448 
 
 Nestelle, Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. z/. (CCA.) 11-877 
 
 Nevada, Central Pac. R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 4-264 
 
 Nevada Central R. Co. , Watt v. (Nev.) 3-659 
 
 Nevada, etc., R. Co., Watt v. (Nev.) 5-700 
 
 Neversink Mountain R. Co., Fleishman w. (Pa.) 4-261 
 
 Neville v. St. Louis M. B. T. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 20-196 
 
 New, Southern Ry . Co. z'. (Ga.) X4- 19 
 
 Newark Pass. R. Co. v. Inhabitants of East Orange (N. J.) 1-220 
 
 Newark & S. O. R. Co., McCann z^. (N. J.) 4-382 
 
 Newberger Cotton Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Miss.) 10-334 
 
 Newington, etc., Co., Canastota Knife Co. v. (Conn.) 7-787 
 
 New East Tintic Ry. Co., Mickelson v. (Utah) [', 20-8SS 
 
 New England Railroad Company v. Carnegie Steel Co., Limited 
 
 (C. C. A.) S_193 
 
 V. Central R. & Electric Co. (Conn. ) 8-261 
 
 Dixon V. (Mass.) 22- 10 
 
 McCanna v. (R. I.) 10-4-85 
 
 V. Robert T. Conroy (U. S.) ......'.' 16-380 
 
 Town of Bristol v. (Conn.) 11-674 
 
 New Haven Steam Sawmill Co. v. City of New Haven (Conn.). .' '. 16-588 
 New Jersey Dry Dock & Transportation Co., Campbell v. (N. J.)".". 11- 12 
 
 New Jersey Electric R. Co. z*. Miller (N. J.) ' 6-519 
 
 New Jersey Junction R. Co. v. Mayor, etc., oJF Jersey City (N. J. ) . . 14-192 
 
TABLE OF CASES 73 
 
 New Jersey Traction Co. v. Gardner (N. J.) 2-2S9, 9-843 
 
 New Mexico & S. P. R. Co., Walker v. (N. Mex. ) 14-839 
 
 New Orleans City, etc., R. Co., Gannon v. (L,a.) 6-792 
 
 New Orleans & C. E. Co., Bobira v. (I<a.) , 1-220 
 
 Conway v. (L,a.) 2-222, 387, 444 
 
 Crescent City R. Co. v. (La.). '. 4-402 
 
 New Orleans, E't. J. & G. I. R. Co. v. McNeeley (La. ) 3-135 
 
 NewOrleans&N. E. R. Co.jCorso z-. (La.) S- 43 
 
 Erslew V. (La.) 6-436 
 
 Gardner v. (Miss.) 21-865 
 
 V. McBJweu & Murray, Limited, (La.) 7-742 
 
 V. Meridian Water Works Co. (C. C. A.) 3-451 
 
 Smith Bros. & Co., Limited, v. (La.) , 22-419 
 
 New Orleans & N. W. R. Co., Kird v. (La.) 20-930 
 
 New Orleans & W. R. Co., Dobson v. (La.) 17-404 
 
 New Orleans, etc., R. Co., Boikens v. (La.) 4-260 
 
 Newport News & M. V. R. Co., Roseberry v. (Ky.) 10-844 
 
 Newoort News, etc., Co., Hernsheim v. (Ky.) 6-772 
 
 Maddox v. (Ky.) 6-791 
 
 Newport St. R. Co., Elliott v. (R. I.) 2-299, 386, 388 
 
 Tag-gart z/. (R. L) 1-340 
 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., Barrett v. (N. Y.) 15-578 
 
 Eaton z/. (N. Y.) 18-391 
 
 Fitzgerald t/. (N. Y.) 9-434 
 
 Girvinz/. (N. Y.) 20-547 
 
 Hallett z*. (N. Y.) 22-446 
 
 Henavie v. (N. Y.) 21-31 
 
 Jones I'. (N. Y.) 11-185 
 
 McDonnell v. (N. Y.) 12-175 
 
 Parker v. (N. Y.) 10-614 
 
 Peck z/. (N. Y.) 22-808 
 
 Penny f. (N. Y.) 12-180 
 
 People, Frost ». (N. Y.) 23-175 
 
 Piper w. (N. Y. ) 11-202 
 
 St. John z/. (N. Y.) 22-728 
 
 Trimble z'. (N.Y.) 17-176 
 
 New York Cent. & St. L. R. Co. v. Blumenthal (111.) 4-174 
 
 V. Hamlet Hay Co. (Ind.) 9-291 
 
 V. Ostman (Ind.) 6-588 
 
 Thomas v. (Pa.) 9-132 
 
 New York Cent., etc., R. Co., Felska v. (N. Y.) 7-772 
 
 New York El. R. Co., Bischoff v.(S.Y.) 1-372, 373, 377 
 
 Bookman ». (N. Y.) 1-373, 374, 376 
 
 Carter w. (N. Y.) : 1-378 
 
 Cook w. (N. Y.) 1-373, 376, 378 
 
 Kernochan v. (N. Y.) 1-378 
 
 O'Reilly w. (N. Y.) 3-432 
 
 Saxton ». (N. Y.) 1-376 
 
 Steubing v. (N. Y.) .1-375, 376, 377 
 
 Woolsey v. (N. Y.) 1-373 
 
 New York Guaranty & Indemnity Co. v. Tacoma Railway & 
 
 Motor Co. (C. C. A.) 23-249 
 
 New York & L. B. R. Co., Durand v. (N. J.) 21-208 
 
 Winter v. (N. J.) 23-359 
 
 New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., Beardsley v. (N. Y.) 17-149 
 
 Buchholz z/. (N. Y.) 3-453,454 
 
 Swack z/. (N. Y.) 16-609 
 
 New York & N. E. R. Co., Archambeau v. (Mass.) 11-706 
 
 Clare v. (Mass.) 6-76, 13-569 
 
 z;. Feely (Mass.) 2-103 
 
 Hale V. (Mass.) 16-535 
 
 V. Railroad Commissioners (Mass.) 1-660 
 
 Sprague v. (Conn.) 6-638 
 
 Vining v. (Mass.) 9-65 
 
74 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Agulino 
 
 V. (R.I.) 14-314 
 
 Benson v. (R. I.) 22-299 
 
 V. Bork (R. I.) 22-511 
 
 Candee v. (Conn.) 2^~*o; 
 
 Cole V. (Mass.) -^ ?„ 
 
 Content v. (Mass.) 3-369 
 
 Crandall ». (R. I.) =-543 
 
 CuUen V. (Conn.) 3-453 
 
 De Forge v. (Mass.) 20-492 
 
 Dunnz/. (C. C. A.)--.. 21-236 
 
 Gunn V. (Mass.) 14-830 
 
 Hamlin v. (Mass.) 4-546 
 
 lonnone v. (R. I.) 16-359 
 
 John M. Wheeler ». (0. S.) 20-143 
 
 Jones w. (R. I.) 11-414 
 
 Jordan v. (Mass.) 3-435, 436 
 
 V. Kelly (CCA.) 13-816 
 
 Knowlton v. (Conn.) 16-573 
 
 Lamoureux v. (Mass.) 9-245 
 
 Merritt z/. (Mass.) 2-223 
 
 V. Miller (Mass. ) 3-655 
 
 Moore v. (Mass.) 14-210 
 
 Nickerson v. (Mass. ) 21-806 
 
 Nihill V. (Mass.) 5-462 
 
 Nolan V. (Conn.) 10-637 
 
 V. O'Leary (CCA.) 14-718 
 
 Patnoude v. (Mass. ) 23-860 
 
 V. People of the State of New York (U.S.) 8-172 
 
 Rathbuu». (R. I.) 9-333 
 
 Reimer v. (Mass.) 21-378 
 
 Rooney v. (Mass.) 14-425 
 
 Ryan v. (Mass.) 9- 67 
 
 Stewart v. (Mass.) 10-520 
 
 Sullivan v. (Conn.) 20-108 
 
 Tessmer v. (Conn.) 15-164 
 
 Turaalty z/. (Mass.) 11-468 
 
 Wallace v. (Mass.) . . 3-443 
 
 Whipple ». (R. I.) 5-517 
 
 Whitney v. (C. C A.) 19-184 
 
 Williams, State's Atty. v. (Conn.) 12-860 
 
 Winship v. (Mass.^ 10-275 
 
 New York&N. Ry. Co., f*armers' L<oan & Trust Co. v. (N. Y.). 7-321 
 
 New York, O. & W. Ry. Co., Devoe z/. (N. J.) 15-124 
 
 Doing V. (N. Y.) 9-69 
 
 New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. Cromwell (Va.) 17-328 
 
 Hearn v. (Md.) : 15-54 
 
 V. Jones (Md.) 23-528 
 
 V. Thomas (Va.) 4-240 
 
 White V. ( Va.) 20-588 
 
 New York, P. & O. R. Co., Commonwealth v. (Pa.) 14-145 
 
 New York Security & T. Co. v. Louisville E. & St. L,. C R. 
 
 Co. (Ind.) 11-878 
 
 New York, S. & W. R. Co., Day v. (N. J.) 4-313 
 
 V. Moore (C C A.) 21-462 
 
 Turess v. (N. J.) 11-297 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co., American, etc., Nav. Co. v. (N. J.). . . .8-759, 761 
 
 V. Board of Supervisors (Va. ) 4-265 
 
 Pomponio v. (Conn . ) 4-259 
 
 Sullivan v. (Pa.). 4-260 
 
 Nicholas v. Burlington, C R. & N. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 16-341 
 
 Nichols V. Chicago G. W. R. Co. (Iowa) 2-543 
 
 V. Lynn & B. R. Co. (Mass.) 9-844 
 
 V. Norfolk & C R. Co. (N. Car.) 8-768 
 
 V. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (Utah) , . 23-654 
 
TABLE OF CASES 75 
 
 Nickerson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 21-806 
 
 Nickolson v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Minu.) 18-682 
 
 Nicolin, In re Minneapolis & St. Iv. R. Co. v. (Minn.) 13-445 
 
 Nieboer v. Detroit Electric Railway (Mich.) 23-93 
 
 Niemann v. Detroit Suburban St. R. Co. (Mich.) 1-172 
 
 Nihill V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 5-462 
 
 Nixon, Houston & Texas Cent. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-435 
 
 Noble V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (Okla.) 5-301 
 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern R. Co. (S. Car.) 13-557, 20-246 
 
 Nolan V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) 10-637 
 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 2-301 
 
 Norfolk City R. Co., Reid v. (Va.) 6-792 
 
 Norfolk & C. R. Co., Cox v. (N. Car.) 12-390 
 
 McCoy V. ( Va.) 22-838 
 
 Nichols V. (N. Car.) 8-768 
 
 Parker z). (N. Car.) 6-716, 14-844 
 
 Shields V. (N. Car.) 22-635 
 
 Norfolk & S. R. Co., White v. (N. Car.). 2-222, 444, 445 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Cromer (Va.) 23-720 
 
 Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. (Va.) . . . 12-873 
 
 Glenn v. (N. Car.) 21-585 
 
 Hall V. (W. Va.). 8-632 
 
 Hampton jy. (N. Car.) 7-510 
 
 z". Houchins (Va.). 8-616 
 
 Jackson v. (W. Va.) 6-455 
 
 King- V. (Va.) 23-701 
 
 Kirk V. (W. Va.) ■ 4-105 
 
 McDonald v. (Va.) 8-552 
 
 V. Marpole (Va.) 16-291 
 
 V. Marshall (Va.) 2-220, 221 
 
 V. Old Dominion Baggage Co. (Va.) . 20-479 
 
 V. Pinnacle Coal Company (W. Va.) 10-358 
 
 V. Reeves (Va.) 16-166 
 
 V. Shott (Va.) 2-17 
 
 Smith z;. (W. Va.) 17-108 
 
 V. Stevens (Va.) 16-468 
 
 Tucker v. (Va.) 3-651 
 
 z'.Wood(Va.) 21-317 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Ampey (Va.) 5-706, 707 
 
 Eckles V. (Va.) 5-707 
 
 V. McGarry (W. Va.) 6-787 
 
 Norman, Weir v. (U. S.) 13-861 
 
 Norris v. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. (CCA.) 22-806 
 
 North Baltimore Pass. R. Co. v. Arnreich (Md. ) 1-270, 278 
 
 North Carolina R. Co., City of Raleigh v. (N. Car) 23-953 
 
 Coley V. (N. Car. ) 21-891, 23-885 
 
 Harden v. (N. Car.) 23-895 
 
 Mossz/. (N. Car.) 12-19 
 
 Pierce v. (N. Car.) 13-666 
 
 NorthChicagoSt. R. Co. v. Eldridge (III.) 2-299, 301, 385 
 
 V. Wiswell (111.) 9-377 
 
 North Hampton & H. R. Co., Wright v. (N. Car.) 10-151 
 
 North Hudson County R. Co. v. Flanagan (N. J.) 1-265 
 
 North Jersey St. Ry. Co. , McGrath w. (N. J.) 22-790 
 
 z/. Schwartz (N. J.) 22-620 
 
 North & South St. R. Co., Outen v, (Ga.) 2-258 
 
 Northeastern R. Co., Chamberlain v. (S. Car.) 1-694 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commission v. (S. Car.) 4-235 
 
 Nohrden v. (S. Car.) 13-557, 20-241 
 
 Northern Alabama Ry. Co. v. Hopkins (CCA.)... 11-695 
 
 Northern Cent Ry. Co., Brague v. (Pa.) 15-594 
 
 V. Harrisburg & M. Electric R. Co. (Pa.) 6-151 
 
 K. Medairy (Md.) 7-526 
 
 People, Bacon, Commissioner v. (N. Y. ) 21-192 
 
 Northern Counties Inv. Trust, Limited, v. Enyard (Wash.) 20-830 
 
76 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Northern Ohio Ry. Co. v. Commissioners of Hancock County 
 
 (Ohio) 18-767 
 
 Northern Pac. Exp. Co. , Thomas v. (Minn.) ■'■^"i^^ 
 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co., Adams v. (Wash.) 15-784 
 
 harden z/. (U. S.) 1-512 
 
 Barker ». (C. C. A.) 2-389, 414 
 
 Beaumont z/. (CCA.) 22-470 
 
 Braun v. (Minn.). 17-139 
 
 Carpenter v. (C C A.) 5-712, 713 
 
 Casey v. (Wash.) 7-599 
 
 z/. Charless (U. S. C C) 4-128 
 
 V. De Tvacy (U. S.) 1-596, 657 
 
 V. Egeland (U. S.). . . . • • 4-259 
 
 V. Ely (Wash.) 22-90 
 
 Farmers' L,oan & Trust Co. ». (U. S.) 3-450 
 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. z/. (C C A.) 9-81 
 
 V. Freeman (U. S.) 15-89 
 
 Haner v. (Idaho) : 19-628 
 
 V. Keyes (U. S.) 13-128 
 
 V. Lewis (U. S.) ..4-258, 262 
 
 V. Mackey (CCA.) 1-596 
 
 Malmstrom v. (Wash.) 12-329 
 
 Mooers v. (Minn.) 17-753 
 
 V. Musser Sawtry L. L. & M. Co. (C C A.) 1-618 
 
 V. Myers, Treasurer of Jefferson County, Mont. (U. S.) . . 15-391 
 
 Nicholson v. (Minn.) 18-682 
 
 Olson V. (Minn.) 23-352 
 
 V. Peterson (U. S.) 4-117 
 
 V. Poirier (U. S.) 8-759 
 
 Prosserw. (U. S.) 1-717 
 
 Roberts w. (U. S.) 3-106 
 
 Ryan v. (Wash.) 11-647 
 
 Schneider v. (Minn.) 19-314 
 
 Slavens v. (CCA.) 16-406 
 
 Steele v. (Wash.) 15-129 
 
 Thompson v. (C C A.) 13-651 
 
 United States z/. (U. S.) 19-207 
 
 Yerkes v. (Wis ) 23-642 
 
 Northrup, Provisional Municipality of Pensacola v. (C C A.) . . 1-288 
 Northwestern Coal & Mining- Co., Kansas & T. Coal Ry. Co. v. 
 
 (Mo.) 20-593 
 
 Northwestern El. R. Co., Davis v. (111.) 9-452 
 
 Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Minn.) 13-449 
 
 Norton v. London & Northwestern R. Co. (Eng.) 1-717 
 
 Norton & T. St. Ry. Co., Vincent v. (Mass.) 23-543 
 
 Norwalk Tramway Co., Horton v. (Conn. ) 3-299 
 
 Norwood V. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. (Tex.) 3-395 
 
 Nosier v. Coos Bay, R. & E. R. & Na v. Co. (Ore.) 22-719 
 
 Nugent, St. Louis & T. H. R. Co. v. (111.) ; i-7i6 
 
 Nyce, St. Louis, K. & S. W. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 16-798 
 
 Nycura, Central Texas & N. W. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-435 
 
 Oakes, Bronson v. (C C A.) 9-166 
 
 Gulf, C & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Tex. ) ,,', 19-395 
 
 V. Maine Cent. R. Co. (Me.) 22-190 
 
 Oakland Consol. St. R. Co., Fox v. (Cal.) 9-825 
 
 Redfield v. (Cal.) .'.'.3-430, 432 
 
 Oakland, S. L. & H. Electric Ry., Siemsen v. (Cal.) 23-564 
 
 O'Beirne v. Alleghany & K. R. Co. (N. Y.) 10-860 
 
 O'Bryan, Nashville St. R. R. v. (Tenn.) 22-90'' 
 
 OcalaSt. & S. R. Co., Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. (Fla.) '.'.'. 7-686 
 
 Ocean City R. Co., State (West Jersey & S. R. Co., Pros.), v. 
 
 _(N J.) 10-421 
 
 Thompson v. (N. J.) 7-779 
 
 Och V. Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. (Mo.) 2-343 
 
TABLE OF CASES 77 
 
 Ochiltree v. Chicago & N. W. E. Co. (Iowa) 9-30 
 
 O'Connell, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 4-260 
 
 V. St. Paul City R. Co. (Minn.) 4-60 
 
 O'Connor, Chicag-o, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. (Neb.) 1- 51 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 20-816 
 
 V. Scranton Traction Co. (Pa.) 6-650 
 
 Oddie V. Mendenhall (Minn.) 22-880 
 
 Odeneal, Alabama & V. R. Co. v. (Miss.) , 3-436, 449 
 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. (Miss.) 7-770 
 
 Odill, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 2-647 
 
 Odom, Little Rock, etc.. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 6-773 
 
 Ogden City St. R. Co., Hall v. (Utah) 4-77 
 
 Ogletree, Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. (Ga.) ; 2-382 
 
 Oherfelder v. Metropolitan El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-349 
 
 Ohio & M. R. Co., Kentucky Wagon Manufacturing Co. v. (Ky.). 2-722 
 
 V. Tabor (Ky.) 2-541, 543 
 
 Ohio River Co., Guinn v. (W. Va.) 13-437 
 
 Ohio River & C. Ry. Co., Bradley v. (N. Car.) 18-340 
 
 Sims V. (S. Car.) 15-666 
 
 Ward V. (S. Car.) 12-854 
 
 Ohio River R. Co., Gunn v. (W. Va.) 6-275 
 
 McCreery v. (W. Va.) 8-7SS, 20-875 
 
 Oliver v. (W. Va.) 6-783, 784 
 
 Sheets v. (W. Va.) 2-129 
 
 Teel V. (W. Va.) 21-20 
 
 Ohio Valley Banking & Trust Co., Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.). . 15-839 
 
 Ohio Valley R. Co. v. McKinley (Ky.) 3-439, 443 
 
 Ohio Valley R. Co.'s Receiver z/. Young (Ky.) 8-399 
 
 O'Keefe, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 9-611 
 
 Old Colony R. Co., Brady v. (Mass.) 2-280 
 
 Foss V. (Mass.) 11- 41 
 
 Johnsen ». (R. I.) 1-64 
 
 V. Rockland & Abington St. R. Co. (Mass.) 1-179 
 
 Old Colony R. R., McGeary v. (R. I.) 14-764 
 
 Old Dominion Baggage Co., Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. (Va.) 20-479 
 
 O'Leary, New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. ». (C. C. A.) 14-718 
 
 Olin V. Denver & R. G. R. Co. (Colo.) 10-708 
 
 Oliver v. Ohio River R. Co. (W. Va.) 6-783, 784 
 
 O'Loughlin V. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.) 2-160 
 
 Olson V. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 15-837 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.) 7-241 
 
 V. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. (Minn.) 14-770 
 
 V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 23-352 
 
 V. Pennsylvania & O. Fuel Co. (Minn. ) 15-837 
 
 Olympia Door & Lumber Co., Patton v. (Wash.) ■ 5-13 
 
 Omaha & C. B. Railway & Bridge Co., Bixby v. (Iowa) 13-748 
 
 Omaha, Hutchinson & Gulf R. Co., C. G. Larned Mercantile Real 
 
 Estate & Live Stock Co. v. (Kan.) 3-23 
 
 V. Doney (Kan.) 3-144 
 
 Omaha, K. C. & E. Ry. Co., Rinard v. (Mo.) 22-34 
 
 Omaha & R. V. Ry. Co. v. ChoUette (Neb.) 2-225, 386, 388 
 
 V. Granite State Fire Ins. Co. (Neb.) 14-140 
 
 z/. Krayenbuhl (Neb.) 4-483 
 
 V. Wright (Neb.) 4-9, 5-419 
 
 Omaha & St. L. R. Co., Cambron v. (Mo.) 23-634 
 
 Mackrall v. (Iowa) 19-59 
 
 Schurr v. (Iowa) 5-152 
 
 Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. Cameron (Neb.) 1-258, 278 
 
 V. Duvall (Neb.) 1-253, 269, 270 
 
 V. Emminger (Neb.) 12-188 
 
 V. Lochneisen (Neb. ) 1-273 
 
 V. Martin (Neb.) 4- 1 
 
 Pray v. (Neb.) , 2-222, 299, 444, 445 
 
 O'Melia, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co. ». (Kan.).. 2-257 
 Omnibus Cable Co., Finkeldey v. (Cal. ) S-39S 
 
18 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 O'Neal, Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 12-374 
 
 O'Neill, Chicag-o, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. <Neb.) 13-371 
 
 v. Chicag-o, R. I. & P. R. Co. (Neb.) , 22-578 
 
 V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 17-415 
 
 Opinion of the Justices, In re (N. H.) 3-447 
 
 Oregon & C. R. Co., Abraham v. (Ore.). 17-250 
 
 V. Jackson County (Ore.) 22- 98 
 
 Oregon C. R. Co. v. United States (CCA.) l-oOl 
 
 Oregon Pac. R. Co., Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. v. (Ore.) 7-780 
 
 Oregon Railway & Navigation Co., Cederson v. (Ore.) 21-624, 22-655 
 
 Hosier v. (Ore.) 21-508 
 
 Williamette Iron Works v. (Ore. ) 1-36 
 
 Oregon R. Co., Hecker v. (Ore.) 23- 33 
 
 Oregon Short-Line R. Co. , Jones v. (Idaho) 14- 26 
 
 Nichols V. (Utah) 23-654 
 
 Patrie v. (Idaho) 14- 39 
 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of Utah v. (Utah) 22-273 
 
 Williams v. (Utah) 12-61 
 
 Oregon, etc., R. Co., Dillon v. (Ore.) 5-713 
 
 z/. Frost (U. S.) : 5-707 
 
 O'Reilly, Boston & Albany R. Co. t/. (U. S.) 2-377 
 
 V. New York El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 3-432 
 
 Orleans & J. Ry. Co. v. Jefferson & L. P. Ry. Co. (La.) 16-699 
 
 O'Rourke v. Lindell R. Co. (Mo.) 9-675 
 
 Orr V. Cedar Rapids & M. C R. Co. (Iowa) 1-239 
 
 Texas & P. R. Co. w. (Tex.) 2-211 
 
 Osborne, Chespeake & O. R. Co. v. (Ky. ) 2-157 
 
 V. Chicago & W. M. R. Co. (Mich.) 8-297 
 
 Railroad Co. v. (U. S.) 5-703 
 
 V. State of Florida (U.S.) 6-795 
 
 V. Wabash R. Co. (Mich.) 20-569 
 
 Oskaqip v. Southern Exp. Co. (Ohio) 17-334 
 
 Ostman, New York, C & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 6-588 
 
 Ostrander, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. ». (Ark.) 16-197 
 
 Otis, State v. (Kan.) 12-850 
 
 Outen V. North & South St. R. Co. (Ga.) 2-258 
 
 Outerbfidge, Downing v. (C. C A.) 10-861 
 
 Overfie^d, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 12-207 
 
 Overtoom v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. (111.) i5-849 
 
 Oviatt V. Railway Co. (Minn.) 5-694 
 
 Owen V. Jones (C. C A. ) 17-548 
 
 V. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. (Wash.) 3-32, 169 
 
 Owensboiro & N. Ry. Co., City of Owensboro v. (Ky.) 8-155 
 
 V. Courts (Ky.) 19-125 
 
 Owensbor<j, etc., R. Co. v. Barker (Ky.) 6-791 
 
 Owings, Atlanta Consolidated St. R. Co. Z'. (Ga.) . . . 5-1 
 
 Oyster, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb) .'.'..'.'.'. 12-655 
 
 Pace, Kansas City, P. & G. Ry. Co. v. (Ark. ) 21-433 
 
 Pacific Coast R. Co., feoseuberger v. (Cal.) .3-436, 437 
 
 Pacific Transf ef Co. , Merrill v. (Cal.) 21-143 
 
 Paddock v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 17-310 
 
 Paducah Railway & Light Co., Floyd v. (Ky.) !!!!!!! 23-167 
 
 Paducah St. Ry. Co., Macon ». (Ky.) 22-614 
 
 Page V. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha R. Co. (S. 
 
 Dak.) ■ 2-622 
 
 zj. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ala.) 21- 1 
 
 Pahlan v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) ....*.".'.'. .' " 16-309 
 
 Paine, Canton A & N. R. Co. v. (Miss.) '/[[ 3-453 
 
 Palmer, Great Northern R. Co. v. (Eng. ) ".'.."...'.'.". 2-99 
 
 V. Winona Railway & Light Co. (Minn.) 22-696 
 
 Paris, M. & S. P. R. Co. v. Nesbitt (Tex.) '.'.'.'.'.'.'. 3-443 
 
 Parish v. Western & A. R. Co. (Ga.) " io-s74 
 
 Park, Louisville R. Co. v. (Ky.) 2-211, 212, 221, 384," 385 389 
 
 Parker z/. Elmira,C &N.R. Co. (N. Y.)... ' 20-344 
 
 Kansas City, P. & G. R. Co. v. (Ark.) .' ' ' 22-441 
 
TABLE OF CASES 79 
 
 Parker v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 10-614 
 
 V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. (N. Car.) 6-716, 14-844 
 
 V. South Carolina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.) 6-731 
 
 V. Winona & St. P. R. Co. (Minn.) 21-594 
 
 Parkinson, Chicago, K. & N. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 3-464 
 
 Parks, Chicag-o, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 14-808 
 
 Parlier v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 23-559 
 
 Parmer, St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-544 
 
 Parrott v. Mercantile Trust Co. (C, C. A.) 22-209 
 
 Patchen, Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. (111.) 10-852 
 
 Paterson, N. & N. Y. R. Co., Mayor, etc., of City of Newark v. 
 
 (N. J.) 10-182 
 
 Patnoude v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass. ) 23-860 
 
 Patrie v. Oregon Short-Line R. Co. (Idaho) . . 14- 39 
 
 Patten & S. R. Co., Gillin v. (Me.) 16-508 
 
 Patterson v. Augusta & Savannah R. Co. (Ga. ) 2-342 
 
 V. Townsend (Iowa) 1-262, 273 
 
 Patteson v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. ( Va.) 6-389 
 
 Patton, E. M., Plff. in Err., v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company 
 
 (U. S ) 20-48 
 
 Patton V. Olympia Uoor & Lumber Co. (Wash. ) S- 13 
 
 Paul, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. z/. (U. S.) 12-755 
 
 Pavey,Southern Kansas R. Co. v. (Kan.) 5-590 
 
 Pawtucket StreetR. Co., Sanford z-. (R. I.) 4-318 
 
 Paxson, Fisher z;. (Pa.) 8-516 
 
 Paxson, Receivers of thePhila. & Read.'R. Co., Sharer v. (Pa.). . 2-429 
 
 Payne v. Chicago & A. R. Co. (Mo.) 6-291 
 
 Chicago North Shore St. Ry. Co. z/. (111.) 23-706 
 
 V. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 22-677 
 
 V. Spokane St. R. Co. (Wash.) 6-773 
 
 Pearsall v. Great Northern R. Co. (U. S.) 3-503 
 
 Peck V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 22-808 
 
 PeetBros. Manufacturing Co., Union Terminal R. Co. v. (Kan.).. 13-851 
 
 Peirce v. Van Dusen (U. S.) 7- 1 
 
 Pelzer, South Covington C. St. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 10-833 
 
 Pence v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 23-807 
 
 Pendery, Gulf, Colorada & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. (Tex.) 
 
 2-301, 318, 319 
 
 Peninsular R. Co., Bateman z^. (Wash.) 12-678 
 
 Peninsular Stove Co., Fort St. Union Depot Co. v. (Mich.) 3-30 
 
 Pennison v. Chicago, M. & St. P- R. Co. (Wis.) 4-573 
 
 Pennsylvania Co., Bond v. (111.) 10-118 
 
 V. City of Chicago (111. ) 15-618 
 
 V. Ebaugh (Ind.) 4-200, 14-701 
 
 V. Kenwood (111.) 9-556 
 
 V. Liveright (Ind.) 2-455, 3-427 
 
 Pennsylvania & O. Fuel Co., Olson v. (Minn.) 15-837 
 
 Pennsylvania, Poughkeepsie & Boston R. Co. v. Trimmer (N. J.) 3-137 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. , Allan v. (Pa.) 10-347 
 
 Baker v. (Pa.) 9-824 
 
 Barkman z/. (N. J.) • 12-250 
 
 Benignia v. (Pa.) ... 20-486 
 
 Brown & Haywood Co. v. (Minn.) 2-640 
 
 Burnett v. (Pa.) 4-449 
 
 Burr V. (N. J.) 16-162 
 
 Dampman v. (Pa.) 2-219, 383 
 
 Foreman v. (Pa.) 17-246 
 
 Fox V. (Pa.) 18-198 
 
 Goodhartz/. (Pa.) 5-364 
 
 Grimmer v. (Pa.) 3-609 
 
 Hanson z/. (N. J.) 12-404 
 
 Hillz/. (Pa.) 8-229 
 
 Hovenden z-. (Pa.) '. 6-778 
 
 In re (N. J.) 22-178 
 
 V. Jones (U. S.) 2-389 
 
80 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., Kerrigan v. (Pa.) 16-835 
 
 Knowles v. (Pa.) ..." 6-781 
 
 Li^ibv. (Pa.) 8-lSO 
 
 Lewis z/. (N. J. ) 3-413 
 
 V. Lyons (Pa.) 2-2S9 
 
 McAnally v. (Pa.) 17-741 
 
 McCafferty v. (Pa.) 16-122 
 
 McCusker v. (Pa.) 21-351 
 
 McFarlan v. (Pa.) 22-16 
 
 McNulty V. (Pa.) 8-685 
 
 Marchant z/. (U. S.) 3-31 
 
 V. Martin (C. C. A.) 23-449 
 
 V. Montgomery County Passenger R. Co. (Pa.) 1-190 
 
 V. National Docks Co. (N. J.) 4-256 
 
 National Docks & N. J. J. C. R. Co. z/. (N. J.) 
 
 3-82, 98, 132, 133, 169, 170 
 
 V. National Docks & N. J. J. C. R. Co. (N. J.) 3-132, 166 
 
 V. Pfuelb (N. J.) 7-738 
 
 Rathgebe v. (Pa.) 6-288 
 
 Robertson v. (Pa.) 7-605 
 
 Robinson v. (Pa.) 3-26, 27 
 
 Rothstein v. (Pa.) 2-258, 262 
 
 Simmons v. (Pa.) ... 21-466 
 
 V. Snyder (Ohio) 7-768, 769, 775 
 
 V. Stewart (U. S.) 2-389 
 
 Strieker z;. (N. J.) 7-758 
 
 Van Doren w. (C. C. A.) 13-577 
 
 Victor z>. (Pa.) 2-257, 259 
 
 Welsh V. (Pa.) 14-569 
 
 Wilson z/. (Pa.) 5-491 
 
 Wilson z;. (N. J.) 16-835 
 
 Wood V. (Pa.) 5-672 
 
 Pennsylvania Schuylkill Valley R. Co. v. Philadelphia & R. 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.) 1-26, 46 
 
 V. Schuylkill Nav. Co. (Pa.) 3-27 
 
 Spring City G. L. Co v. (Pa.) 3-131, 164, 166, 167 
 
 Taylor v. (Pa.) 4-258 
 
 Pennsylvania, etc., R. Co., Bard v. (Pa.) 5-717 
 
 Pennsylvania Steel Co. z/. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. (Ga.).. 2-685 
 
 Penny v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 12-180 
 
 Penrod, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 17-759 
 
 People, Bacon, Commissioner, v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co. (N. Y.).. 21-192 
 
 People, Cantrell v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. (111.) 6-241, 12-227 
 
 People V. Craycroft (Cal.) 3-655 
 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Clapp (N. Y.) 8-95 
 
 V. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 11-798 
 
 Frost V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 23-175 
 
 Jett, Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. (111.) 14-846 
 
 Loughran v. Board of Railroad Com'rs of State of New 
 
 York (N. Y.) 15-441 
 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Morgan, Comptroller, 
 
 (N. Y.) 22-527 
 
 V. President, etc., of Delaware & H. Canal Co. (N. Y.) . . 20-688 
 
 V. Rathbone (N. Y.) [\ 2-167 
 
 Tyroler v. Warden of City Prison of City of New York 
 
 (N. Y.) 14_474 
 
 People of the State of Illinois, Jett, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chi- 
 cago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. (U. S.) 17-227 
 
 People of the State of New York, Adirondack Railwav Company 
 
 ^- (U. S.) -. '....■'. i8_348 
 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 8-172 
 
 People's Pass. R. Co., Flanagan v. (Pa.) 1-268 
 
 People's St. R. Co., Jagger v. (Pa.) 8-771 
 
 People's St. R., etc., Co. , Van Natta v. (Mo.) " 3-433 
 
TABLE OF CASES 81 
 
 Peoria, Decatur, & Rvansville Railway Company, Edward O. 
 Hopkins, Receiver of the Peoria, Decatur, & Evansville Rail- 
 way Company, and Georg-e Colvin, Louis J. Gableman, Jr., by 
 His Next Friend, L^uis J. Gableman, Sr., Plff. in Err., v. (U. S.) 20-505 
 
 Pere Marquette R. Co., Michig-an Cent. R. Co. v. (Mich.) 23-864 
 
 Perkerson, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 21- 63 
 
 Perkins v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) 13-601 
 
 Perry, Humphreys v. (U. S.) 2-472 
 
 V. Macon Consol. St. R. Co. (Ga.) 10-819 
 
 V. Malarin (Cal.) 2-219 
 
 V. Western North Carolina R. Co. (N. Car.) 21-659 
 
 Perth General Station Committee v. Ross (Eng-.) 8-639 
 
 Peter v. Chicago & W. M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 15-541 
 
 Peterson, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan.) 8-772 
 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. v. (Ind.) 20-887 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 3-427 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. (U. S.) 4-117 
 
 V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 18-161 
 
 Petty V. Brunswick & W. Ry. Co. (Ga.) 16-840 
 
 Peyton, Southern Indiana Ry. Co. v. (Ind. ) 23-343 
 
 Pfaffenback v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. (Ind.) 2-318 
 
 Pfuelb, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. (N. J.) 7-738 
 
 Pharr v. Southern R. Co. (N. Car.) 6-726 
 
 Phelps V. Chicago & W. M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 16-302, 20-137 
 
 Philadelphia & B. C. R. Co. v. Holden (Md.) 22-192 
 
 Philadelphia & D. C. R. Co., Struthers v. (Pa.) 4-207 
 
 Philadelphia, Frankford, etc., R. Co. v. (Pa. ) 4-265 
 
 Philadelphia, H. & P. R. Co., Carlisle & Mt. H. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 (Pa. ) 22-754 
 
 Philadelphia v. McManes (Pa. ) 3-652 
 
 Philadelphia, R. & N. E. R. Co., Guarantee Trust & Safe De- 
 posit Co. V. (Conn.)... 12-872 
 
 Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., Bachman v. (Pa.) 13-563 
 
 Bard v. (Pa.) 21-782 
 
 Born V. (Pa.) 22-723 
 
 Commercial Ice Co. v. (Pa.) 19-171 
 
 Eaust V. (Pa. ) 15-146 
 
 Martin v. (Pa.) ; 23-170 
 
 Pennsylvania Schuylkill Valley R. Co. v. (Pa.) 1-26, 46 
 
 Piatt t/. (C. C. A.) 10-169 
 
 Proud V. (N. J.) 18-633 
 
 Ritzman v. (Pa.) 12-444 
 
 Schaeffer v. (Pa.) , 2-544, 545 
 
 Stahler v. (Pa.) 21-815 
 
 V. State (N. J.) 9-241 
 
 Philadelphia & R. T. R. Co., Becker v. (Pa.) 6-174 
 
 Boteler v. (Pa.) .3-130, 132, 167 
 
 Philips V. (Pa.) 10-706 
 
 Philadelphia Traction Co., Brashear v.- (Pa.) 6-794 
 
 Dixey V. (Pa.) 8-294 
 
 Harper ». (Pa.) 4-257 
 
 Kierzenkowski v. (Pa.) 9-533 
 
 V. Lightcap (CCA.) 1-271 
 
 Lumis V. (Pa.) 10-847 
 
 Mann v. (Pa.) 4-260 
 
 Moss V. (Pa. ) 6-690 
 
 Reilly ». (Pa.).. 5-399 
 
 Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Burkhardt (Md.) 5-189 
 
 Chester Traction Co. &. (Pa.) ;.... 12-428 
 
 Coburn v. (Pa.) 20-34 
 
 Coppuck z/. (Pa.) 15-68 
 
 Elanagan v. (Pa.) 8-119 
 
 Knopf V. (Del.) 20-172 
 
 Price V. (Md.) 7-115 
 
 ID— 6 
 
82 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Philadelphia, W. &.B. R. Co., Eeidel v. (Md.) 10-91 
 
 Roos V. (Pa.) 21-856 
 
 Smith V. (Md.) 10-264 
 
 TuUy V. (Del.) 20-322, 23-209 
 
 Weldonz'. (Del.) 13-759 
 
 V. Wilmington City R. Co. (Del.) 9-493 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., City of Philadelphia v. (Pa.) 5-720 
 
 I'orrest v. (Pa.) " 4-256 
 
 Philips V. Philadelphia & R. T. R. Co. (Pa.) 10-706 
 
 Phillips V. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. (Mich.) 6-319 
 
 V. Georgia R. & B. Co. (Ga.) 2-110 
 
 Georgia R. & B. Co. v. (Ga.) 2-473 
 
 Phillipsburg Horse Car Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (Pa.) 2-415 
 
 Philpott V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 5-471 
 
 Phipps V. Kansas & C. P. R. Co. (Kan.) 7-247 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan.). .5-698, 699 
 
 Pickett V. Railroad Co. (N. Car.) S-710 
 
 Pier V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Wis.) S-407 
 
 Pierce v. Bangor & A. R. Co. (Me.) 18-533 
 
 V. Camden, G. & W. R. Co. (N. J.) 5-S48 
 
 V. North Carolina R. Co. (N. Car.) 13-666 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.) 7-S64, 10-88 
 
 Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. (CCA.) 8-742 
 
 z/. Walters (111.) 8-672 
 
 Pilgrim, Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. (Colo.). 8-249 
 
 Pine Creek R. Co., Brown z/. (Pa.) 8-693 
 
 Pinnacle Coal Co., Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. (W. Va.) , . 10-358 
 
 Piper V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 11-202 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. (111.) 9-147 
 
 Piskorowski v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 19-120 
 
 Pittman, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 18-329, 23-55 
 
 Pitts V. Florida Cent., etc., R. Co. (Ga.) 8-762 
 
 Pittsburgh A. & M. Traction Co., Cleary v. (Pa.) 6-316 
 
 Downey z/. (Pa.) 1-263,276 
 
 Dunseath v. (Pa.) 1-278 
 
 Harkins v. (Pa.) 3-302, 430 
 
 Julius V. (Pa.) 9-523 
 
 Pittsburgh, B. & L. E- R. Co., Hamilton v. (Pa.) 13-376 
 
 Pittsburgh & B. Traction Co. , Bamford v. (Pa.) 22-798 
 
 Schenkel v. (Pa.) 22-904 
 
 Pittsburgh, C, C & St. L,. Ry. Co. v. Beck (Ind.) 13-353 
 
 V. City of Indianapolis (Ind. ) 11-689 
 
 Coleman v. (Ky.) 21-453 
 
 V. Cox (Ohio) 7-152 
 
 Coyle V. (Ind. ) 22-874 
 
 Enochs V. (Ind.) S-349 
 
 Helman v. (Ohio) 11-641 
 
 V. Hood (CCA.) , 15-648 
 
 V. Hosea (Ind. ) 14-692 
 
 V. Indiana Horseshoe Co. (Ind.) 18- 83 
 
 Krenzer v. (Ind.) 12-343 
 
 V. Lewis (Ky.) 6-333 
 
 V. Mahony (Ind.) 8-441 
 
 V. Martin (Ind.) 23-485 
 
 V. Montgomery (Ind.) 9-792 
 
 V. Moore (Ind.) 14-678 
 
 V. Russ (C. C. A.) \\ 2-141 
 
 Russell V. (Ind.) \\\ 23-601 
 
 V. Sheppard (Ohio) 6-S28 
 
 V. Strickley (Ind. ) '.".'/.'. 20-148 
 
 V. Town of Crown Point (Ind.) 6-324 
 
 Waldz-. (111.) .".■;; s- 70 
 
 Zahn V. (Pa. ) " ' 9-411 
 
 Pittsburg & C S. R. Co., Dennis v. (Pa.) 2-108, ii6,"220, 389 
 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C R. Co. v. Lyons (111.) 3_6S7 
 
TABLE OF CASES 83 
 
 Pittsburg & H. Electric St. R. Co., Homestead St. R. Co. v. 
 
 /j>g__\ ^ 1—97 98 
 
 Pittsburg-, J., ij. & E. R. Co. v. Altoona & B. C. R. Co. (Pa.).'. . . 19-614 
 
 Pittsburg Junction R. Co., Enright v. (Pa.) 20-564 
 
 Pittsburg & K. Coal Co., Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-332 
 
 Pittsburg & Iv. E. R. Co. , Hamilton v. (Pa.) 10- 70 
 
 Pittsburg, S. &N. R. Co., KushequaR. Co. v. (Pa.) 23-160 
 
 Pittsburg Traction Co. , I^aird v. (Pa.) 2-161 
 
 Pittsburg, etc.. Traction Co., Reber v. (Pa.) 7-786 
 
 Pittsburg & West End Passenger R. Co. v. Point Bridge Co. 
 
 (Pa.) 1-209 
 
 Pittsburg & W. Rv. Co., Cookson v. (Pa.) 6-339 
 
 Bredin v. (Pa.) 1-718 
 
 Smith V. (Ohio) 13-716 
 
 Piatt, Archambeau v. (Mass.) lS-249 
 
 McGinn v. (Mass.) 19-245 
 
 V. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 10-169 
 
 Wall V. (Mass.) 9-563 
 
 Plessy V. Eerguson (U. S.) 4-277 
 
 Fletcher v. Scranton Traction Co. (Pa.) 10-715 
 
 Ploof V. Burlington Traction Co. (Vt.) 13-702 
 
 Plunkett V. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. (Ga.) 13-860 
 
 Point Breeze E. & I. R. Co., Bergen Neck R. Co. v. (N. J.) 3-29, 98 
 
 Point Bridge Co. v. Pittsburgh & West End Passenger R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.) 1-209 
 
 Point Defiance R. Co. , Hinchman v. (Wash) 4-265 
 
 Poirier, Northern Pac. R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 8-759 
 
 Polk County, Comer v. (CCA.) 8-288 
 
 Pollock V. Maysville & B. S. R. Co. (Ky.) 14-821 
 
 Pomeroy v. Boston &M. R. R. (Mass.) 12-119 
 
 Pomponio v. New York, etc., R. Co. (Conn.) 4-259 
 
 Pontiac, O. & N. R. Co., Marshall v. (Mich.) 20-341 
 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co (Utah)' 16-551 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 15-617 
 
 Port Blakely Mill Co. v. Garrett (C. C A.) 16-363 
 
 Port Jervis, M. & N. Y. R. Co., Van Inwegen v. (N. Y.) 20-352 
 
 Port Richmond & P. P. El. R. Co. v. Staten Island R. T. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.) 1-229 
 
 Port Royal & W. C. R. Co., Madden v. (S. Car.) . .2-279, 280, 384, 385, 389 
 
 Miami Powder Co. v. (S. Car.) 4-426 
 
 Porter, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. (Ind.) 5-700 
 
 Porterfield, Chicago, R. I. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 12-383 
 
 Portland & G. E. Ry. Co., Watson v. (Me.) 11-194 
 
 Portsmouth K. & Y. St. R. Co., Taylor v. (Me. ) . 10-215' 
 
 Post V. Southern Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 16-201 
 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co., Mobile & O. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 10-867 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 13-423 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 18-364 
 
 Savannah, P. & W. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 20-917 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 13-417 
 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of Utah v. Oregon S. L,. R. Co. (Utah) .... 22-273 
 
 Posten, Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. z/. (Kan.) 11-138 
 
 Potter, Atchison, T. & S. E. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 15-660 
 
 V. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 16-264 
 
 V. Scranton Traction Co. (Pa.) 4-307 
 
 Potts V. Quaker City Elevated R. Co. (Pa.) l-40i 
 
 Pound, Georgia & A. Ry. Co. w. (Ga.) 17-398 
 
 Pounds, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. (Ind. Ter.) 4-262 
 
 Powell V. Sherwood (Mo.) 22-53 
 
 Power, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. t/. (Ark.) 16- 1 
 
 Powers, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan.) 8-757 
 
 Prather, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 14-832 
 
 Pray v. Omaha St. R. Co. (Neb.) 2-222, 299, 444, 445 
 
 Prescott V. Riverside, etc. , R. Co. (Iowa) 5-719 
 
 President, etc., of Delaware & H. Canal Co., Lewis v. (N. Y.). .. 2-192 
 
84 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 President, etc., of Delaware & JI. Canal Co., People v. (N. Y.).. . 20-688 
 
 Wieland v. (N. Y.) 21-130 
 
 Preston, Camden, G. & W. R. Co. ». (N. J.) S-616 
 
 Prewitt, Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 13-807 
 
 Price, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga. ) 12-283 
 
 z/. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. (W. Va.) 14-399 
 
 ChicagoG. "W. Ry. Co. v. (C.'C. A.) 16-324 
 
 V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. (Md.). 7-llS 
 
 Walker z;. (Kan.) 20-432 
 
 Priest, Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. (111.) 22-694 
 
 Prittie, Scottish American Inv. Co. v. (Can.) 3-134 
 
 Procter v. Southern California Ry. Co. (CCA.) 19-77 
 
 Proctor V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 22-426 
 
 Prospect Park & C I. R. Co. v. Coney Island & B. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-222 
 
 Prosser v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (U. S.) 1-717 
 
 Proud V. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (N. J.) 18-633 
 
 Provisional Municipality of Pensacola v. Northrup (C C A.). .. 1-288 
 
 Provost z/. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. (L,a.) 18-764 
 
 Ptacek, Chicag-o & W. I. R. Co. v. (111.) 10-481 
 
 Puckhaber v. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.) 21-581 
 
 Pugh V. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. (Ky.) 8-303 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 8-7S6 
 
 Pughsley, Savannah & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 22-446 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Adams (Miss.) 23-583 
 
 Airey v. (La.) 11-836 
 
 V. Central Transp. Co. (C. C Pa.) 3-451 
 
 Cooney v. (Ala.) 18-587 
 
 EJdmunson z/. (C. C A.) 14-336 
 
 V. Hall (Ga.) 14-229 
 
 Harrimau w. (C. C A.) 10-277 
 
 V. Harvey (Ga.) 10-77 
 
 V. Hunter (Ky.) 17-204 
 
 Kates z/. (Ga.) 2-480 
 
 V. Lawrence (Miss.) 8- 59 
 
 V. Martin (Ga.) 2-475 
 
 Purcell V. Southern R. R, Co. (N. Car.) 6-784, 785 
 
 Purdy, Lebanon, etc.. Turnpike R. Co. v. (Ky.) 7-778 
 
 Pyle V. Clark (Utah) 5-156 
 
 V. Clark (CCA.) 8-431 
 
 Quaker City Elevated R. Co., Potts v. (Pa.) 1-401 
 
 Queen City Coal Co., Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 4-389 
 
 Quick, Louisville & N. R. Co. z/. '(Ala.) 20-25 
 
 Quill, Houston & T. C R. Co. v. (Tex.) 12-736 
 
 Quimby v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 12-517 
 
 V. Boston & M. R. R. (Vt. ) 19-242 
 
 Quinlan v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 21-385 
 
 Quinn v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 12-512 
 
 V. Southern R. Co. (Miss.) 7-788 
 
 Wichita & W. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 7-217 
 
 Quirouet v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. (Ga.) 18-551 
 
 Radford, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky.) .'. 23-124 
 
 Rafferty v. Erie R. Co. (N. J.) 21-778 
 
 Rahilly v. St. Paul & D. R. Co. (Minn.) - 5-690 
 
 Rahn Township v. Tamaqua & L. St. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-197, 198 
 
 Railey v. Garbutt (Ga. ) 20-211 
 
 Railroad Commissioners, New York & New England R. Co. v. 
 
 (Mass.) , 1_660 
 
 Railroad Co., Baker v. (N. Car.) 5-710 
 
 V. Bouldin (Ala.) , ," s_708 
 
 ChoUette v. (Neb. ) ■'.'■'......'..'. 2-388 
 
 V. Connell (Pa.) ....'.". 5-716 
 
 V. Daniel (Ga. ) "..!!!!.! 5-714 
 
 Denmark v. (N. Car.) 5-710 
 
 Dixon V. (Eng.) 5-700 
 
 V. Fleetwood (Ga.) ' 5-694 
 
TABLE OF CASES 85 
 
 Railroad Co., E'leishman z". (Pa.) S-717 
 
 Gorgas v. (Pa.) 3-131 
 
 V. George (Ala.) S-708 
 
 Johnson v. (Pa.) 2-2S9 
 
 L,ay V. (N. Car.) S-710 
 
 McAdoo V. (N. Car.) S-710 
 
 ». Miller (Ga.) S-714 
 
 V. Osborne (CCA.) S-703 
 
 Osborne z*. (U. S.) 5-703 
 
 O'viatt V. (Minn.) S-694 
 
 Pickett ». (N. Car.) 5-710 
 
 Roberts v. (Me.) 3-439 
 
 V. Schwindling- (Pa.) 5-716 
 
 Scott w. (N. Car.) 5-710 
 
 V. Spearen (Pa.) S-71S 
 
 Ttllettz/. (N. Car.) 5-710 
 
 White V. (L,a.) 1-68 
 
 Railroad Equipment Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co. (CCA.) 22-144 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. w. (C C A.) 22-144 
 
 Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Minneapolis & St. L- R. 
 
 Co. (Minn.) ' ;... 17-630 
 
 Raleigh & Augusta Air-Line R. Co., Hinshaw v. (N. Car.) 3-558 
 
 Hygienic Plate-Ice Mfg. Co. z/. (N. Car. ) 18-78 
 
 V. Sturgeon (N. Car.) 8-272 
 
 Raleigh & C F. R. Co., Wilkie v. (N. Car.) 19-295 
 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. Bradshaw (Ga.) 22-572 
 
 Cooper z/. (Ga.) 18-412 
 
 V. Lowe (Ga.) 10-398 
 
 Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co. (Vt.) 14-416 
 
 Randolph, Hunter v. (N. Car.) 22-79 
 
 Ranney v. St. Johnsbury & L. C R. Co. (Vt.) 2-283, 384 
 
 Ransom, Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 3-259 
 
 Rapid Ry. Co., Beath v. (Mich.) 15-793 
 
 Rasberry, Tyler S. E. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-376 
 
 Rathbone, People z/. (N. Y.) 2-167 
 
 Rathbun v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.) , 9-333 
 
 Rathgebe v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 6-288 
 
 Ratzer v. Burlington, C R. & N. R. Co. (Minn.) 4- 55 
 
 Raub V. Los Angeles T. R. Co. (Cal.) 2-223, 224, 282 
 
 Ravenswood, S. & G. R. Co. v. Town of Ravenswood (W. Va.). . 4-14S 
 
 Rawson, Georgia & A. Ry. v. (Ga. ) 19-463 
 
 Ray, Cowen v. (C C. A.) 21-531 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 11-174 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. (Ind. ) 12-593 
 
 Raynor v. Wilmington S. C. R. Co. (N. Car.) 23-561 
 
 Reading City Pass. R. Co., Berks County v. (Pa.) 1-28, 213 
 
 Johnson v. (Pa.) 1-255, 264, 275 
 
 Reading Traction Co., Rudgeair v. (Pa. ) 8-112 
 
 Reagan, Gulf C & S. P. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-427,433,451 
 
 Reaves, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 20-784 
 
 Reber v. Pittsburg, etc. , Traction Co. (Pa.) 7-786 
 
 Receivers of Norfolk & W. R. Co. , Carper w. (U. S. ) 7-95 
 
 Receivers of Richmond & D. R. Co., Everett v. (N. Car.) 8-523 
 
 Reddington v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 11-440, 14-563 
 
 Redfield v. Oakland Consol. St. R. Co. (Cal.) 3-430, 432 
 
 Redfordz/. Spokane St. R. Co. (Wash.) 1-26S, 273 
 
 Redson v. Michigan Cant. R. Co. (Mich. ) 15-687 
 
 Reed, Adams v. (Utah) 1-551 
 
 State V. (Miss.) 12-22 
 
 Reeman, Dallas & O. C R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 2-281 
 
 Reese v. Wheeling, etc., R. Co. (W. Va.) 6-783, 785 
 
 Reeves, Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. (Va.) 16-166 
 
 State (Consolidated Traction Co., Prosecutor) v. (N. J.).. 3-651 
 
 V. Texas & P. R. Co. (Tex.) 2-541, 545, 546 
 
 Texas & P. R. Go. v. (Tex.) 8-429 
 
86 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Reeves, Treasurer of the State of California, Smith, Receiver of 
 
 the Atlantic & Pacific Railway Company z/. (U. S.) 19-S91 
 
 Reg, Toronto, etc., R. Co. v. (Eng.) 5-720 
 
 Reiberw. Butler & P. R. Co. (Pa.) 23-421 
 
 Reich, Delaware,!. & W. R. Co. z/. (N. J.) 11-313 
 
 Reid V. Norfolk City R. Co. (Va.) 6-792 
 
 Reidel v. Philadelphia W. & B. R. Co. (Md.) 10-91 
 
 Reilly v. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa. ) S-399 
 
 Reimer v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 21-378 
 
 Reiterw. Winona & St. P. R. Co. (Minn.) 11-31 
 
 Reynolds, McGhee v. (Ala.) 10-49, 22-17 
 
 Middle Georgia, etc.. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 8-763 
 
 V. Mink(C. C. A.) 23-924 
 
 Rhode Island L/Ocomotive Works v. Continental Trust Co. 
 
 (C. C. A.). 21-481 
 
 Rhoades v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. ( W. Va. ) 22-283 
 
 Richards, Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. v. (Tex.) 1-668 
 
 Richardson v. Chicago &' A. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 13-170 
 
 V. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. (S. Car.) 1S-S7S 
 
 Richardson County, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 21-702 
 
 Richart, Houston City Street R. Co. v. (Tex.) 1-290, 291 
 
 Richmond & D. R. Co., Burgin v. (N. Car.) 2-2S9 
 
 Clvde z/. (C. C. A.) 3-446 
 
 V. Littlejohu (S. Car.) 9-873 
 
 V. Tribble (Va.) 3-632 
 
 Richmond, F. & P. R. Co., Richmond Union Pass. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 ( Va.) 15-206 
 
 Richmond Georgia R., etc., Co. v. (Ga.) S-694, 707 
 
 Richmond v. McNeil (Ore. ) 10-691 
 
 N., I. & B. R. Co. V. Estill County (Ky.) 13-365 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 21-847 
 
 Richmond R., etc., Co. v. Garthright (Va.) 4-257, 263, 264 
 
 Richmond R. & Electric Co. v. Bowles (Va.) 3-654 
 
 Richmond Union Pass. Ry. Co. v. Richmond F. & P. R. Co. (Va.) 15-206 
 
 Rickert v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 12-162 
 
 Ricketts, l/ouisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 2-282, 6-186 
 
 Rider v. Edgar (Cal.) 2-472 
 
 Rierson v. St. I<ouis & S. F. Ry. Co. (Kan.) 11-667 
 
 Riley v. Salt Lake R. T. Co. (Utah) 1-258, 264, 266, 275 
 
 Rinard v. Omaha, K. C. & E. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 22- 34 
 
 Ring V. Chicago, St. P. & K. C. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 11-93, 12-452 
 
 Ringley, Cleveland, I,. & W. Ry. Co. v. (Ohio) 18-99 
 
 Ringo V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (Ky.) 23-271 
 
 Ringwalt v. Wabash R. Co. (Neb.) 2-450 
 
 Rio Grande, etc., R. Co., Bunnell z/. (Utah) 4-261 
 
 Rio Grande Western Ry. Co., Haun v. (Utah) 19-370 
 
 Johnson v. (Utah) 13-691 
 
 Konold V. (Utah) 17-450 
 
 Krantz v. (Utah) 2-432 
 
 Lewis V. (Utah) ; 14-822 
 
 Silcock V. (Utah) 18-459 
 
 Whitmore v. (Utah) 23-742 
 
 Risinger v. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 20-517 
 
 Ristine v. Blocker (Colo. ) 18-139 
 
 Clune z/. (C. C. A.) 1S_761 
 
 Ritchie, Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. (Ala.) 5-554 
 
 Rittenhouse v. Wilmington St. R. Co. (N. Car.) 6-783, 784, 785 
 
 Ritzman v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (Pa.) V2rA^^ 
 
 Riverside, etc., R. Co., Prescott v. (Iowa) 5-719 
 
 Roach, Alabama & C. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 5-706 
 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. (Ala. ) 11-869 
 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. (Ala.) 5-705 
 
 Robbins v. Brockton St. Ry. Co. (Mass.) 23-483 
 
 V. Magoun (Iowa) 7-783 
 
 Roberds v. Mobile & O. R. Co. (Miss.) .'."*' 7-93 
 
TABLE OF CASES 87 
 
 Roberts v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Me.) 3-439 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Colo.) 15-572 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.'s Receiver v. (Ky.). . . 21-322 
 
 V. Delaware & H. Canal Co. (Pa.) 5-664 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Tex. App.) 11- 21 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co. (U. S.) , 3-106 
 
 V. Railroad (Me.) 3-439 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 10-727 
 
 Robertson v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 7-605 
 
 V. Stead (Mo.) 4-529 
 
 V. Wabash R. Co. (Mo.) 16-16 
 
 Robinson v. Dover, etc., R. Co. (Ga.) 8-753 
 
 Hig-hland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 19-357 
 
 V. Huidekoper (Ga.) 5-216 
 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. (Ind.) .• 23-181, 628 
 
 Monsarrat v. (C. C. A.) .- 22-505 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa. ) 3-26, 27 
 
 V. Rockland, T. & C. St. R. Co. (Me.) - 2-160 
 
 V. Southern Pacific Co. (Cal.) 2-44 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. (Cal.) 21-160 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 23-508 
 
 Rochester Ry. Co., Ayers v. (N. Y.) 12-165 
 
 Mitchell z/. (N. Y.) 8-215 
 
 Rock Island & P. Ry. Co. v. L,eisy Brewing Co. (111. ) 13-340 
 
 Rockland & Abington St. R. Co., Old Colony R. Co. v. (Mass.). . . 1-179 
 
 Rockland T. & C. St. R. Co., Robinson v. (Me.) 2-160 
 
 Rogers v. Atlantic City R. Co. (N. J.) 3-283 
 
 V. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. (Ind.) 9-726 
 
 Kansas City & O. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 4-617 
 
 V. l/ouisville & N. R. Co. (Tenn.) 12-813 
 
 Missouri, K. & T» R. Co. of Texas v. (Tex.) 8-141 
 
 Roller, Denver & R. G. R. Co. w. (C. C. A. ) 18-595 
 
 Rome St. R. Co. v. McGiunis (Ga.) 1-256 
 
 Rood, Chicago City R. Co. v. (111.) 7-784 
 
 Rooney v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 14-425 
 
 Roos V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. (Pa.) 21-856 
 
 Root, Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. (Neb.) 8-754 
 
 Rorke, Ex parte (Eng.) 5-698 
 
 Roseberry v. Newport News & M. V. R. Co. (Ky.) 10-844 
 
 Rosenberg, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 22-418 
 
 Rosenberger z/. Pacific Coast R. Co. (Cal.) ..3-436, 437 
 
 Ross, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 14-12 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 17-432 
 
 Perth General Station Committee v. (Eng.) 8-639 
 
 Rosse V. St. Paul & D. R. Co. (Minn. ) 7-351 
 
 Rothars v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Miss.) 15-185 
 
 Rothschild V. Central R. Co. of N. J. (Pa.) 2-282, 283 
 
 Rothstein v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa. ) 2-258, 262 
 
 Rouse, Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. (111.) 12-706 
 
 V. Detroit Electric Ry. (Mich.) 22-650 
 
 V. Downs (Kan.) 7-773, 776 
 
 Rowell V. Boston & M. R. Co. (N. H.) 16-571 
 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. ». (Tex.) 11-597 
 
 Rowland, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. (Tex.) 6-775 
 
 Roy V. GrifSn (Wash.) 22-596 
 
 Ruckert v. Grand Ave. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 22-641 
 
 Rudd V. Farmville & P. R. Co. (Va. ) 3-656 
 
 Rudgeair v. Reading Traction Co. (Pa.) 8-112 
 
 Rudiger v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 6-50, 12-196 
 
 Rudulph, Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 21- 6 
 
 Rumpp, L,os Angeles P. & G. R. Co. v. (Cal.). .3-130, 132, 133, 136, 137, 168 
 
 Runnels, Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 12-800 
 
 Runyan v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey (N. J.) 19-290 
 
 Ruppert V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. (N. Y.) 11-873 
 
 Rush V. Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co. (Wash.) 20-285 
 
g8, TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Russ, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicag-o & St. l/ouis R. Co. v. 
 
 (C. C. A.) 2-141 
 
 Russell, Clark ». (C. C. A.) 17-68 
 
 V. Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.) 23-601 
 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co.. v. (Ark.) 3-6S3 
 
 Rutherford, Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 21-710 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 17-520 
 
 Rutland R. Co. v. Bellows Falls & S. R. St. Ry. Co. (Vt.) 23-675 
 
 V. ChafFee (Vt.) 21-513 
 
 Harrington v. (Vt.) 19-248 
 
 Holden v. (Vt.) 21-168 
 
 Ranchau w. (Vt.) . 14-416 
 
 Ryan, Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 21-684 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 14- 4 
 
 Chicago, etc., R.- Co. v. (III.) 8-754 
 
 V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 9-67 
 
 ZJ. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. (Wash.) 11-647 
 
 St. Clair v. Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. (Miss.) 20-426 
 
 St. Jean v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.) 10-444 
 
 St. John V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 22-728 
 
 St. Johnsbury & l^. C. R. Co., Ranney v. (Vt.) 2-283, 384 
 
 St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v. Hedge (Neb.). . . .2-220, 300, 301, 382, 387, 444 
 
 St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo.) 5-696 
 
 St. L,ouis, Alton & Terre Haute R. Co. v. Belleville City Ry. Co. 
 
 (111.) 3-53 
 
 People, Cantrellz/. (111.) 6-241, 12-227 
 
 St. Louis Basket, etc., Co., Winkler v. (Mo.) 7-774 
 
 St. Louis & B. Ry. Co. v. Van Hoorebeke (111.) 23-748 
 
 St. Louis County v. Duluth & I. R. R. Co. (Minn.) 19-273 
 
 St. Louis & H. Ry. Co., Cobb v. (Mo.) 13-632 
 
 St; Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Anderson (Ark.) 5-637 
 
 Aufdenberg v. (Mo. ) 3-323 
 
 Barker v. (Mo.) 2-157 
 
 V. Battle (Ark) 22-700 
 
 V. Beecher (Ark.) . 10-557 
 
 V. Bland (Tex.) 3-423 
 
 v. Bragg (Ark.) 14-34 
 
 V. Brown (Ark.) 16-440 
 
 Chitty V. (Mo.) 23-829 
 
 V. Cox (Ark. ) 2-280 
 
 V. Dawson (Ark.) 18- 30 
 
 V. Edwards (CCA.) 8-402 
 
 V. Ferguson (Ark.) 10-634 
 
 Ford V. (Ark.) lS-142 
 
 Graney v. iMo. ) 8-187 
 
 V. Greenthal (C C A.) 6-261 
 
 Inabnett v. (Ark.) 20-590 
 
 V. Jordan ( Ark. ) 13-681 
 
 V. Law (Ark.) 18-286 
 
 V. Lee (Ark.) 23-320 
 
 V. Lewis (Ark. ) 20-483 
 
 V. Linam (Ark. ) 21- 5 
 
 McKennon v. (Ark.) 21-527 
 
 z/.Paul(U. S.) 12-755 
 
 Peterson v. (Mo. ) 18-161 
 
 V. Power (Ark.) 16- i 
 
 V. State (Ark.) 22-753 
 
 V. Stewart (Ark.) 20-571 
 
 V. Tomlinson (Ark. ) 22-682 
 
 V. Tuohey (Ark.) 16-453 
 
 V. Waren (Ark.) 13-729 
 
 St. Louis, K. & N. W. R. Co., Scott v. (Iowa) 19-63 
 
 St. Louis, K. & S. R. Co. v. Wear (Mo.) 4-623 
 
 V. Wear, Judge (Mo.) 4-583 
 
 St. Louis, K. & S. W. R. Co. v. Nyce (Kan.) \\'.\ 16-798 
 
TABLE OF CASES 89 
 
 St. Ivouis, M. B. T. Ry. Co., Neville v. (Mo.) 20-196 
 
 St. I^ouis, O. H. & C. R. Co. v. Fowler (Mo.) 10-405 
 
 St. I<ouis, P. & N. Ry. Co. v. Dorsey (111.) 21-280 
 
 St. IfOuis R. Co., Schmidt v. (Mo.) 22-711 
 
 V. Southern R. Co. (Mo.) 7-772 
 
 V. White (Tex. ) 3-652 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bryan Fruit Co. (Kan.) 2-691 
 
 V. Burrows (Kan. ) 17-678 
 
 V. Carter ,, 2-63 
 
 V. Crabtree (Ark.) .' 20-923 
 
 V. French (Kan. ) , 3-434, 440 
 
 z--. Gill (U. S.) 2-63 
 
 V. Gordon, Mayor (Mo.) 19-561 
 
 V. Hurst (Ark. ) 17-324 
 
 V. Kilpatrick (Ark.) . , 17-212 
 
 V. Ludlutn (Kan. ) 23-851 
 
 V. Marrs (Ark.) 2-647 
 
 V. Mathews (U. S.) 6-361 
 
 V. Miles (CCA.) 10-585 
 
 V. Ostrander (Ark.) 16-197 
 
 V. Parmer (Tex.) 2-544 
 
 Rierson v. (Kan.) 11-667 
 
 Selvege v. (Mo.) 4-625 
 
 V. Sherlock (Kan.) 9-462 
 
 Smith V. (Mo.) 14-609 
 
 V. Stevenson (U. S.) 2- 63 
 
 V. Townsend (Ark. ) .' 22-123 
 
 z/. Trimble (U.S.).... 2-63 
 
 United States v. (Mo.) 22-812 
 
 St. I^ouis & S. R. Co., Schafer v. (Mo.) 2-17, 224 
 
 St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Berger (Ark.) 10-235 
 
 V. Berry (Ark.) 2-457 
 
 V. Garden (Tex. ) 3-449 
 
 V. Elgin Condensed Milk Co. (111.) 13-112 
 
 z*. Gans (Ark.) 21-498 
 
 V. Gate City Co-op. Grocery Co. (Ark. ) 23-875 
 
 V. Harper (Ark.) 21- 77 
 
 V. Huffman (Tex. Civ. App.) 2-157, 162 
 
 Jackson v. (La. ) 18-444 , 
 
 V. McCullough (Tex.) 3-429, 430 
 
 Nebraska Meal Mills v. (Ark.) 7-591 
 
 z/. Russell (Ark.) 3-653 
 
 V. Shiflet (Tex.) 20-38 
 
 V. Stanfield (Ark.) 8-115 
 
 V. Threat (Tex. ) 3-358 
 
 Weil V. (Ark.) 9-721 
 
 V. Williams (Tex.) 2-541, 542, 545 
 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Chambliss (Tex.) 18-204 
 
 St. Louis & T. H. R. Co. v. Nugent (111.) 1-716 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Brown (Ark.) , 4-262 
 
 V. De Shong(Ark.) 6-773 
 
 V. Dingman (Ark. ) 4-261 
 
 V. Eggmann (111. ) 4-263 
 
 - V. Forbes (Ark.) 6-788 
 
 V. Leathers (Ark. ) 4-261 
 
 St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. (Mo.) 5-696 
 
 Thomas v. (111.) 8-760,761 
 
 V. Warfel (111.) 6-790,795 
 
 St. Paul V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Minn.) 5-711, 712 
 
 St. Paul City Ry. Co., Blondel v. (Minn.) 6-272 
 
 Fulmore v. (Minn.) 11-636 
 
 Hickey w. (Minn.) 1-263 
 
 Morrow v. (Minn.) 12-836 
 
 O'Connell v. (Minn.) 4-60 
 
 Webber v. (Minn.) 6-774 
 
90 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 St. Paul & D. R. Co., Butler v. (Minn.) 2-261 
 
 V. City of Duluth (Minn.) 13-855 
 
 RahiUy v. (Minn.) =-690 
 
 Rosse V. (Minn.) ^""^^i 
 
 Sandberg v. (Minn.) • 18-763 
 
 Sheehan z/. (C. C. A.) 8-128 
 
 St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., Owen &. .(Wash.) 3-32,169 
 
 •V. St. Paul & Northern Pacific R. Co. (CCA.) 1-621 
 
 St. Paul & Northern Pac. R. Co., St. Paul, Minneapolis & Man- 
 itoba R. Co. ». (C. C. A.) 1-621 
 
 St. Paul & S. C R. Co., United States z/. (C C A.) 1-656 
 
 St. Paul, etc., R. Co., Jones w. (Wash.) 6-789 
 
 Miller v. (Minn.) 5-718 
 
 St. Paul Union Depot Co., Chicago, G. W. Ry. Co. v. (Minn.). . . . 7-679 
 
 Godbout V. (Minn.) 16-821 
 
 Saginaw, T. & H. R. Co. v. Bordiner (Mich.) 3-11, 29 
 
 Salt Lake City R. Co., Budd v. (Utah) 22- 6 
 
 Dederichs v. (Utah) 4-259 
 
 Salt Lake Rapid Transit Co. , Nelson v. (Utah) 2-1S6 
 
 Riley v. (Utah) 1-2S8, 264, 266, 275 
 
 Thompson v. (Utah) 10-563 
 
 Sampson, Highland, etc., R. Co. v. (Ala.) 5-715, 717, 718, 719, 720 
 
 Samuels, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 18-374 
 
 San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Barnett (Tex.) 3-423 
 
 V. Bergsland (Tex.) 3-304 
 
 V. De Ham (Tex.) 16-843 
 
 V. Harding (Tex.) .- 3-389 
 
 V. Pratt (Tex.) 3-217 
 
 Wilcox V. (Tex.) 3-441, 442 
 
 San Antonio & G. S. Ry. Co., Davis v. (Tex.) 15-449 
 
 San Antonio R. T. Co., Limburger v. (Tex.) 1-169, 171, 323, 324 
 
 San Antonio St. R. Co. v. Mechler (Tex.) 1-257, 258, 265, 279 
 
 V. State, Elmendorf (Tex. ) ; . 6-658 
 
 Sandberg v. St. Paul & D. R. Co. (Minn.) 18-763 
 
 Sanders, Arkansas & L. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 23-744 
 
 V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Okla.) 18-244 
 
 Georgia S. & F. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 18-206 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 11-861 
 
 Louisville &. N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 10-528 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. z-. (Tex.) 3-428 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 14-281 
 
 Sanford v. Pawtucket Street R. Co. (R. I.) 4-318 
 
 Santa Ana & W. R. Co., Montgomery v. (Cal. ) 1-44, 61 
 
 Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. Bossut (N. Mex.) 19-683 
 
 Santa Rosa City R. Co. v. Central Street R. Co. (Cal.) 1-105 
 
 Saranac & L- P. R. Co. v. Arnold (N. Y.) 22-480 
 
 Sargent, Boston & M. R. R. w. (N. H.) 21-335 
 
 Satterwhite, International & G. N. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 12-214 
 
 Sauls V. D. W. Alderman & Sons Co. (S. Car.) 15-558 
 
 Saunders v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (S. Dak.) 2-220, 382 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. (Utah). 4-13 
 
 Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Austin (Ga.) 10-343, 11-539 
 
 V. Beavers (Ga.) 21-646 
 
 V. Booth (Ga.) S-612 
 
 V. Chaney (Ga.) 11- 1 
 
 Chicago Packing & Provision Co. v. (Ga. ) 10-391 
 
 V. Commercial Guano Co. (Ga.) 12-848 
 
 V. Glover (Ga.) 13-566 
 
 Glover v. (Ga.) 13-566 
 
 V. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. (C. C A.) 9-582 
 
 V. Postal Tel. Cable Co. (Ga.) 20-917 
 
 V. Wall (Ga.) 2-260 
 
 z-. Waller (Ga.) 5-620 
 
 Wenz V. (Ga.) 15-844 
 
 Savannah & S. Ry. Co. v. Pughsley (Ga.) 22-446 
 
TABLE OF CASES 91 
 
 Savannah, T. & J. of H. R. Co. v. Bryan (Ga.) 1-279 
 
 Military Ass'n of Savannah v. (Ga.) 14-824 
 
 Savannah & W. R. Co., Central Trust Co. z/. (C. C. A.) 2-717 
 
 Savannah, etc. , R. Co. v. Wideman (Ga.) S-714 
 
 Sax V. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry . Co. (Mich. ) 20-653 
 
 Saxton ». New York El. R. Co. (N. Y. ) 1-376 
 
 Sayers, Assessor, v. Wilmington & N. R. Co. (Del.) 22-530 
 
 Scanlan, West Chicago St. R. Co. v. (111.) 9-482 
 
 Scanlon, I,ouisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 22-833 
 
 Scantland, Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. Ry. Co. v. (Ind.) 14-75 
 
 Scarritt v. Kansas City, O. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 15-809 
 
 Schaefer v. City of I'ond du Lac (Wis.) 11-342 
 
 ShaefEer v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (Pa.) 2-S44, 545 
 
 V. St. L,ouis & S. R. Co. (Mo.) 2-17, 224 
 
 Schaidler v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 15-105 
 
 Scheiber v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minn. & O. R. Co. (Minn.) 2-289 
 
 Scheinkoenig, Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 19-232 
 
 Schenkel v. Pittsburgh & B. Traction Co. (Pa.) 22-904 
 
 Schepers v. Union Depot R. Co. (Mo.) 2- 9 
 
 Schifaer v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (Wis.) 8-122 
 
 Schilling v. Winona, etc., R. Co. (Minn.) 5-694 
 
 Schimpf V. Harris (Pa. ) 11-470 
 
 Schmidt v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 21-95 
 
 l/ouisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 6-571 
 
 V. St. Louis R. Co. (Mo.) 22-711 
 
 Schmitt V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa) 5-714 
 
 z-. Milwaukee St. R. Co. (Wis.) 2-156, 161 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 20-216 
 
 Schneider v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 11-81 
 
 V. Market St. Ry. Co. (Cal.) 23-692 
 
 V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 19-314 
 
 Schnur ». Traction Co. (Pa.) 5-716 
 
 Scholes, Baltimore & O. & C. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 3-454 
 
 Schrimper v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Iowa) 23-385 
 
 Schug V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 15-705 
 
 Schulte V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 21-356 
 
 Schurr v. Omaha & St. L. R. Co. (Iowa) 5-152 
 
 Schuylkill Nav. Co., Pennsylvania S. V. R. Co. v. (Pa.) 3-27 
 
 Schwartz, North Jersey St. Ry. Co. z/. (N. J.) 22-620 
 
 Schweinfurth v. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. Ry. Co. (Ohio) 15-73 
 
 Schwindling, Railroad Co. v. (Pa.) 5-716 
 
 Sciortino v. Crescent City R. Co. (La.) 6-526 
 
 Scott V. Allegheny Valley R. Co. (Pa.) 2-678 
 
 . Camden Horse R. Co. w. (N. J.) 1-132 
 
 V. Camden Horse R. Co. (N. J.) 4-520 
 
 V. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 20-884 
 
 V. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. (Ind.) 3-428, 429 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. w. (N. J.) 4-371 
 
 Louisville & W. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 17-261 
 
 w. Railroad Co. (N. Car.) 5-710 
 
 V. St. Louis, K. & N. W. R. Co. (Iowa) 19-63 
 
 Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. (La.) 17-745 
 
 Texas & P. R. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) 8-309 
 
 Scottish American Inv. Co. v. Prittie (Can.) 3-134 
 
 Scranton & P. Traction Co. v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. (Pa.). . . 7-537 
 
 Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. (Pa.) 7-537 
 
 O'Conner v. (Pa.) 6-650 
 
 Pletcher v. (Pa.) 10-715 
 
 Potter V. (Pa.) 4-307 
 
 Seaboard A. L. R. Co., Jeffries v. (N. Car.) 23-339 
 
 Seals V. Augusta Southern R. Co. (Ga.) 10-386 
 
 Seamans v. Delaware, etc., R. Co. (Pa.) 4-260 
 
 Seattle City R. Co. , Brown v. (Wash. ) 9-859 
 
 Muldoon w. (Wash.) 2-110 
 
 Seattle &M.R. Co. v. Corbett (Wash.) 17-709 
 
92 • TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Seattle & M. R. Co., Mills v. (Wash.) 1-718 
 
 V. State (Wash.) 3-2S, 9S, 96, 97 
 
 Second Ave. E. Co., Bradley z/. (N. Y.) 12-184 
 
 Second Ave. Traction Co., Levin v. (Pa.) 23-318 
 
 Second Nat. Bank, Metropolitan Trust Co. v. (CCA.) 22-209 
 
 Second Nat. Bank of Sandusky, Mercantile Trust Co. v. 
 
 (C C A.) 22-209 
 
 Seeley v. Citizens' Traction Co. (Pa.) 6-790 
 
 Seldomridge v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.) 14-639 
 
 Selvege v. St. Louis & S. E'. R. Co. (Mo.) 4-625 
 
 Serfass, Central R. Co. v. (111.) 1-269 
 
 Settoon V. Texas & Pac. R. Co. (La. ) 4-219 
 
 Sewell V. Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co. (111.) 13-387 
 
 Shadford v. Ann Arbor St. R. Co. (Mich.) 6-S84 
 
 Shafer, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. (Neb.) S-698 
 
 Shalley w. Danbury & B. H. R. Co. (Conn.) 1-289, 290 
 
 Sharer v. Paxson, Receivers of the Phila. & Read. R. Co. (Pa.).. 2-^29 
 
 Sharp, Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 7-710 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. ) 21-47 
 
 Shaw, Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co. z/. (Kan.) 3-248 
 
 z/.-Chicago'& G. T. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 18-131 
 
 Comer j;. (Ga.) 5-697 
 
 Shea V. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (Minn.) 5-695 
 
 V. Minneapolis, St. P. & Saulte Ste. M. R. Co. (Minn.). . 2-608 
 
 V. Minneapolis & S. Ste. M. R. Co. (Minn.) 2-677, 717 
 
 Shearer, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 20-138 
 
 Sheehanz/. St. Paul & D. R. Co. (C C. A.) ". .. 8-128 
 
 Sheets v. Ohio River R. Co. (W. Va.) 2-129 
 
 Sheldon v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) 13-390 
 
 Shelton v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 8-678 
 
 Walker v. (Kan.) 11-15 
 
 Sheltrawn v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.). 23-711 
 
 Shepard v. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-371 
 
 Shepherd, Citizens' St. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 23-163 
 
 Sheppard, Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ohio) 6-528 
 
 Sherlock, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 9-462 
 
 Sherman, S. & S. R. Co , Evans t-. (Tex.) 5-184 
 
 Sherman, etc., R. Co., Coulv Z'. (Tex.) 6-772 
 
 Sherwood z/. Atlantic & D. R. Co. (Va.) 6-670 
 
 Powell V. (Mo.) 22-53 
 
 Shields z;. Norfolk (S C. R. Co. (N. Car.) 22-635 
 
 Shiflet, St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 20-38 
 
 Shimer, Malott z/. (Ind.) 15-774 
 
 Shirley, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ala. ) 21- 60 
 
 Shockman, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 12-880 
 
 Shoemaker, Kansas City & N. C R. Co. v. (Mo.) 20-496 
 
 Shorter v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ala.) 18-761 
 
 Shott, Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. (Va.) 2-17 
 
 Shreveport Belt Ry. Co., Bland z;. (La.) 4-349 
 
 Cowden v. (La.) 23-355 
 
 Shreveport & R. R. Val. Ry . Co. v. Hinds (La. ) 13-325 
 
 Sidell, Leroy & C Val. Air-Line R. Co. v. (Kan.) 21-741 
 
 Sides, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 21- 90 
 
 Siemsen ». Oakland, S. L. &H. Electric Ry. (Cal.) 23-564 
 
 Siglin, Coos Bay, R. & E. R. R. Co. «& Nav. Co. v. (Ore.) 11-714 
 
 Silcock V. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. (Utah) 18-459 
 
 Simmons, Jackson & S. St. R. R. v. (Tenn.) : 23-236 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa. ) 21-466 
 
 V. Worthington (Mass. ) 10-771 
 
 Simon v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (Pa.) 3-655 
 
 Chicago & n: W. R. Co. v. (111.) S_ 80 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (Va.) 12-324 
 
 Simpson, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-592 
 
 Simsz-. Ohio River &C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 15-666 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 20- 76 
 
TABLE OF CASES 93 
 
 Sims V. Western & A. R. Co. (Ga.) 17-7S6 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 17-7S6 
 
 Sinard v. Southern Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 14- 17 
 
 Sinclair v. Chicag-o, B. & K. C. R. Co. (Mo. ) 3-269 
 
 Sinks V. Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 22-209 
 
 Sioux City, O. & W. Ry. Co. v. Manhattan Trust Co. (C. C. A.). . 15-430 
 
 Sioux City & P. Ry. Co., Blair v. (Iowa) 10-306, 17-363 
 
 Brown v. (Iowa) 10-306, 17-363 
 
 Holloway v. (Iowa) 10-306, 17-363 
 
 McCoy V. (Iowa) 10-306, 17-363 
 
 Sioux City R. T. Co., Freiday v. (Iowa) 1-408 
 
 Sipes, Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. (Colo.) 6-605 
 
 Sirk V. Marion St. R. Co. (Ind. App.) 2-223 
 
 Sixth Ave. R. Co. v. Metropolitan El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-373, 376, 378 
 
 Skiles, Wabash R. Co. v. (Ohio) 21-881 
 
 Skinner v. Wilmington & W. R. Co. (N. Car.) 22-32 
 
 Slattery, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan. ) 8-761, 764 
 
 Slavens v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C. A ) 16-406 
 
 Sleadd v. Southern Ry. Co. in Kentucky (Ky.) 19-131 
 
 Slensby v. Milwaukee St. R. Co. (Wis.) 9-527 
 
 Sloan, Mayor, State, Columbia E. S. R., L,. & P. Co. v. (S. Car. ) .. 9- 44 
 
 Sloane v. Southern California R. Co. (Cal.) 4-182 
 
 Sloniker v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 13-819 
 
 Smalley, Central R. Co. of N. J. v. (N. J.) 10-463 
 
 Smedley v. Hestonville, M. & F. Pass. R. Co. (Pa.) 9-649 
 
 Smith V. Atlantic City R. Co. (N. J.) 22-268 
 
 Baldwin v. (111.) 1-28 
 
 V. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 19-320 
 
 Brunswick, etc. , R. Co. v. (Ga. ) 5-^95 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. z/. (Ky.).. 7-776,15-641 
 
 V. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (Iowa) 6-78 
 
 V. City& Suburban R. Co. (Ore.) S-163 
 
 V. Electric Traction Co. (Pa.) 12-422 
 
 V. Georgia R. & Banking Co. (Ga.) 21-20 
 
 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Ee R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-222 
 
 Hicks, Atty. Gen., Askew ». (Wis.) 20-694 
 
 Houston & Texas Cent. R. Co. v. (Tex. ) 2-177 
 
 Kellogg V. (Mass.) 23-80 
 
 V. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.) : 8-496 
 
 I,ake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. !■. (U. S.) 14-511 
 
 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 13-699 
 
 EouisviUe & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 10-506, 15-613, 19-157 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. :/. (Ala.) : 23-218 
 
 McGovern v. (Vt.) 23-690 
 
 Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. (Ark.) 2-89 
 
 V. Norfolk& W. Ry. Co. (W. Va.) 17-108 
 
 V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. (Md.) 10-264 
 
 V. Pittsburgh & W. Ry. Co. (Ohio) 13-716 
 
 V. Reeves, Treasurer (U.S.) 19-591 
 
 V. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.) ..:... 14-609 
 
 z;. So. E. R. Co. (Eng.) 3-452 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 23-777 
 
 V. State (Tenn.) 11-144 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 11-709 
 
 V. Wilmington & W. R. Co. (N. Car.) 23-467 
 
 Smith Bros. &Co., Limited, v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. (La.) 22-419 
 
 Smithson v. Chicago, G. W. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 11-726 
 
 Smock, Denver, etc., R. Co. v. (Colo.) '. 7-773, 775, 776, 778 
 
 Smyth, Atty. Gen., v. Ames (U. S.) 10- 1 
 
 w. Higginson (U. S.) 10- 1 
 
 V. Smith (U. S. ) 10- 1 
 
 Sneed, Union Ry. Co. v. (Tenn.) 13-876 
 
 Snouffer v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 11-571 
 
 Snyder v. Ft. Madison St. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 11-53 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. (Ohio) 7-768, 769, 775 
 
94 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Soderhurg, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. (Neb.) 8-761, 764 
 
 Sokol, Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 2-148 
 
 Solan V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Iowa) 2-167 
 
 Somerville v. Wabash R. Co. (Mich.) S-693 
 
 Sonn V. ErieR. Co. (N. J.) 22-389 
 
 Sours V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn. ) 23-457 
 
 South-Bound R. Co. , Green v. (Ga. ) 21-664 
 
 Huttoz/. (S.Car.) 22-724 
 
 Spires z/. (S. Car.) S-708 
 
 South Carolina & G. E. Ry. Co., Upton v. (N. Car.) 21-242 
 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. , Appleby v. (S. Car.) 20-581 
 
 V. Carolina, C. G. & C. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 15-212 
 
 I/. Deitzen (Ga.) 10-232 
 
 Iseman v. (S. Car.) 11-219 
 
 Parker v. (S. Car.). .'. 6-731 
 
 Strotherz/. (S. Car.) 5-430 
 
 V. Thurman (Ga. ) 14-727 
 
 Whitton V. (Ga.) 14-776 
 
 Wragge v. (S. Car.) 4-639 
 
 Youngblood v. (S. Car.) 20-622 
 
 South Chester R. Co., Walker v. (Pa.) 4-256 
 
 South Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Calumet Electric St. Ry. Co. 
 
 (111.) 11-789 
 
 South Covington C. St. R. Co. v. Pelzer (Ky. ) 10-833 
 
 South Covington, etc. , R. Co. v. Enslen (Ky. ) 7-785 
 
 South E.. R. Co., Smith v. (Eng.) 3-452 
 
 Southard v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. (Minn.)... 2-677 
 
 Southern Boulevard Co. , Matter of (N. Y. ) . 3-30, 31 
 
 Southern Boulevard R. Co., In re (N. Y.) 3-169 
 
 Southern California Ry. Co., Procter ». (C. C. A.) 19-77 
 
 Sloane v. (Cal.) 4-182 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co., z/. (Cal.) 3-37 
 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co. (Cal.) 3-446, 450 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Bank of Tupelo (Ala.) 2-608, 609, 678 
 
 Dinsmore v. (Ga.) 13-314 
 
 Dinsmore v. (C. C. A.) 19-^68 
 
 Dixie Cigar Co. v. (N. Car.) 10-863 
 
 Oskamp v. (Ohio) 17-334 
 
 V. State (Ga.) 16-179 
 
 z/. Wood(Ga.) 5-83 
 
 Southern Indiana Ry. Co. v. Peyton (Ind.) 23-343 
 
 Southern Iron Car-Line Co., Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. v. 
 
 (Ala.) 8-102 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Clark (Kan. ) 2-460 
 
 V. Michaels (Kan.) 8-761, 764 
 
 V. Pavey (Kan.) 5-590 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Arnett (CCA.) 23-794 
 
 Bader v. (I^a.) 17- 60 
 
 Blackburn v. (Ore. ) 12-461 
 
 V. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. (C C. A.) 18-559 
 
 Edson V. (Cal.) 22-187 
 
 English V. (Utah) 4-63 
 
 Green v. (Cal.) 13-511, 21- 26 
 
 V. Harada (C C A.) 'Zir-ZIS 
 
 Hayes v. (Utah) 11-419 
 
 Heckle v. (Cal.) 15-584 
 
 Herbert v. (Cal. ) I 11_ 94 
 
 V. Hyatt (Cal. ) '. ' . 20-576 
 
 I/emasters v. (Cal.) 20-2% 
 
 Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. (Cal.) 15-530 
 
 McCurrie v. (Cal. ) 12-170 
 
 Nelson v. (Utah) ' 14-374 
 
 Pierce v. (Cal.) ! ... 10- 88 
 
 Pool V. (Utah) 16-551 
 
 Puckhaber v. (Cal.) 21-581 
 
TABLE OF CASES 95 
 
 Southera Pac. Co., Robinson v. (Cal.) 2-44 
 
 V. Robinson (Cal.) 21-160 
 
 Saunders v. (Utah) , 4- 13 
 
 State V. (lya.) 18-762 
 
 Stephani v. (Utah) 14-S7S 
 
 V. Tarin (CCA.) 21-928 
 
 West w. (CC A.) 11-447 
 
 WUliams v. (Cal.) 22-442 
 
 Wilson z*. (Utah) 4-40 
 
 Wright w. (Utah) 5.559 
 
 V. Yearg-in (CCA.) 22-459 
 
 Zion w. (C. C. Nev.) 2-167 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co., Abbott v. (Cal.) 3-167 
 
 Behlaw z/. (Cal.) 19-392 
 
 V. Bray (C C. Cal.) 1-594 
 
 V. Brown (C C Cal.) 1-594 
 
 V. Brown (CCA.) 5-711 
 
 Buswell z/. (Cal.) 5-10 
 
 V. Groeck (C C Cal.) 1-593, 617 
 
 Judice V. (La.) 2-185 
 
 Kishlar v. (Cal. ) 23-948 
 
 Lee V. (Cal.) 7-656 
 
 V. McGill (Ariz.) 3-653 
 
 Maxwell v. (La.) 3-425 
 
 Pierce v. (Cal.) 7-564 
 
 . V. Southern California R. Co. (Cal.) 3-37, 446, 450 
 
 V. United States (C C A.) 1-602, 22-598 
 
 Wunsch V. (C C Cal.) 2-472 
 
 Southern Railway Company v. Carneg-ie Steel Company, Limited 
 (U. S.) 17- 1 
 
 Southern Ry. Co., Adams v. (C C. Cal.) 9-747 
 
 Adams v. (N. Car.) 16-369 
 
 V. Adams (U. S.) 6-790 
 
 Alabama M. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 10-112 
 
 Allison V. (N. Car.) 23-714 
 
 V. Arnold (Ala.) 11-864 
 
 Artenberry v. (Tenn.) 15-847 
 
 Atkinson v. (Ga. ) 23-651 
 
 V. Atlanta Rapid Transit Co. (Ga. ) 18-425 
 
 Averill z/. (C. C. A.) 5-704 
 
 V. Barbour (Ky.) 15-192 
 
 Barfield v. (Ga.) 15-735 
 
 V. Barfield (Ga.) 19-702 
 
 Barr v. (Tenn.) 19-261 
 
 V. Baston (Ga.) 8-755 
 
 V. Blake (Ga.) 10-472 
 
 Bowen v. (S. Car.) 18-331 
 
 V. Bryan (Ala.) 19- 7 
 
 Bryan v. (N. Car.) 21-542 
 
 z/. Bryant (Ga.) 12-159 
 
 Burns v. (S. Car.) 22-624 
 
 V. Bush (Ala.) . 19-46 
 
 Calvert v. (S. Car.) 19-173 
 
 V. Carnegie Steel Co., Limited (CCA.) 6-420 
 
 V. City Council of Greenville (S. Car.) 3-450 
 
 City of Anniston v. (Ala.) 9-36 
 
 City of Charlottesville v. (Va.) 16-600 
 
 V. Commonwealth ( Va.) 20-360 
 
 Cook V. (N. Car.) 21-591 
 
 Coursey v. (Ga.) 21-412 
 
 V, Covenia (Ga.) 10-551 
 
 V. Cowan (Ala.) , . 22-150 
 
 Coyle V. (Ga.) 20-529 
 
 Crawford v. (Ga.) 16-829 
 
 Crawford z/. (S. Car.).. 19- 17 
 
96 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Dawson (Va.) 18-592 
 
 V. Deakins (Tenu.) 23-122 
 
 V. Early (Ga. ) 12-859 
 
 Eidson V. (Miss.) 11-832 
 
 V. Eorsvthe (Ky.) 23- 51 
 
 Eowlks'z/. (Va.) 14-250 
 
 Gardner z/. (N. Car.) 20-82 
 
 Garland v. (Ga.) 18-759 
 
 Garrett w. (C. C. A.) 18-529 
 
 Greenlee v. (N. Car.) 11-45 
 
 V. Hall (Tenn.) 23-276 
 
 Haltom V. (N. Car.) 19-776 
 
 V. Harbin (Ga. ) 18-692 
 
 w.,Hardin (Ga.) 10-250 
 
 V. Harrell (Ga.) 11-859 
 
 V. Harrison (Ala.) " 13-270 
 
 Hendrix v. (Ala.) 23-272 
 
 Herndou zr. (C. C. A.) 8-765 
 
 Hicks V. (S. Car.) 21-217 
 
 Higgins V. (Ga.) 5-694 
 
 Hodges z'. (N. Car.) 8-46 
 
 V. Hood (Ala.) 19-166 
 
 Hord t;. (N. Car.) 23-756 
 
 V. Hooper (Ga.) 17-752 
 
 ■V. Howard (Ga.) 18-758 
 
 Johnson v. (S. Car.) 12-272 
 
 V. Johnson (Ga.) 23-840 
 
 Kennedy v. (S. Car.) 21-121 
 
 Killian v. (N. Car.) 22-639 
 
 Knot V. (Tenn.) 12-684 
 
 Kramer v. (N. Car.) 20-329 
 
 V. l/oug-hridg-e (Ga.) 23-387 
 
 Lumpkin v. (Ga.) 4-458 
 
 V. Lynn (Ala.) 21-570 
 
 McArver v. (N. Car.) i 23-772 
 
 McCall V. (N. Car.) 23-760 
 
 McElveen v. (Ga.) 15-842 
 
 Mcllhaney v. (N. Car.) 6-693, 11-100 
 
 McMillin v. (Miss.) 14- 37 
 
 V. Marshall (Ky.) 23-82 
 
 Mason v. (S. Car.) 19- 83 
 
 V. Mauzy (Va.) 20-647 
 
 Mayes v. (N. Car.) 6-778, 779 
 
 Milam v. (S. Car.) 18-253 
 
 Mitchell V. (Miss. ) 18-126 
 
 V. Moore (Ala. ) 20-896 
 
 V. Myers (Ga.) 16-672 
 
 Neal V. (N. Car.) 20-941 
 
 V. New (Ga.) 14- 19 
 
 Parlier v. (N. Car.) 23-559 
 
 Pharr v. (N. Car.) 6-726 
 
 V. Pool (Ga.) 15-617 
 
 Post V. (Tenn.) 16-201 
 
 V. Postal Tel. Cable Co. (N. Car.) 13-417 
 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. (N. Car.) 13-417 
 
 V. Prather (Ala.) 14-832 
 
 Proctor V. (S. Car.) 22-426 
 
 V. Pugh (Tenn.) 8-756 
 
 Purcell V. (N. Car.) 6-784, 785 
 
 Quinn v. (Miss.) 7-788 
 
 V. Reaves (Ala.) 20-784 
 
 Rickert !<. (N. Car.) 12-162 
 
 Risinger v. (S. Car.) 20-517 
 
 V. Rosenberg (Ala.) 22-418 
 
 Rutherford v. (S. Car.) 17-520 
 
TABLE OF CASES 97 
 
 Southern Ry. Co., St. Louis R. Co. v. (Mo.) 7-77Z 
 
 Sanders v. (Ga.) ... 14-281 
 
 V. Shirley (Ala.) 21- 61 
 
 Shorter v. (Ala.) 18-760' 
 
 Simon's Adm'r v. (Va.) 12-324 
 
 Sims V. (S. Car.) 20-76 
 
 Sinard v. (Tenn.) 14- 17 
 
 Smith V. (N. Car.) 23-777 
 
 Sprague z;. (C. C. A. ) 14-356 
 
 V. Standiford (Ky.) 20-154 
 
 State V. (N. Car.) 11-228 
 
 State V. (N. Car.) 17-45 
 
 Steele v. (S. Car.) 14-350 
 
 Stewart v. (N. Car.) 21-601 
 
 z;. Tharp (Ga.) 12-858 
 
 Troxler v. (N. Car.) 14-711 
 
 V. Watson (Ga.) 11-839 
 
 V. Watson -(Ga.) 18-209 
 
 V. Watson (Ga.) 23-509 
 
 Whitesides v. (N. Car.) 21-537 
 
 Whitley v. (N. Car.) '. 12-210 
 
 V. Wilcox (Va.) 22-260 
 
 V. Williams (Ga.) 22-415 
 
 Witzman v. (Mo.) '. 3-449 
 
 V. Wood (Ky.) 15-570 
 
 V. Wood (Ga.) 23-555, 611 
 
 Wright V. (N. Car.) ..12-717, 20-157, 873 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. in Kentucky, Bohannon v. (Ky.) 23-548 
 
 V. Clifford (Ky.) 21-229 
 
 V. Cooper (Ky.) 21-231 
 
 V. Evans (Ky.) 21-809 
 
 V. Hanna (Ky.) 15-524 
 
 Sleadd Z). (Ky.) 19-131 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. in Mississippi v. Miller, Sheriff (Miss.) 22-680 
 
 Southern Ry. Equipment Co., Georgia, S. & E. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.).. 15-295 
 Southern Railway News Co., Kansas City M. & B. R. Co. v. 
 
 (Mo.) 14-528 
 
 Southern Seating & Cabinet Co., Illinois Cent. R. Co. ». (Tenn.).. 18-276 
 
 Sowash V. Consolidated Traction Co. (Pa. ) 12^124 
 
 Sparger, Gulf, Colorado & Santa Pe R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-161 
 
 Sparks, Ft. Scott, W. & W. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 2-110, 157 
 
 Spearen, Railroad Co. v. (Pa.) 5-715 
 
 Spellman, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-438 
 
 Spencer, Boyd v. (Ga.) 11-247 
 
 Brendle z/. (N. Car.) 16-722 
 
 V. Brooks (Ga. ) 5-202 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Py. Co. (Wis.) 17-163 
 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. (Colo.) 10-536, 18-236 
 
 Little Rock, H. S. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Ark. ) 12-861 
 
 V. McDougal (U. S.) 1-595 
 
 Sperb V. Metropolitan El. R. Co. (N. Y. ) 1-372, 374 
 
 Spink V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 16-86 
 
 Spinks, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 12- "48 
 
 Spires v. South Bound R. Co. (S. Car.) 5-708 
 
 Spirk, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 7-205 
 
 Spiro, Felton w. (C. C. A.) 10-865 
 
 Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co., Lane v. (Wash.) ; 14-436 
 
 Rush V. (Wash.) 20-285 
 
 V. Ziegler (CCA.) 1-594 
 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co., Bedford v. (Wash.) 6-795 
 
 Payne v. (Wash.) 6-773 
 
 Redfordz/. (Wash.) 1-265, 273 
 
 State, Grinsfelder v. (Wash,) 11-62 
 
 Traver v. (Wash.) 22-759 
 
 Spokane & Palouse Railway Co. , Delsol v. (Idaho) 1-683 
 
 ID— 7 
 
98 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Spradling-, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 3-435,439 
 
 Sprague v. New York & N. E. R. Co. (Conn.) 6-638 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 14-356 
 
 Spring City G. L. Co. v. Pennsylvania S. V. R. Co. (Pa.) 
 
 3-131, 164, 166, 167 
 
 Spring Garden Farmers' M. Co., City of Philadelphia t^. (Pa.). 
 
 ^. . . .^ 1-286, 289 
 
 Spring- Water Distilling Co., Lottisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 15-527 
 
 Springer, Metropolitan W. S. El. R. Co. v. (111.) . .' 9-731 
 
 Stacker v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Tenn.) 20-704 
 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. Elec. R. Co. (Wis.) 23-364 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 5-172 
 
 Staggs, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 8-197 
 
 Stahl V. L,ake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.) J 11-90 
 
 Stabler v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa. ) 21-815 
 
 Standiford, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 20-154 
 
 Stanfield, St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 8-115 
 
 Stanford, United States v. (U. S.) 3-331 
 
 Stankard, Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. (Ohio) 6-477 
 
 Stanley v. Durham & N. R. Co. (N. Car.) 9-208 
 
 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe. R. Co. v. (Tenn. ) 2-480 
 
 Starkweather, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. (Iowa) . . 3-189 
 
 Starr v. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.) 7-778 
 
 State V. Adams Express Co. (Minn.) 7-781 
 
 Atlantic, S. R. & G. Ry. Co. v. (Ela.) 20-501 
 
 V. Austin & N. W. R. Co. (Tex.) 22-556 
 
 V. Bogardus (Kan.) 22-142 
 
 Brown v. (Ga.) 17-247 
 
 Cass County v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 15-175 
 
 V. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. (Ga.) 16-845 
 
 V. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. (Ind.) 3-450 
 
 City of Omaha, Chicago, B. &. Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 3-573 
 
 V. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.) 23-336 
 
 V. Committee of Tp. of Bloomfield (N. J.) 5-697 
 
 Cumberland & P. R. Co. v. (Md.) 20-754 
 
 V. Davis (Mo.) 7-601 
 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-449 
 
 Houston & T. C. R. v. (Tex.) 3-449 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 1-68 
 
 V. Intoxicating Liquors tMe.) 20-511 
 
 V. Jackson, L. & S. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 1-597 
 
 V. Maine Cent. R. Co. (Me.) 8-758 
 
 v. Manchester & L. R. R. (N. H.) .12-874, 21-734 
 
 Nashville & D. R. Co. v. (Ala. ) 23-202 
 
 z'. Otis (Kan.) 12-850 
 
 Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. (N. J.) 9-241 
 
 V. Reed (Miss.) 12- 22 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 22-753 
 
 Seattle & M. R. Co. v. (Wash.) 3-25, 95, 96, 97 
 
 Smith V. (Tenn.) 11-144 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. (Ga.) 16-179 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. (La.) 18-762 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 11-228, 17-45 
 
 V. Wrightsville & T. R. Co. (Ga.) 11-576 
 
 State, Baltimore, C. & P. B. R. Co. v. Latrobe (Md.) 1-99, 118 
 
 State Board of Taxation, Mayor, etc., of City of Newark v. (N. J.) 
 
 23-308 
 
 State, Columbia, E. S. R. L. & P. Co. v. Sloan, Mayor (S. Car.).. 9- 44 
 
 State Consolidated Traction Co. v. City of Elizabeth (N. J. ) 3-614 
 
 State, Crescent City R. Co. v. Bell, City Engineer (La.) 8-210 
 
 State, Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. . 
 
 Co. (La.) 18-399 
 
 State (Currie, Prosecutor) v. City of Atlantic City (N. J.) 23-958 
 
 State, Elmendorf , San Antonio St. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 6-658 
 
 State, Kistler, Prosecuting Attorney, Eel River R. Co. v. (Ind.).. 17-595 
 
TABLE OF CASES 99 
 
 State, Lamar, Atty. Gen., v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. (Fla.).. . 16-727 
 
 State, Nolan, Atty. Gen. , v. Montana Ry. Co. (Mont.) H-3S3 
 
 State, Railroad Commission v. Wilmington & "W. R. Co. (N. Car.).. 11-671 
 State, Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Minneapolis & St. 
 
 Iv. R. Co. (Minn.) 17-630 
 
 State, Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. United States Exp. 
 
 Co. (Minn.) 19- 41 
 
 State, St. Charles St. R. Co. v. Board of Assessors (L,a.) 4-386 
 
 State, Smart v. Kansas City, S. & G. Ry. Co. (L,a.) 14-461 
 
 State, State Board of Transportation, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 (Neb.) 7-349 
 
 State, Stone, Atty. Gen., v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. (Iowa).. 7-610 
 State, Town of Ft. Branch, Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. (Ind.). . 11-278 
 State, West Jersey Traction Co. v. Board of Pub. Works of Cam- 
 den (N. J.) 1-98 
 
 State of Florida, Osborne v. (U. S.) 6-79S 
 
 State of Illinois, Butler, Illinois Central R. Co. v. (U. S. ) 4-3S4 
 
 State of Minnesota, Gladson z;. (U. S.) 7-SS8 
 
 Cargill, W. W., Company v. (U. S.\ 20-658 
 
 State of Missouri, Bettis v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo. App. ) 7-66 
 
 State of Nebraska, Board of Transportation, Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 w. (U. S.) 6-157 
 
 State of Nebraska, City of Omaha, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 (U. S.) 10-423 
 
 State of Ohio, Lawrence, Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. (U. S.).. 16- 26 
 
 State (Barr, Prosecutor) v. Mayor of New Brunswick (N. J.) 3-170 
 
 State (Cape May, D. B. & S. P. R. Co., Prosecutor) v. Cape May 
 
 (N. J.). . , 3-S92 
 
 State (C. M., D. B. & S. P. R. Co., Prosecutor) v. City of Cape 
 
 May (N. J.) 6-507, 511 
 
 State (Consolidated Traction Co., Prosecutor) v. Reeves (N. J.). . 3-651 
 State (Kennelly, Prosecutor) v. Mayor, etc., of Jersey City 
 
 (N. J. ) 1-98, 99, 169, 220, 322 
 
 State (Pennsylvania R. Co., Prosecutor) v. Knight (N. J.) 3-374 
 
 V. National Docks & N. J. J. C. R. Co. (N. J.) 3-25, 26, 97 
 
 State (Roebling, Prosecutrix) z/. Trenton Passenger Railway Co., 
 
 ConsoUdated (N.J.) 4-392 
 
 State (Theberath, Prosecutor) v. Mayor, etc., of Newark (N. J.).. 1-176 
 
 State, to Use of Price, v. Cumberland & P. R. Co. (Md.) 10-511 
 
 State (West Jersey &'S. R. Co., Prosecutor) v. Ocean City R. Co. 
 
 (N. J.) 10-421 
 
 Staten Island R. T. Co., Port Richmond & P. P. El. R. Co. v. 
 
 (N.Y.) 1-229 
 
 Stead, Robertson v. (Mo.) 4-529 
 
 Steele v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Wash.) 15-129 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 14-350 
 
 Steenerson v. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.) 8-559 
 
 Stelk V. McNulta (CCA.) 22-778 
 
 Stephani v. Southern Pac. R. Co. (Utah) 14-575 
 
 Stephens, Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. (111.) 11-268 
 
 Sternberger, Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. (Kan. App.) 12-745 
 
 Steubing v. New York El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-375, 376, 377 
 
 Stevens, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (111.) 20-182 
 
 Norfolk &W. Ry. Co. v. (Va.) 16-468 
 
 Stevenson, Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. (Ark.) 5-704 
 
 St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. ». (U. S.) 2-63 
 
 , Stewart, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. (Kan.) 2-387 
 
 V. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.) 13-28 
 
 Comer w. (Ga.) 4-263 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 21-874 
 
 Johnson v. (Ark.) 3-6S1 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 21-34 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 21-855 
 
 V. Mercantile Trust Co. (CCA.) 22-209, 484 
 
 V. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 10-520 
 
100 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Stewart, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. (U. S.) 2-389 
 
 St. lyouis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 20-571 
 
 V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 21-601 
 
 Stickley, Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L,. Ry. Co. v. (Ind.) 20-148 
 
 Stickney, Metropolitan West Side El. R. Co. v. (111.) 3-147 
 
 Stidham v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. (Ky.) 23-162 
 
 Stock, Lfouisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky. ) 15-713 
 
 Stocksdale, Western Maryland R. Co. v. (Md. ) 4-510 
 
 Stockwell V. Chicag-o & N. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 12-576 
 
 Stoltz V. Milwaukee & L,. W. R. Co. (Wis.) 15-820 
 
 Stone V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (S. Dak.) 2-514 
 
 Stoner v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 18-221 
 
 Stormeut, Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. (111.) 21-116 
 
 Storrs V. Los Angeles Traction Co. (Cal.) 22-704 
 
 Story V. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H.) 20-90 
 
 Strand, Bellingham Bay & British Columbia R. Co. v. (Wash.).. 3-171 
 
 Strang, Greenwood, etc.,R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 6-788 
 
 Strieker v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.) 7-7S8 
 
 Strickland, Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 23-510 
 
 Stritesky v. City of Cedar Rapids (Iowa) 4-S3S 
 
 Strom V. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. (Ga. ) 13-849 
 
 Strother v. Aberdeen & A. R. Co. (N. Car.) 12-121 
 
 V. South Carolina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.) 5-430 
 
 Struthers v. Philadelphia & D. C. R. Co. (Pa.) 4-207 
 
 Stuber, Louisville & N. R. Co. w. (C. C. A.) 22-840 
 
 Stuckey zi. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. of S. Car. (S. Car.) 20-771 
 
 Sturey, Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Neb.) , 13-849 
 
 Sturgeon, Raleigh & A. Air-Line R. Co. v. (N. Car.) 8-272 
 
 Suburban R. Co., Lyman v. (111.) 21-828 
 
 Sullivan, Boston & M. R. R. v. (Mass.) 20-356 
 
 V. Jefferson Ave. R. Co. (Mo.) 3-432 
 
 V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) 20-108 
 
 z/. New York, etc., R. Co. (Pa.) 4-260 
 
 Sun Printing, etc., Assoc, v. Mayor of New York (N. Y.) 8-771 
 
 Sundmaker v. Yazoo & M. Val. R. Co. (La.) 22-496 
 
 Superior R. T. R. Co., Little v. (Wis.) 1-260, 265, 276 
 
 Sutherland v. Cleveland, C. , C. & St. L. R. Co. (Ind.) 8-424 
 
 Sutro V. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-373, 374 
 
 Sutter St. Ry. Co., Harrison v. (Cal.) 8-200, 23-809 
 
 Sutton V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (S. Dak.) 20-726 
 
 z/. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. (Wis.) 10-100 
 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. (Ind. ) 8-771, 772 
 
 Swack V. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.) 16-609 
 
 Swann, Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. (Md.) 2-187 
 
 Swan, Chicago, & A. Ry. Co. v. (111.) 12-674 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Tenn.) 20-446 
 
 Swanson v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey (N. J. ) 16-624 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Minn. ) .' ." 17-753 
 
 Sweeney v. Montana Cent.- Ry. Co. (Mont.) 22-540 
 
 Sweetland v. Atchison, T. & S. P. R. Co. (Colo.) 3-449 
 
 V. Chicago & G. T. R. Co. (Mich.) .'.'..'..' 11-613 
 
 Swift River Co. v. Fitchburg R. Co. (Mass.) 8-512 
 
 Swinbank, Grand Island & W. C. R. Co. v. (Neb.) ' .' 9-870 
 
 Swisher v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (111. ) '.'.'... 16-421 
 
 Swope, Highland Ave. & Belt R. Co. v. (Ala.) .' 13-856 
 
 Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. Co., Young v. (N. Y,) 21-11 
 
 Taafe, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 15-693 
 
 Tabor, Ohio & M. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 2-541, 543 
 
 Taborn, Consolidated Traction Co. v. (N. J. ) 2-124 
 
 Tacoma, O. & G. H. R. Co., Kaufman v. (Wash.) 1-169 170 171 
 
 Tacoma Railway & Motor Co., Mitchell v. (Wash.) .'. ' 
 
 1-258, 262, 264, 266, 269^ 270, 274 
 
 New York Guaranty & Indemnity Co. v. (C. C. A.) 23-249 
 
 Tacoma Ry. & Power Co. v. Hays (C. C. A.) ."./.".. 23- 58 
 
 Tacoma Traction Co., Bailey v. (Wash. ) .".6-^794 795 
 
TABLE OF CASES 101 
 
 Tag-gart v. Newport Street R. Co. (R. I.) 1-340 
 
 Talbott V. West Virginia, etc. , R. Co. (W. Va.) 8-768 
 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. Western Ry. of Alabama 
 
 (Ala.) 10-339, 20-4SS 
 
 Tallassee & M. R. Co., Baxley v. (Ala.) 21-170 
 
 Tallon V. Mayor, etc., of City of Hoboken (N. J. ) 7-S4S 
 
 Tama & T. Electric Railway & Light Co., Beem v. (Iowa) 10-610 
 
 Tamaqua & Iv. St. R. Co., Rahn Township v. (Pa.) 1-19T, 198 
 
 Tanner v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. ) 20-809 
 
 Tarin, Southern Pac. Co. i/. (C. C. A.) 21-928 
 
 Tarter, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 7-607 
 
 , Tartt, Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) 18-226 
 
 Tate V. Yazoo &M. V. R. Co. (Miss.) 20-461 
 
 Taylor, Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 21-135 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Kan. ) 14-733 
 
 V. Bay City St. R. Co. (Mich.) 1-16S 
 
 V. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. (W. Va.) 4-llS 
 
 -Chicago City R. Co. *. (111.) 9-S13 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Wis.) 1-170 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 15-788. 
 
 Louisville, St. L. & T. R. Co. v. (Ky.) l-7i8 
 
 V. Maine Central Railroad Co. (Me.) 2-614 
 
 V. Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Com- 
 pany (Eng.) 2-388 
 
 V. Pennsylvania Schuylkill Valley R. Co. (Pa.) 4-258 
 
 V. Portsmouth, K. & Y. St. Ry. (Me.) 10-215 
 
 Taylor, B. & H. Ry. Co., Dublin v. (Tex.) 13-461 
 
 Teal V. American Min. Co. (Minn.) 23-314 
 
 Teel V. Ohio River R. Co. (W. Va. ) 21-20 
 
 Tennessee Brewing Co., Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 4-661 
 
 Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Pierce (CCA.) 8-742 
 
 Terminal Ry. of Buffalo, Deming v. (N. Y.) 23-815 
 
 Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Cox (CCA.) 19-327 
 
 V. Harrison (CCA.) 15-272 
 
 Miller v. (Ind.) 3-442 
 
 Territory of New Mexico v. United States Trust Co. of New York 
 
 (U.S.) 14-811 
 
 Terry v. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex.) 5-714, 715 
 
 V. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. (Ind.) 3-442, 443 
 
 Louisville, St. L. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Ky. ) 13-770 
 
 Tessmer v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) 15-164 
 
 Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Anderson (Ark.) 18-37 
 
 Kizer v. (Ark.) 13-288 
 
 Texas Central R. Co. v. Frazier (Tex.) 3-381 
 
 V. Frazier (Tex. ) 4-664 
 
 V. Lyons (Tex.) '. 3-316 
 
 Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Alexander (Tex. Civ. App.) 2-184 
 
 V. Armstrong (Tex.) 14-256 
 
 V. Barrett (U. S.) 11-867 
 
 V. Beckworth (Tex. Civ. App.) 2-258, 261 
 
 V. Boggs (Tex.) 2-545, 546 
 
 V. Bowlin (Tex. Civ. App.) 2-387, 445 
 
 V. Breadow (Tex. ) 5-483 
 
 V. Buckalew (Tex.) 3-432,, 433 
 
 Cavallaro v. (Cal.) 2-645, 717 
 
 V. Clayton (C C A.) 9-821 
 
 V. Clayton (U. S.) '. 13-236 
 
 z;. Cody (U.S.) 7-479 
 
 Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. (La.) 18-399 
 
 Davis z/. (Tex.) 3-426 
 
 Davis V. (Tex.) 10-301 
 
 E. M. Patton. Plff. in Err., v. (U. S.) 20-48 
 
 V. Gentry (U. S.) , 4-559 
 
 V. Harby (CCA.) 15-737 
 
 V. Hawkins (Tex. ) 2-213, 380 
 
102 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Texas & Pacific Ry . Co. v. Hornbeck (Tex.) . 9-238 
 
 V. Humble (C. C. A.) 17-83 
 
 V. Humble, Emma (U. S.) - • • ■ ■ 20-821 
 
 V. Interstate Commerce Commission (U. S.) S- 86 
 
 V. Johnson (Tex.) 3-439 
 
 V. Johnson (Tenn.) 4-441 
 
 Jones z*. (La. ) 2-382 
 
 V. Mcl^aue (Tex. Civ. App. ) 2-263 
 
 z/. Manton (U. S.) •■•• 9-8S0 
 
 V. Nolan (CCA.) 2-301 
 
 Z'.Orr(Tex.) 2-211 
 
 Reeves v. (Tex.) 2-S41, S4S, 546 , 
 
 V. Reeves (Tex.) 8-429 
 
 z-. Richmond (Tex.) 21-847 
 
 V. Roberts (Tex.) 10-727 
 
 z/. Scott (C. C A.) 8-309 
 
 Settoon V. (L,a.). . . 4-219 
 
 V. Spradling- (CCA.) 3-435, 439 
 
 V. Staggs (Tex.) 8-197 
 
 Warnerz'. (U. S.) 6-696 
 
 V. "Wilder (CCA.) 13-520 
 
 Young V. (La.) 14-831 
 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Bigham (Tex.) 6-791 
 
 V. Billingsby (Tex.) 5-714 
 
 Thalheimer, Consolidated Traction Co. z/. (N. J. ) 9-858 
 
 Tharp, Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 12-858 
 
 Thatcher z/. Central Traction Co. (Pa.) 1-253, 255, 275 
 
 Thayer, Wichita & W. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 3-27 
 
 The Shinkle, Wilson & Kreis Co. v. Ivouisville & Nashville R. 
 
 Co. (Ohio) 4-677 
 
 Third Ave. R. Co., Beekman w. (N. Y.) 8-23 
 
 Leiberman v. (N. Y. City Ct.) 12-858 
 
 Thomas, Chicago & E. R. Co. v. (Ind.) 9-181, 21-343 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 9-854, 21-586 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 10-846 
 
 V. Inter County St. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-169 
 
 V. Lancaster Mills of Clinton, Mass. (C. C. A.) 2-662 
 
 V. Louisville, etc. , R. Co. (Ky.) 5-708 
 
 V. New York, C & St. L. R. Co. (Pa.) 9-132 
 
 New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. (Va.) 4-240 
 
 V. Northern Pac. Exp. Co. (Minn.) 11-121 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (111.) 8-760, 761 
 
 Thompson v. Buffalo R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-264 
 
 Z). Chicago & E. R. Co. (Ind.) 6-611 
 
 V. Chicago, G. W. R. Co. (Minn.-) 3-444 
 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. (Colo.) 14-47 
 
 V. Dotterer (La.) 21- 14 
 
 V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 19-421 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 21-665, 23- 48 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Neb.) 8-761, 762 
 
 V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C C A.) 13-651 
 
 V. Ocean City R. Co. (N. J. ) 7-779 
 
 V. Salt Lake Rapid-Transit Co. (Utah) 10-563 
 
 V. Truesdale (Minn.) 2-105 
 
 V. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. (La.) 2-212, 300 
 
 Thoresen v. La Crosse City R. Co. (Wis.) 1-259, 261, 274, 6-101 
 
 Thornton, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 19-229 
 
 Threat, St. Louis & S. W. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 3-358 
 
 Thurman, Central Trust Co. of N. Y. v. (Ga.) 3-164 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky .) 3-652 
 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 14-727 
 
 Tibbetts V. West & South Towns St. R. Co. (111. ) 1-98 
 
 Tibbs V. Alabama G. S. R. Co. (Ala.) S-458 
 
 Tiernan, Mobile & O. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 15-564 
 
 Tietken, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 5-262 
 
TABLE OF CASES 103 
 
 Tillett V. Lynchburg & D. R. Co. (N. Car.) 2-167, 300 
 
 V. Railroad Co. (N. Car.) S-710 
 
 Tilman, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 7-735 
 
 Tindall, Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 6-SS7 
 
 Tinkham, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 13-800 
 
 Tobin V. Chester & L. Narrow Gauge R. Co. (S. Car.) S-630 
 
 Toledo Consol. Railway Co. v. Toledo EJlectricSt. R. Co. (Ohio).. 1-230 
 Toledo Electric St. Railway Co. , Toledo Consol. R. Co. v. (Ohio) . . 1-230 
 
 Toledo & O. C. R. Co. v. Ambach (Ohio) 8-S33 
 
 V. Bowler & Burdick Co. (Ohio) 8-S33, 19-574 
 
 V. Dag-es (Ohio) 8-533 
 
 Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co. , Continental Trust Co. of City of 
 
 New York v. (Ohio) 18-397 
 
 Continental Trust Co. v. (Ohio) 12-854 
 
 Toledo, S. & M. Ry. Co., Doyle v. (Mich.) 22-294 
 
 Tomlinson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (CCA.) 16-344 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 22-682 
 
 Tompkins v. Augusta Southern R. Co. (Ga.) 11-587 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. (S. Dak.) 12-70 
 
 Tompkins, Board of Railroad Commissioners of South Dakota, 
 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. (U. S.) . . 17-349 
 
 Toronto, etc. , R. Co. v. Reg (Eng.) 5-720 
 
 Totman, Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. (Mo.) 16-695 
 
 Tow, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky. ) 21-441 
 
 Town Council of Lexington v. Upion Nat. Bank (Miss.) 9-321 
 
 Town of Bristol v. New England R. Co. (Conn.) 11-674 
 
 Town of Crown Point, Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. ^.(Ind.)... 6-324 
 
 Town of Normal, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (111.) 13-367 
 
 Town of Ravenswood, Ravenswood S. & G. R. Co. v. (W. Va.).. . 4-145 , 
 Townsend, T. B., Brick & Contracting Co., International Trust 
 
 Co. !>. (C C. A.) 15-310 
 
 Townsend v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. (Tenn.) 21- 7 
 
 Patterson v. (Iowa) 1-262, 273 
 
 St. Louis & S. P. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 22-123 
 
 Traction Co., Chilton v. (Pa.) 5-715 
 
 Funk V. (Pa.) 5-715 
 
 laquinta v. (Pa.) 5-717 
 
 Schnur v. (Pa.) 5-716 
 
 Trammell, Central of Georgia Ry, Co. v. (Ga. ) 23-856 
 
 V. Dinsmore (CCA.) 19-468 
 
 Trans-Missouri Freight Association, United States w. (U. S.)... 7-388 
 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. Co. (Wash.) 22-759 
 
 Trenton Pass. R. Co., Consolidated, Connelly v. (N. J.) 1-261, 277 
 
 State (Roebling, Prosecutrix) k. (N. J. ) 4-392 
 
 Trezona v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 12-104 
 
 Tribble, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 20-794 
 
 Richmond & D. R. Co. v. (Va.) 3-632 
 
 St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. z/. (U. S.) 2-63 
 
 Trimble &. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 17-176 
 
 Trimmer, Pennsylvania, Poughkeepsie & Boston R. Co. v. 
 
 (N. J.) 3-137 
 
 Tripp, Baltimore & O. S. W. Rv. Co. v. (111.) 14-119 
 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 21-391 
 
 Trowbridge v. Danville St. C Co. (Va. ) 1-256, 263 
 
 Troxler v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 14-711 
 
 Troy Iron & Nail Factory, Corning w. (N. Y.) 3-432 
 
 Trudell v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Mich.) 20-316 
 
 Truesdale, Thompson v. (Minn.) 2-105 
 
 Truett, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (C C A.) 23-823 
 
 Trumbull v. Erickson (C. C. A.) 17-93 
 
 Garner z/. (C. C. A.) .• 15-589 
 
 Truskett, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. (Ind. Ter.) 17-273 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. z/. (C C A.) 19-618 
 
 Trust Co. of North America v. Manhattan Trust Co. (C C A.). . 6-220 
 Tucker v. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 18-155 
 
TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Tucker, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-876 
 
 Louisville Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 12-805 
 
 27. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (Va.) 3-651 
 
 Tudor V. Chicago & Southside Rapid Transit R. Co. (111.) 1-340 
 
 TuUis, Hosea B., z;. Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company 
 
 (U. S.) 16-462 
 
 Tunis V. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 20-335 
 
 Tully V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. (Del.) 20-322, 23- 209 
 
 Tumalty v. New ^ork, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass. ) 11-468 
 
 Tuohev, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 16-453 
 
 Turess v. New York S. & W. R. Co. (N. J.) 11-297 
 
 Turley v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 20-440 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. z). (C. C. A. ) 10-380 
 
 Turner v. Great Northern R. Co. (Wash.) 5-238 
 
 Tuttle V. Atlantic City R. Co. (N. J.) 22-876 
 
 Twombly z/. Chicago, R. L & T. R. Co. (Tex.) 3-134 
 
 Tyler, S. E. R. Co. v. Rasberry (Tex.) 3-376 
 
 Ullman ». Chicago &N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 23-782 
 
 Ullrich V. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.) 13-783 
 
 Underwood z/. Western & A. R. Co. (Ga.) 13-739 
 
 Union Depot Co. v. Backus (Mich.) 3-130, 136 
 
 Gideonsen v. (Mo. ) 2-388 
 
 Union Depot R. Co., Schepers v. (Mo. ) 2- 9 
 
 Union Elevator Co. v. Kansas City S. B. R. Co. (Mo.) 3-130, 165, 167 
 
 Union Nat. Bank, Town Council of Lexington v. (Miss. ) 9-321 
 
 Union Pac, D. & G. Ry. Co., Maher z/.' (C. C. A.) 20-644 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Baker (Kan.) , 8-764 
 
 Bush V. (Kan.) 20-798 
 
 V. Callaghan (U. S.) 3-360 
 
 Carrier z/. (Kan.) 17-513 
 
 ' v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (U. S.) 6- 1 
 
 V. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. »,U. S.) 6- 1 
 
 V. Doyle (Neb.) 7-773, 774 
 
 V. Foley (Colo.) 1- 62 
 
 V. Gochenour (Kan.) , 3-288 
 
 Grimmelman v. (Iowa) '. 8-321 
 
 Hanlon v. (Neb. ) 1-701 
 
 Hoffman v. (Kan. App.) 13-220 
 
 V. Johnston (Neb.) 2-601 
 
 V. Metcalf (Neb. ) 7-768 
 
 Miller Grain & Elevator Co. z). (Mo.) 8- 1 
 
 V. Smith (Kan.) 11-709 
 
 V. Stern berger (Kan. App.) .... 12-745 
 
 United States v. (C. C. Kan.) 1-593, 594, 656 
 
 Union Pac, etc., R. Co., Anderson v. (Colo.) 6-786 
 
 Union Pass. R. Co., Commonwealth, Hensel, Atty. Gen., v. 
 
 (Pa.) 1-99 
 
 Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Lynch, County Treasurer 
 
 (Utah) 13-868 
 
 V. Lynch, Treasurer of Salt Lake County (U. S.) 17-588 
 
 Union R. Co., Kolb z-. (R. I.) 21-811 
 
 V. Sneed (Tenn.) 13-876 
 
 Wright V. (R.I.) 18-234 
 
 Union St. R. Co., Edgerly z). (N. H.) 6-795 
 
 Union St. R. Co. of Saginaw, Holman v. (Mich.) 9-105 
 
 Union Stock-Yards Co. v. Goodwin (Neb.) 12-502 
 
 Union Terminal R. Co., Anderson v. (Mo.) 20-834 
 
 V. Board of Railroad Commissioners (Kan . ) 3-72 
 
 V. Peet Bros. Manufacturing Co. (Kan.) 13-851 
 
 Union Traction Co., Darwood v. (Pa.) 12-474 
 
 United Electric Ry. Co. , Cumberland Telegraph & Telephone 
 
 Co. V. (Tenn.) 1-295 
 
 United States, Atlantic, etc., R. Co. w. (U. S.) 6-776 
 
 Bacheldor v. (CCA.) ' 9-878 
 
 Central Pac. R. Co. z;. (U. S.) 6-777 
 
TABLE OF CASES 105 
 
 United States v. Harris (U. S.) , 6-773 
 
 V. Harris, Receivers of the Philadelphia & Reading Rail- 
 road Company (U. S. ) 17-582 
 
 V. Northern Pacific R. Co. (U. S. ) 19-207 
 
 Oregon Cent. R. Co. I-. (C. C. A.) 1-SOl 
 
 V. St. l/ouis & S. F. R. Co. (Mo.) 22-812 
 
 V. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. (CCA.) '. . . . 1-6S6 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. (C C A.) 1-602 
 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co. (C C) 1-6SS 
 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co. (C C A.) 22-598 
 
 V. Stanford (U. S.) 3-331 
 
 V. Trans-Missouri Freight Association (U. S.) 7-388 
 
 V. Union Pac. R. Co. (C C Kan. ) 1-S93, 594 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. z/. (C C A.) 1-656 
 
 V. Winchester, etc., R. Co. (U. S.) 4-264 
 
 V. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., No. 564 (C C A. ) 1-454 
 
 V. Winona & St. Peter R. Co. . No. 566 (C C A. ) . . '. 1-482 
 
 Winona, etc., R. Co. z/. (U. S.j , 6-790 
 
 V. Winona, etc., R. Co. (U. S.) 7-776 
 
 United States Exp. Co. , State, Railroad and Warehouse Commis- 
 sion V. (Minn. ) 19- 41 
 
 United States Mail L,ine Co. v. CarroUtou Furniture Mfg. Co. 
 
 (Ky.) 9-286 
 
 United States Trust Co. of New York, Territory of New Mexico 
 
 I'- (U, S.) 14-811 
 
 Upton V. South Carolina & G. EJ. Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 21-242 
 
 Valley v. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H.) 9-128 
 
 Valley Ry. Co. v. Keegan (CCA.) 11-507 
 
 Van Bochove, Jones v. (Mich.) 1-664 
 
 Vancleave, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky. ) 21-477 
 
 Vandercook v. Detroit, G. R. & W. R. Co. (Mich.) 20-353 
 
 Van Doren v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (CCA.) : 13-577 
 
 Van Dusen, Peirce z/. (C C A.) 7- 1 
 
 Van Dyke, Atlantic Ave. R. Co. v. (C C A.) 3-623 
 
 Van Hoorebeke, St. Louis & B. Ry. Co. v. (111.) 23-748 
 
 Van Inwegen v. Port Jervis, M. & N. Y. R. Co. (N. Y. ) 20-352 
 
 Van Natta v. People's Street R., etc., Co. (Mo.) 3-433 
 
 Van Steuben v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey (Pa.) 9-485 
 
 Vant V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 12-470 
 
 Varnadore, Charleston & S. R. Co. w. (Ga. ) 2-156, 162 
 
 Varwig v. Cleveland, C, C & St. L. R. Co. (Ohio) 4-265 
 
 Vasele v. Grant St. Electric R. Co. (Wash.) 9-75 
 
 Vaughan, Western & A. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 21-512 
 
 Veach, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 11-24 
 
 Veatch v. American Loan & Trust Co. (C C A.) 10-795, 805 
 
 Venable, Chattanooga Rapid-Transit Co. v. (Tenn. ) 19-768 
 
 Chesapeake & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 21-449 
 
 Venango County, Western New York R. Co. v. (Pa.) 10-185 
 
 Vermont Cent. R. Co., Cox v. (Mass.) 9-591 
 
 Vestal, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 12-633 
 
 Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co., Dyche v. (Miss.) 23-526 
 
 Kansas City, S. & G. R- Co. v. (La.) 6-212 
 
 McQuire v. (La.) 1-68 
 
 V. Scott, Sheriff (Hammett, Intervener) (La.) 17-745 
 
 Victor V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 2-257, 259 
 
 Victory, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky. ) 12-538 
 
 Village of Wayzata v. Great Northern R. Co. (Mian.) 7-360 
 
 Vincent v. Morgan's L. & T. Railroad & Steamship Co. (La.). . . 5-463 
 
 V. Norton & T. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.) .' 23-543 
 
 Vining v. New York & N. E. R. Co. (Mass.) 9-65 
 
 Virginia-Carolina Ry. Co. v. Booker (Va.) 22-800 
 
 Virginia Coal & Iron Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Va.) 21-261 
 
 Virginia & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Crow (Tenn.) 23-506 
 
 Vittitoe's Adm'r, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 8-666 
 
106 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Voight V. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Company 
 
 (C. C. Ohio) 9-83S 
 
 Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Company 
 
 V. (U. S.) 17-111 
 
 Voils, Chattauoog-a & D. R. Co. v. (©a.) 21-302 
 
 Volkmar v. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-453, 434 
 
 Volp, L,owe V. (EJng-. ) 3-656 
 
 Voorhees v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 16-316 
 
 Voss V. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. R. Co. (Ind.) 3-427 
 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. (N. J.) 12-820 
 
 Vreeland v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. (Mich.) 6-778 
 
 Wabash R. Co. , Bramraer v. (Iowa) 22-508 
 
 V. City of Defiance (U. S.). 7-638 
 
 V. Fox (Ohio) 21-690 
 
 V. Kingsley (111.) 13-835 
 
 Lockwood V. (Mo.) 1- 16 
 
 Ivumley v. (U. S.) 6-81 
 
 Merrielees v. (Mo.) 22-158 
 
 V. Miller (Ind.) 23-843 
 
 Morgan v. (Mo.) 20-372 
 
 Osborne, Com'r, v. (Mich.) 20-569 
 
 V. Ray (Ind.). 12-593 
 
 Ringwalt v. (Neb.) 2-450 
 
 Robertson v. (Mo.) , 16- 16 
 
 V. Skiles (Ohio) 21-881 
 
 Somerville v. (Mich.) 5-693 
 
 Wade, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 5-371 
 
 Wagen v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. (Minn.) 17-438 
 
 Wagner, Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. (Ind.) 14-706 
 
 Wagner Pal., etc., Co., Dawley v. (Mass.) 8-766 
 
 Wakefield & S. St. Ry. Co., Kelly v. (Mass.) 23- €7 
 
 Wald V. Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. (111.) 5-70 
 
 Walker v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. (Ga.) 11-498 
 
 Atlanta St. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 1-273, 290 
 
 V. City of Denver (C. C. A.) 6-206 
 
 V. Eikelberry (Okla.) 13-253 
 
 V. Gillett (Kan.) 10-140 
 
 V. Green (Kan.) 14-366 
 
 w. Kinnare (C. C. A.) 6-63 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc. , R. Co. (Mich.) 6-779 
 
 v.. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ala.) 4-658 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 21-473 
 
 V. McNeill (Wash.) 11-738 
 
 V. Mercer (Kan.) 18-159 
 
 V. New Mexico & S. P. R. Co. (N. Mex.) 14-839 
 
 V. Price (Kan.) 20-432 
 
 V. Shelton (Kan.) 11-15 
 
 V. South Chester R. Co. (Pa.) 4-256 
 
 Wall V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 15-413 
 
 V. Piatt (Mass.) 9-563 
 
 Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 2-260 
 
 Wallace, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 2-651 
 
 V. City & Suburban R. Co. (Ore.) 1-258, 264, 275 
 
 V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) ' 3-443 
 
 Waller, Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. z/. (Ga.) 5-620 
 
 Wallin V. Eastern Ry. Co. of Minnesota (Minn.) 21-611 
 
 Walters f. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 15-606 
 
 Pierce v. (111. ) 8-672 
 
 V. Western & A. R. Co. (C. C. A.) . . 2-609 
 
 Walton V. Chattanoogo Rapid-Transit Co. (Tenh.) 19-436 
 
 Warax v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. (U. S.) .3-650, 657 
 
 Ward V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Wis.) 14-322 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Ky.) 18-689 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 10-544, 23-462 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Tenn.). 7-776 
 
TABLE OF CASES 107 
 
 Ward, Missouri, K. & T. Ey. Co. v. (lud. Ter.) 11-328 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.) , 19-30 
 
 V. Ohio River & C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.) 12-854 
 
 V. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. (Miss.) , 21-401 
 
 Ward Lumber Co., Wilson v. (C. C. A.) . .'. 1-S96 
 
 Warden of City Prison of City of New York, People, Tyroler v. 
 
 (N. Y.) 14-474 
 
 Waren, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) , 13-729 
 
 Warfel, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. (111.) 6-790, 795 
 
 Warfield v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Tenn. ) 17-135 
 
 Warlick, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Ind. Ter.) 4-32 
 
 Warner, Gulf, etc. , R. Co. v. (Tex.) 4-262 
 
 ». Texas & P. R. Co. (U.S.) 6-696 
 
 Washington County R. Co. George v. (Me.) 15-850 
 
 Lowell V. (Me.) 9-115 
 
 Washington & G. R. Co. z/. Hickey (D.C.) 9-865 
 
 Washington v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas (Tex.) 11-829 
 
 Washington Southern R. Co. v. Lacey (Va.) 6-778, 779, 782 
 
 Waters v. Atlantic City R. Co. (N. J.) 15-525 
 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. (Neb.) 8-753 
 
 V. Mobile, etc., R. Co. (Miss.) 6-771, 772 
 
 Waterville, etc., Co., Maine Cent. R. Co. v. (Me.) 8-756, 757 
 
 Watkins, Georgia, C. & N. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 3-429 
 
 Watson V. Albany & N. Ry. Co. (Ga.) 19-176 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Tenn.) 18-115 
 
 V. Mound City Street R. Co. (Mo.) .3-385 
 
 V. Portland & G. R. Ry. Co. (Me.) 11-194 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 11-839, 18-209, 23-509 
 
 Watt V. Nevada Cent. R. Co. (Nev.) 3-659, 5-700 
 
 Way, Kansas City, W. & N. W. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 13-363 
 
 Waycross, etc., R. Co., Gardner ». (Ga.) 5-694 
 
 Wear, Judge, St. Louis, K. & S. R. Co. v. (Mo.) 4-583, 623 
 
 Webber ». St. Paul City R. Co. (Minn.) 6-774 
 
 Weber Co. v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (Iowa) . .2-473, 474, 20-464 
 
 Webster, Lake Roland Elevated R. Co. v. (Md.) 1-360 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 22-410 
 
 Middlesborough Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 14-209 
 
 Weems, Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. (Miss.) 7-788 
 
 Weil V. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. (Ark.) 9-721 
 
 Weinkle v. Brunswick & W. R. Co. (Ga.) 14-50 
 
 Weir V. Norman (U. S.) 13-861 
 
 Weisel v. Eastern Ry. Co. of Minnesota (Minn.) 17-446 
 
 Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. (Ohio) 5-714 
 
 Weiss z/. Bethlehem Iron Co. (CCA.) 12-305 
 
 Welch V. Concord R. R. (N. H.).- 16-830 
 
 Weldon v. Philadelphia W. & B. R. Co. (Del.) 13-759 
 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 22-61 
 
 Wellington v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.) 3-165 
 
 Wellington & P. R. Co. , Boutten v. (N. Car.) 21-576 
 
 V. Cashie & C R. & L. Co. (N. Car.) 3-29, 32 
 
 Miller V. (N. Car.) 20-557 
 
 Wells County v. McHenry (N. Dak.) 10-190 
 
 Wells, Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 3-427 
 
 Welsh V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 14-569 
 
 V. West Jersey & S. R. Co. (N. J.) 15-674 
 
 Wenz, Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 15-844 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Annis (111.) 6-792 
 
 Cohen v. (CCA.) 1-261, 268, 271 
 
 V. Kennedy CahiU (111.) 6-794 
 
 V. Kennelly (111.) 9-359 
 
 V. McNulty (111.) 9-255 
 
 V. Manning (111.). 9-364 
 
 V. Martin (111.) : 2-317, 318,319 
 
 V. Piper (111.) 9-147 
 
 V. Scanlan (111.) 9-482 
 
108 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 WestEndR. Co., Hamilton v. (Mass.) 2-221 
 
 "West End St. R. Co., Brittain v. (Mass.) 7-773 
 
 Doyle V. (Mass. ) 1-273, 276 
 
 fealbraith zi. (Mass.) 3-628 
 
 Kenneson v. (Mass. ) 9-44S 
 
 Manning v. (Mass. ) 6-793 
 
 White V. (Mass.) 3-636 
 
 West, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 21-239 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. (CCA.) 11-447 
 
 West Jersey R. Co. v. Abbott (N. J.) 8-764 
 
 V. Camden, G. & W. R. Co. (N. J.) 1-170, 189, 322, 325 
 
 West Jersey & S. R. Co., May ». (N. J.) 13-517 
 
 Welsh z/. (N. J.) 15-674 
 
 West Jersey Traction Co. v. Camden Horse R. Co. (N J.).. . .1-132, 4-520 
 
 West Shore & O. Terminal Co., In re (N. J.) 22-178 
 
 West Shore R. Co., Hedges z/. (N. Y.) 5-647 
 
 West Side R. Co., Boerth v. (Wis.) 1-264 
 
 West & South Towns St. R. Co., Tibbetts v. (111.) 1-98 
 
 West Virginia C & P. R. Co. , Young 'v. (W. Va.) 4-134 
 
 West Virginia & P. R. Co., Berry v. (W. Va.) 11-103 
 
 Fisher v. (W. Va.) 4-86 
 
 West Virginia, etc., R. Co., Talbott v. (W. Va.) 8-768 
 
 Westbrook v. Muscatine N. & S. R. Co. (Iowa) 23-835 
 
 WesthefFer v. Lebanon & A. St. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-170 
 
 Western & Atlantic Railroad Co. , Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion V. (U. S.) 20-751 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. z/. Bailey (Ga.) 12-739 
 
 V. Bass (Ga.) 11-608 
 
 V. Bradford (Ga.) 21-298 
 
 V. Brown (Ga.) 10-107 
 
 V. Burke (Ga.) 5-386 
 
 V. Calhoun (Ga.) 11-334 
 
 Daniels v. (Ga.) 2-211, 280 
 
 Elliott V. (Ga.) 21-889 
 
 V. Ferguson (Ga.) 22-350 
 
 W.Goodwin (Ga.) 12-219 
 
 V. Herndon (Ga.) 23-464 
 
 V. Holsomback (Ga.) , 19-351 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commission v. (C C. A.) 13-298 
 
 V. Jackson (Ga. ) . 21-296 
 
 V. Ohio Valley Banking & Trust Co. (Ga.) 15-839 
 
 Parish v. (Ga.) ' 10-574 
 
 V. Robinson (Ga.) 23-508 
 
 V. Sims (Ga.) 17-756 
 
 V. Stafford (Ga.) : 5-172 
 
 V. Strickland (Ga.) 23-510 
 
 Underwood v. (Ga.) 13-739 
 
 V. Vaughan (Ga.) 21-512 
 
 Walters z/. (C C A.) 2-609 
 
 Wilkes V. (Ga.) 16-826 
 
 Western, etc., R. Co., Burton ». (Ga.) 5-708 
 
 Western Maryland R. Co. v. Stocksdale (Md. ) 4-510 
 
 Western New York & Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Venango County 
 
 (Pa.) 10-185 
 
 B^^ Johnson v. (Pa.) 22-309 
 
 Western North Carolina R. Co. , Perry v. (N. Car.) 21-659 
 
 Western R. Corp., Inhabitants of Worcester v. (Mass.) 5-705 
 
 Western Ry. of Alabama, Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. (Ala.) 
 
 10-339, 20-455 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co. (C C A.) 13-395 
 
 Whalen v. Consolidated Traction Co. (N. J. App.) 11-207 
 
 Whatley v. Macon & N. Ry. Co. (Ga.) 11-425 
 
 Whayne, Mobile, & O. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 23-319 
 
 Wheeler v. Detroit lilectric Ry. Co. (Mich.) 23-595 
 
 V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (N. H. ) 23-84 
 
TABLE OF CASES 109 
 
 Wheeler, John M., Plff. in Err., v. New York, New Haven & 
 
 Hartford Railroad Company (U. S.) 20-143 
 
 Wheeling & I,. E. E. Co., Fries v. (Ohio) 6-489 
 
 V. Koontz (Ohio) 16-827 
 
 Wheeling, etc., R. Co., Reese v. (W. Va.) 6-783, 785 
 
 Wheeling Steel, etc., Co., Klinkler v. ( W. Va.) 8-764 
 
 Wherry v. Duluth, M. & N. R. Co. (Minn.) 4-72 
 
 Whicher v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) '. . 18-32S 
 
 Whipple V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.) S-S17 
 
 Whitbeck, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. (Kan.) 7-778 
 
 Whitcher v. Boston & M. R. Co. (N. H. ) 20-540 
 
 Whitcomb, Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. (CCA.) 
 
 1-260,261,267, 268, 269, 270, 279 
 
 Guhl V. (Wis.) 20-520 
 
 Leonard v. (Wis.) 7-520 
 
 MacCarthy v. (Wis.) 20-860 
 
 Wood & Gumaer Mfg. Co. v. (Wis.) 14- 1 
 
 White z/. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-351 
 
 V. New York, P. & N. R. Co. ( Va.) 20-588 
 
 V. Norfolk & S. R. Co. (N. Car.) 2-222, 444, 445' 
 
 V. Railroad Co. (L,a.) 1-68 
 
 St. Louis R. Co. ». (Tex.) 3-652 
 
 V. West End St. R. Co. (Mass.) 3-636 
 
 V. Worcester Consol. St. R. Co. (Mass.) 6-110 
 
 Whitehead, Kansas City R. Co. v. (Ala.) 4-262 
 
 Whitesides v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 21-537 
 
 Whiting, H. & E. Chicago Street R. Co., Chicago & Calumet 
 
 Terminal R. Co. v. (Ind.) 1-181 
 
 Whitley v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.) 12-210 
 
 Whitmore v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co. (Utah) 23-742 
 
 Whitney v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (C C A.) 19-184 
 
 Whittington, Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. (Miss.) 6-791 
 
 Whitton V. South Carolina & G. R. Co. (Ga.) 14-776 
 
 Wice V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (111.) 23-919 
 
 Wichita & S. W. R. Co., Clement v. (Kan.1. 3-10 
 
 ■ Wichita Wholesale Grocery Co., Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. (Kan.).. 2-560 
 
 Wichita & W. R. Co. v. Quinu (Kan.) ; 7-217 
 
 V. Thayer (Kan.) 3- 27 
 
 Wideman, Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. (Ga.) 5-714 
 
 Wiegand v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey (Pa. ) 5-61 
 
 Wieland v. President, etc., of Delaware & H. Canal Co. (N. Y.) . 21-130 
 
 Wiggins, Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. (Ga.) 22-588 
 
 Wilcox V. San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. (Tex.) 3-441, 442 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Va.) 22-260 
 
 Wilder v. Boston & A. R. Co. (Mass.) 3-28 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. z/. (C. C. A.) 13-520 
 
 Wilkes V. Western & A. R. Co. (Ga.) 16-826 
 
 Wilkie V. Raleigh & C P. R. Co. (N. Car.) 19-295 
 
 Wilkinson, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Ee R. Co. v. (Kan.) 2-473, 474 
 
 Willet V. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.) 9-18 
 
 Willey, Atchison, T. & S. P. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 6-565, 15-847 
 
 Willamette Iron Works v. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co. 
 
 (Ore.) 1-36 
 
 Williams z/. Atchison, T. & S. P. R. Co. (Kan.) 12-370 
 
 Camden & A. R. Co. v. (N. J. App.) 11-600 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 13-861 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 21-175 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Kan.) 12-336 
 
 V. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.) 10-147 
 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. v. (Fla ) 5-696, 709, 710, 719 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.) 7-230 
 
 Kansas City, P. & G. R. Co. v. (Ind. Ter.) 19-361 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 9-252 
 
 Louisville &N. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 11-338 
 
 V. Oregon Short-Line R. Co. (Utah) 12- 61 
 
110 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Williams, St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-541, 542, 545 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.) 22-442 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 22-415 
 
 Williams, State's Atty. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) . . 12-860 
 
 Williams Val. R. Co. v. Lykens & W. Val. St. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 16-718 
 
 Williamson v. Gordon Heights Ry. Co. (Del.) 14-809 
 
 Willingham v. Macon & B. Ry. Co. (Ga.) 21-340 
 
 Willis V. Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. (Ky.) 11-324 
 
 Wilmington City Ry. Co. , Brown v. (Del.) 12-439 
 
 ■Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. (Del. Ch.) 9-493 
 
 Wilmington D. Mfg. Co. v. Adams Exp. Co. (Del.) 2-716 
 
 Wilmington & N. R. Co., Creswell v. (Del.) 14-625 
 
 Sayers, Assessor, v. (Del.) 22-530 
 
 Wilmington S. C. R. Co., Raynor v. (N. Car.) 23-561 
 
 Wilmington St. R. Co., Carolina Cent. R. Co. v. (N. Car.) 7-786 
 
 Rittenhouse v. (N. Car.) 6-783, 784, 785 
 
 Wilmington & W. R. Co. , Allen v. (N. Car.) 8-257 
 
 Baker v. (N. Car.) 3-650 
 
 Beach v. (N. Car.) 9-158 
 
 Narron v. (N. Car.) 13-852 
 
 Skinner v. (N. Car.) 22- 32 
 
 Smith V. (N. Car.) 23-467 
 
 State, Railroad Commission v. (N. Car . ) 11-671 
 
 Wilmington, etc., R. Co., Burnett v. (N. Car. ) 7-773 
 
 Wilmot V. Yazoo & M. Val. R. Co. (Miss.) 19-263 
 
 Wilson V. Charleston & S. R. Co. (S. Car.) 9-211 
 
 V. Duluth Street R. Co. (Minn. ) 4-53 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky .) 21-644 
 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. (III.) 20-164 
 
 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.) 14-32 
 
 V. Louisiana & N. W. R. Co. (La.) 14-648 
 
 V. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 12-425 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. t/. (C. C. A.) 6-97 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 5-491 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.) 16-835 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. (Utah) 4-40 
 
 V. Ward Lumber Co. (C. C. A.) 1-596 
 
 Wimber v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 23-476 
 
 Winchester, etc., R. Co., United States !>. (U. S.) 4-264 
 
 Winkler zi. St. Louis Basket, etc., Co. (Mo.) 7-774 
 
 Winona Railway & Light Co., Palmer v. (Minn.) 22-696 
 
 Winona & St. Peter R. Co., Corbin v. (Minn.) • 3-443 
 
 Parker v. (Minn.) 21-594 
 
 Reiter v, (Minn. ) IX- 31 
 
 United States z/. (C. C. A. ) 1-454, 482 
 
 Winona, etc., R. Co., Schilling v. (Minn.) 5-694 
 
 » V. United States (U. S.) 6-790 
 
 United States w. (U.S.) 7-776 
 
 Winship v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 10-275 
 
 Winston v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Ky.) 23-454 
 
 Winter v. New York & L- B. R. Co. (N. J.) 23-359 
 
 Winters, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. (111.) 12-93 
 
 V. Cowen (C. C. Ohio) 12- 40 
 
 Cowen V. (C. C. A.) 16-107 
 
 Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Forsythe (U. S.) 1-487 
 
 Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railroad Company v. Jacobsou 
 
 (U.S.) 19_634 
 
 Jacobson v. (Minn.) 13-228 
 
 Wisconsin Valley R. Co., Gibbons v. (Wis.) ." s_323 
 
 Wisenbaker, Georgia Southern & E. Ry. Co. v. (Ga. ) . 22-186 
 
 Wiswell, North Chicago St. R. Co. v. (111.) ' ' " ' 9.377 
 
 Witt V. East Tennessee & W. N. C. R. Co. (Tenn. ) \. 8-380 
 
 Witzman v. Southern R. Co. (Mo.) !!!!.'.'!.. 3-449 
 
 Woeckner v. Erie Electric Motor Co. (Pa. ) '.'..'.'.... 5-719 
 
 Woehrle v. Minnesota Transfer Ry. Co. (Minn. ) ' . 19-529 
 
TABLE OF CASES 111 
 
 Wolfe, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 22-26 
 
 Wolf V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.) 12-619 
 
 Wolff V. Georgia & F. R. Co. (Ga.) 1-64 
 
 Woltou, Grand Tower & Cape Girardeau R. Co. v. (111. ) 1-686 
 
 Wood, Atlantic &N. W. R. Co. v. (Can,) 3-13S 
 
 V. Beach (U. S.) 1-S96 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 11-8S0 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ala.) 20-906 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. ». (C. C. A.) 19-493 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Minn.) S-706 
 
 Gumaer Mfg. Co. v. Whitcomb (Wis.) 14- 1 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 8-711 
 
 V. L,ouisville & N. R. Co. (C. C. Teun.) 11-525 
 
 V. Metropolitan El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 6-788 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. (Va.) 21-317 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) . 5-672 
 
 Southern Express Co. v. (Ga.) 5-83 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ky.) 15-570 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 23-555, 611 
 
 Woods, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 11-872 
 
 Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-519 
 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. Andrews (Ala.) 8-755, 756 
 
 V. Herndon (Ala.). 7-124 
 
 Woodworth, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. (Ind. Ter.) 4-261 
 
 Woolridge, Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v. (111.) 13-501 
 
 Woolsey, Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. (Ga.) 19-573 
 
 V. New York El. R. Co. (N. Y.) 1-373 
 
 Worcester Consol. St. R. Co. , White z;. (Mass. ) 6-110 
 
 Worcester L,. & S. St. R. Co. , Cummings v. (Mass.) 5-389 
 
 -Word, Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-542 
 
 Work V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 20-636 
 
 Worlds V. Georgia R. Co. (Ga.) 5-514 
 
 Worth, J. B. , Co. , Bowers v. (N. Car.) 22-658 
 
 Worthingtou, Simmons v. (Mass.) 10-771 
 
 Wragge v. South Carolina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.) 4-639 
 
 Wright, Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. (111.) 1-716 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. (Ky.) 3-441 
 
 V. Clarke (Utah) 5-156 
 
 Clark z/. (CCA.) 8-431 
 
 Wright, Comptroller General, Central R. & B; Co. v. (U. S.) 7-181 
 
 V. Northampton & H. R. Co. (N. Car. ).....• 10-151 
 
 Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 4-9, 5-419 
 
 z/. Southern Pac. Co. (Utah) S-S59 
 
 V. Southern' Ry. Co. (N. Car. ) 12-717, 20-157, 873 
 
 V. Union R. Co. (R. I.) 18-234 
 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. (Miss.) 19-239 
 
 Wrightsville & T. R. Co., Coleman v. (Ga.) 23-863 
 
 State V. (Ga.) 11-576 
 
 Wunsch V. Southern Pac. R. Co. (C C. Cal.) 2-472 
 
 Wyatt, Consolidated & C. P. R. Co. v. (Kan.) 9-756 
 
 Wyman, First Nat. Bank of Grand Junction v. (Colo.) 23-277 
 
 Yarborough, International &. G. N. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) . . . 7-733 , 
 
 Yates, Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. v. (Tex.) 2-541 
 
 Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, v. Wirt Adams 
 
 (U. S.) ; 20-1, 350 
 
 V. Adams, State Revenue Agent (Miss.) 20-428 
 
 V. Anderson (Miss.) 14-412 
 
 V. Baldwin (Miss.) 21-479 
 
 Drake v. (Miss.) 21-141 
 
 Kent V. (Miss.) 21-332 
 
 V. Martin (Miss.) 21-301 
 
 V. Millsaps (Miss.) 17-269 
 
 Mire v. (La.) ~ 21-761 
 
 Provost V. (La.) 18-764 
 
 Sundmaker v. (La.) 22-496 
 
112 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, Tate v. (Miss.)- • 20-461 
 
 Thompson v. (La.) ' 2-212, 300 
 
 Ward V. (Miss.) 21-401 
 
 Wilmot V. (Miss.) ; 19-263 
 
 V. Wright (Miss.) 19-239 
 
 Yazoo, etc. , R. Co. z/. Whittingfton (Miss.) 6-791 
 
 Yeargin, Southern Pac. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 22-459 
 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 23-642 
 
 Ying-st z/. Ivebanon & A. St. R. Co. (Pa.) 1-259,266 
 
 York, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ala.) 23-470 
 
 Yost, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (Neb.) 21- 92 
 
 Young, Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (Ind. Ter.) 17-645 
 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. z/. (Ind.).. 6-349 
 
 V. Boston, etc. , R. Co. (Mass. ) 7-776 
 
 V. Camden, etc., R. Co. (N. J.) 8-768 
 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Iowa) 6-231 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Neb. ) 14-343 
 
 V. Citizens' St. R. Co. (Ind.) 5-717 
 
 V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (N. Dak.) 14-72 
 
 Ohio Valley R. Co.'s Receiver v. (Ky. ) 8-399 
 
 V. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. Co. (N. Y.) 21-11 
 
 V. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (La.) 14-831 
 
 V. West Virginia C. & P. R. Co. (W. Va.) 4-134 
 
 Youngblcjod v. South Carolina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.) 20-622 
 
 Younger, Gulf, C. & S. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 8-84 
 
 Younkin v. Milwaukee L., H. & T. Co. (Wis.) 23-500 
 
 Zackery v. Mobile & O. R. Co. (Miss.) 6-267 
 
 Zagelmeyer v. Cincinnati, S. & M. R. Co. (Mich.) 2-18, 161 
 
 Zahn V. Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. (Pa.) 9-411 
 
 Zantzinger, Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) 13-840, 16-679 
 
 Zeigler v. Lake St. El. R. Co. (CCA.) 23- 1 
 
 Spokane Falls & N. R. Co. z^. (C C A.) 1-594 
 
 Zernecke, Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. (Neb. ) 17- 76 
 
 Zion V. South Pac. Co. (C C Nev.) 2-167 
 
INDEX TO NOTES. 
 
 ABANDONMENT OF BIGHT 
 OF WAY. 
 
 See Right of Way. 
 ABATEMENT. 
 See Actions. 
 Survival of actions for personal 
 injuries, vol. 7, p. 579. 
 
 ABUTTERS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Injunction. 
 Railroads. 
 Consent of abutters, vol. 1, p. 
 
 364. 
 Elevated railroads, vol. 1, pp. 
 
 378, 716. 
 Estoppel, vol. 1, p. 66. 
 Right of abutting owners to 
 
 compensation where elevated 
 
 railroad is erected in street, 
 
 vol. 10, p. 706. 
 Title to vacated street, vol. 10, 
 
 p. 71S. 
 Whether trolley an additional 
 
 burden, vol. 4, p. 400. 
 
 ACCIDENTS. 
 
 Concurrence of accident and 
 negligence, liability of car- 
 rier, vol. 12, p. 147. 
 
 ACCIDENTS ON TRACK. 
 See Children. 
 Licensees. 
 Negligence. 
 Personal Injuries. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Street Railways. 
 Trespassers. 
 
 Active and passive negligence 
 of company towards persons 
 using track, vol. 11, p. 831. 
 "Negligence of street railway 
 in running over child a ques- 
 tion for jury, vol. 5, p. 399; 
 vol. 9, p. 180. 
 
 Presumption that persons seen 
 on track have ordinary facul- 
 ties, vol. 19, p. 123 ; vol. 20, 
 p. 322. 
 
 Presumption that persons seen 
 on track will leave to escape 
 train, vol. 19, p. 119. 
 
 ACTIONS. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Receivers. 
 Removal of Cause. 
 
 ID— 8 
 
 A^GTian^— Continued. 
 
 Action against raTilroad com- 
 missioners is not action 
 against state, vol. IS, p. 390. 
 
 Action in federal court not 
 ground for forfeiture of rail- 
 road franchise, vol. 17, p. 62S. 
 
 Consolidation of railroads does 
 not abate pending actions, 
 vol. 3, p. 364. 
 
 Forfeiture of franchise, vol. 17, 
 p. 62S. 
 
 Removal of causes, vol. 14, p. 
 827. 
 
 Tort or contract for injury to 
 passenger, vol. 8, p. 375. 
 
 ACT OP GOD. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Baggage, vol. 5, p. 79. 
 Floods, vol. S, pi 79. 
 
 ADMISSIONS. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Evidence. 
 
 Payment by company for other 
 propertj' destroyed by fire as 
 admission of negligence, vol. 
 IS, p. 518. 
 
 ADVERSE POSSESSION. 
 
 Abutter's use of right of way 
 granted by congress regarded 
 as permissive only, vol. 20, 
 p. 153. 
 
 Adverse possession of right of 
 way will vest title in grantor, 
 vol. 18, p. 680. 
 
 Company estopped to assert title 
 to its land upon which build- 
 ings had been erected by mis- 
 take, vol. 20, p. 153. 
 
 Easements lost, vol. 14, p. 821. 
 
 Possession by owner of servient 
 estate, effect on company's 
 title to land granted for right 
 of way, vol. 20, p. 153. 
 
 Proprietor of the soil's posses- 
 sion of land conveyed for 
 railroad right of way, for 
 agricultural purposes, is not 
 adverse, where he retains the 
 fee, vol. 20, p. 153. 
 
 Re-entry of railroad company, 
 sufficiency of acts to consti- 
 tute, vol. 20, p. 153. 
 
 Title against railroad company 
 by adverse possession, vol. 
 20, p. 151. 
 
114 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 AGENCY. 
 
 See Intoxicating Liquors. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Medical Services. 
 Authority of conductor to em- 
 ploy hands in case of emer- 
 gency, vol. 11, p. 453. 
 Declarations as to past trans- 
 actions, vol. 14, p. 823. 
 Declarations of agents as to 
 past transactions inadmissi- 
 ble, vol. 14, p. 823. 
 
 AGE, SEX AND CONDITION 
 OP PASSENGER AS AF- 
 FECTING DEGREE OF 
 CARE. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 ALIENATION OF FRAN- 
 CHISE. 
 
 See Ultra Vires. 
 
 AMENDMENTS. 
 See Charters. 
 
 ANIMALS. 
 
 See Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 APPEALS. 
 . Parties, vol. 9, p. 201. 
 
 APPLIANCES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Fires. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 ARGUMENT OP COUNSEL. 
 
 As ground for reversal, vol. 12, 
 p. 205. 
 
 ARRESTS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Damages for illegal -arrest of 
 
 passenger, vol. 12, p. 279. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 
 for illegal arrest made by 
 
 employee, vol. 12, p. 183 ; vol. 
 
 20, p. 446. 
 
 ASSAULTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Trespassers. 
 Liability of railroad companies 
 for assaults by employees, 
 vol. 21, p. 242. 
 Liability of sleeping car com- 
 panies for assault by em- 
 ployees, vol. 8, p. 79. 
 Use by trainmen of excessive 
 force against passenger in 
 self-defense, vol. ,2, p. 445; 
 vol. 10, p. 249. 
 
 ASSIGNMENTS. 
 Right of action for personal 
 injuries, vol. 10, p. 860. 
 
 ASSUMPTION OF RISK. 
 See Master and Servant, 
 
 ATTACHMENTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 
 After termination of transit, 
 vol. 19, p. 688. 
 
 Goods in custody of carrier, 
 vol. 19, p. 687. 
 
 Goods received for transporta- 
 tion, vol. 19, p. 688. 
 
 ATTORNEY'S PEES. 
 
 Validity of statutes providing 
 for an attorney's fee where 
 claims against railroad com- 
 panies are not promptly paid, 
 vol. 6, p. 770. 
 
 AUTOMATIC VALVE. 
 See Frightening Horses. 
 
 Backing and pushing cars, vol. 
 
 5, p. 444. 
 
 BACKING OARS. 
 ' See Crossings. 
 
 BAGGAGE. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Act of God, vol. 5, p. 79. 
 
 Bicycles, vol. 7, p. 66. 
 
 Checks, vol. 2, p. xxxiv. 
 
 Frightening horses, ,vol. S, p. 
 289. 
 
 General liability of carriers of 
 passengers for loss or injury 
 to baggage, vol. 2, p. i ; vol. 
 21, p. 367. 
 
 Injuries to passengers by colli- 
 sion with baggage trucks or 
 by removal of baggage, vol. 
 
 6, pp. 486-487. 
 Liability, vol. 2, p. i. 
 Liability for loss of trunk 
 
 checked in violation of rule, 
 vol. 20, p. 469. 
 Liability for loss of jewelry in 
 trunk received without knowl- 
 edge of its contents, vol. 2, 
 p. 471. 
 
 Liability of carrier where bag- 
 gage has been delivered to 
 baggage master, vol. 14, p. 
 
 424. 
 
 Liability of connecting car- 
 riers, vol. 2, p. ii. * 
 
 Limitation of Liability. 
 Limitation of common-law re- 
 sponsibility of carrier by 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 lis 
 
 BA.GG AG'S— Conlinued. 
 
 contract and by notice, vol. 
 2, p. ii. 
 
 Limiting carrier's liability 
 for baggage, vol. S, p. 66. 
 Merchandise as Baggage. 
 
 Agent's knowledge of nature 
 of property, effect, vol. 
 20, p. 468. 
 
 Authority of agents, vol. 8, 
 p. 539 ; vol. 20, p. 468. 
 
 Authority of baggage master 
 to waive rule requiring re- 
 lease of liability where 
 sample trunks are checked 
 as baggage, vol. 20, p. 469. 
 
 Custom of agents at other 
 points on the road, vol. 8, 
 p. S4S. 
 
 Deception by passenger, vol. 
 8, p. S46. 
 
 Effect of mere appearance of 
 baggage received upon car- 
 rier's liability for loss, vol. 
 20, p. 471. 
 
 Effect on carrier's liability of 
 knowledge of connecting 
 carrier's baggage master 
 where merchandise is 
 shipped as baggage, vol. 
 20, p. 471. 
 
 Estoppel of carrier receiving 
 merchandise as baggage 
 with knowledge of its real 
 character, vol. 20, p. 468. 
 
 General rule, vol. 8, p. 539. 
 
 Gratuitous bailment, vol. 8, 
 p. 546. 
 
 Iviability for loss of property 
 not having appearance of 
 baggage received as such 
 by carrier, vol. 23, p. 469. 
 
 Payment of extra charges, 
 vol. 8, p. 542. 
 
 Proof of actual knowledge, 
 vol. 8, p. 543. 
 
 Regulations that passenger 
 shall certify as to value and 
 nature of the property, vol. 
 8, p. 545. 
 
 Warehouseman, vol. 8, p. 547. 
 Posting and printing copy of 
 
 regulations, vol. 5, p. 67. 
 Presumption as to authority of 
 
 baggage master in checking 
 
 baggage, vol. 20, p. 469. 
 Questions of law and fact, vol. 
 
 S, pp. 67, 69. 
 Reasonable time for delivery, 
 
 vol. S, p. 68. 
 Responsibility of carrier where 
 
 baggage is retained in the 
 
 custody of the passenger, vol. 
 
 2, p. xxvii. 
 
 BA.GGA.G'E— Continued. 
 
 Right of passenger to carry 
 parcels, vol. 19, p. 295. 
 
 Termination of Common Car- 
 rier's Liability, as Such, for 
 Passenger's Baggage after Its 
 Arrival at Destination. 
 
 Carrier's duty to store, gen- 
 eral rule, vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Effect of agent's agreement 
 to allow baggage to remain 
 in baggage room over night, 
 vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Effect of agreement as to 
 leaving baggage in car- 
 rier's custody, vol. 21, p. 
 367. 
 
 Effect of baggage master's 
 permission to leave bag- 
 gage, vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Effect of lame passenger's 
 inability to carry his bag- 
 gage and baggage master's 
 consent to its being left, 
 vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Failure to remove baggage 
 because of baggage mas- 
 ter's absence, vol. 21, p. 
 367. 
 
 General rule, vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Holding baggage over night 
 for connecting line, vol. 21, 
 p. 367. 
 
 Illustration of care required 
 in storing baggage, vol. 
 21, p. 367. 
 
 Leaving baggage in agent's 
 custody after delivery to 
 passenger, vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 .Reasonable time for receiving 
 and removing baggage, 
 may send back for it from 
 hotel, vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Reasonable time in which to 
 receive and remove bag- 
 gage, general statement, 
 vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Statement of general rule, 
 vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Storing baggage, baggage, 
 room need not be burglar 
 proof, vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Storing baggage, depot con- 
 structed of pine, vol. 21, p. 
 367. 
 
 Storing baggage, negligence 
 in leaving trunk in waiting 
 room, vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Storing baggage, negligence 
 in permitting traction en- 
 gine causing fire to be 
 moved near depot, vol. 21, 
 p. 367. 
 
116 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 'BA.GcGrA.GrSi— Continued. 
 
 Unreasonable delay in receiv- 
 ing and removing baggage, 
 arrival on Sunday, vol. 21, 
 p. 367. 
 
 Unreasonable delay in re- 
 ceiving and removing bag- 
 gage, destruction by fire 
 in warehouse while pas- 
 senger was using stop-over 
 privilege, vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Unreasonable delay in re- 
 ceiving and removing bag- 
 gage, fire hours, vol. 21, p. 
 367. 
 
 Unreasonable delay in re- 
 ceiving and removing bag- 
 gage, from Friday night 
 until Monday, vol. 21, p. 
 367. 
 
 Unreasonable delay in receiv- 
 ing and removing baggage, 
 general statements of rule, 
 vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
 Unreasonable delay where it 
 reached its destination be- 
 fore passenger, vol. 21, p. 
 367. 
 
 Unreasonable time within 
 which to receive and to re- 
 move baggage, may leave 
 baggage over night, vol. 21, 
 p. 367. 
 What is baggage, vol. 2, p. 19. 
 When the responsibility of the 
 
 cajrrier begins, vol. 2, p. 
 
 xxxvi. 
 Whether knowledge of ticket 
 
 agent not acquired officially 
 
 as to character of baggage is 
 
 binding on carrier, vol. 20, 
 
 p. 471. 
 
 BAGGAGE MASTERS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 BAGGAGE TRUCKS. 
 Collision with, vol. 6, p. 486. 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 Absolute transfer of, for ante- 
 cedent debt as affecting right 
 of stoppage in transitu, vol. 
 16, p. 2SS. 
 
 Conflict of oral and written 
 contracts for carriage of 
 freight, vol. 13, p. 117. 
 
 Delivery of goods without re- 
 quiring presentation of bill 
 of lading, vol. 7, p. 596. 
 
 Delivery to indorsee, vol. 10, p. 
 397. 
 
 Effect of failure to transfer, on 
 right of stoppage in transitu, 
 vol. 16, p. 2SS. 
 
 BILLS OF XjAHING— Continued. 
 Effect of transfer of, as security 
 
 for antecedent debt on right 
 
 of stoppage in transitu, vol. 
 
 16, p. 2SS. 
 Effect of transfer of unindorsed 
 
 bill of lading on right of 
 
 stoppage in transitu, vol. 16, 
 
 p. 254. 
 Evidence of delivery, vol. 8, 
 
 p. 478. 
 How far conclusive, vol. 2, p. 
 
 610. 
 Indorsement of, as security for 
 
 present advances does not de- 
 feat right of stoppage in 
 
 transitu, vol. 16, p. 255. 
 Indorsement of, to bona fide 
 
 purchaser for value cuts off 
 
 right of stoppage in transitu, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 252. 
 Negotiability, vol. 2, p. 612; 
 
 vol. 10, p. 402. 
 Parol evidence as to, vol. 2, p. 
 
 610 ; vol. 10, p. 341 ; "vol. 13, 
 
 p. 36; vol. 20, p. 709. 
 Parol evidence as to receipt 
 
 clause of, vol. 13, p. 16 ; vol. 
 
 20, p. 709. 
 Presumption as to ownership 
 
 of goods, vol. 13, p. 110. 
 Eight of transferee to exercise 
 
 right of stoppage in transitu, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 249. 
 Right to bills of lading to secure 
 
 drafts after extinguishment 
 
 as commercial paper, vol. 2, 
 
 p. 609. 
 
 Transfer by indorsement and. 
 delivery, vol. 10, p. 397. 
 
 Transfer of, by insolvent con- 
 signee defeats right of stop- 
 page in transitu, vol. 16, p. 
 253. 
 
 Transfer of duplicate of, as 
 affecting right of stoppage in 
 transitu, vol. 16, p. 253. 
 
 Whether assent of shipper is 
 conclusively presumed from 
 acceptance, vol. 20, p. 710; 
 vol. 21, p. 840. 
 
 BLACK LISTING. 
 See Discharge Lists. 
 Master and Servant, 
 
 BOOKS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 BRANCH LINES. 
 Right of railroad company to 
 construct, vol. 3, p. 71. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 117 
 
 BRANCH RAILROADS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Railroads. 
 
 BRIDGES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Mandam,us. 
 
 Acquisition of lands by railroad 
 for, vol. 17, p. 259. 
 
 Care to be observed by railroad 
 company in erecting culverts, 
 bridges, etc., vol. 8, p. 701. 
 
 Highways, vol. 1, p. 213. 
 
 Iviability of company for inju- 
 ries to employees from over- 
 head structure, vol. 10, p. 147. 
 
 Mandamus to compel construc- 
 tion of, vol. 12, p. 860. 
 
 Using defective bridge at cross- 
 ing is not contributory neg- 
 ligence, vol. IS, p. 205. 
 
 BURDEN OP PROOF. 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 Stock. 
 Death by wrongful act, vol. 10, 
 
 p. 583. 
 Derailment of train, vol. S, p. 
 
 309. 
 Fellow servants, vol. 10, p. 
 
 634. 
 Presumption that deceased ex- 
 ercised due care, vol. 10, p. 
 584. 
 Where person is killed by run- 
 ning train, vol. 10, p. 584. 
 
 BURGLARY. 
 
 Averments of ownership in in- 
 dictments, vol. 7, p. 604. 
 
 Breaking into car, vol. 7, p. 
 604. 
 
 CAR RENTAL. 
 See Mortgages. 
 
 CARRIERS OP FREIGHT. 
 See Assaults. 
 
 Bills of Lading. 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Garnishment. 
 Interstate Com.m.erce. 
 Mandam,us. 
 Stoppage in Transitu. 
 Allegation of contract for car- 
 riage, vol. 4, p. 436. 
 Attachment against person 
 other than owner, vol. 21, p. 
 504. 
 
 CARRIERS OP FREIGHT— 
 
 Continued. 
 Attachment of goods after term- 
 ination of transit, vol. 19, p. 
 
 688. 
 Attachment of goods in custody 
 
 of carrier, vol. 19, p. 687. 
 Attachment of goods received 
 
 for transportation, vol. 19, p. 
 
 688. 
 Authority of agent employed to 
 
 solicit passengers to receive 
 
 freight from connecting line, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 729. 
 Authority of local agent to 
 
 make contract to carry goods 
 
 beyond carrier's line, vol. 20, 
 
 p. 728. 
 Authority of station foreman 
 
 of freight department to make 
 
 contract to carry goods be- 
 yond carrier's line, question 
 
 for jury, vol. 20, p. 729. 
 Conflict of oral and written 
 
 agreement for transportation 
 
 of freight, vol. 13, p. 117; 
 
 vol. 20, p. 709. 
 Damages. 
 
 Delivery of goods at flag sta- 
 tion, notice to consignee of 
 arrival of goods, vol. 10, p. 
 352. 
 
 Interest allowed because of 
 gross negligence, in action 
 against carriers, vol. 19, p. 
 628. 
 
 Interest in actions against 
 carriers, general rule, vol. 
 19, p. 625. 
 
 Interest in actions against 
 carriers, Illinois rule, vol. 
 19, p. 627. 
 
 Interest in actions against 
 carriers. New York doc- 
 trine, vol. 19, p. 627. 
 
 Loss of goods, vol. 10, p. 861. 
 
 Measure of damages for de- 
 lay in transportation, vol. 
 8, p. 514. 
 Delay in shipment, liability of 
 
 common carrier, vol. 10, p. 87. 
 Delay in shipment of freight as 
 
 proximate cause of loss, vol. 
 
 17, p. 272. 
 Delivery. 
 
 Consignee's refusal to accept 
 goods, vol. 2, p. 722. 
 
 Delivery of goods at flag sta- 
 tion, contracts limiting lia- 
 bility, vol. 10, p. 352. 
 
 Delivery of goods at flag sta- 
 tion, statutes requiring no- 
 tice of arrival of goods, vol. 
 10, p. 355. 
 
118 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 CARRIERS OF FREIGHT— 
 
 Continued. 
 
 Delivery of goods without re- 
 quiring presentation of bill 
 of lading, vol. 7, p. 596. 
 
 Delivery to carrier as delivery 
 to purchaser, vol. 16, p. 18S. 
 
 Duty of carrier to make de- 
 livery, vol. 2, p. 719. 
 
 Effect of delivery of goods to 
 real owner, vol. 11, p. 124; 
 vol. 17, p. 341. 
 
 Failure to deliver goods, vol. 
 2, p. 722. 
 
 Iviability for misdelivery, vol. 
 2, p. 721. 
 
 Provision that goods deliv- 
 ered on a certain platform, 
 where there is no protection 
 from the weather, should be 
 at shipper's risk, vol. 10, p. 
 352. 
 
 Termination of liability, vol. 
 2, p. 720. 
 
 What constitutes valid deliv- 
 ery, vol. 2, p. 719. 
 
 Demurrage. 
 
 Authorities cited against 
 right to impose demurrage 
 charges, vol. 20, p. 454. 
 Authorities holding that de- . 
 murrage may be charged in 
 absence of stipulation in 
 contract, vol. 20, p. 450. 
 ' Liability to shipper for 
 charges for use of car while 
 awaiting sale of contents, 
 vol. 20, p. 454. 
 Notice to consignee of regu- 
 lation as to charging de- 
 murrage essential, vol. 20, 
 p. 453. 
 Season for holding that rail- 
 roads have no lien on ac- 
 count of demurrage for 
 detention of cars by ship- 
 per, vol. 20, p. 455. 
 Kight of one company to col- 
 lect demurrage for cars of 
 another, vol. 20, p. 454. 
 Sufficiency of notice of arrival 
 of cars to fix liability of 
 shipper for demurrage, vol. 
 20, p. 453. 
 Deviation, vol. 7, p. 573. 
 Duty to furnish proper facili- 
 ties, vol. 2, p. 584. 
 Duty to furnish suitable cars, 
 
 vol. 2, p. 584 ; vol. 17, p. 333. 
 Garnishment of goods in depot, 
 
 vol. 19, p. 206. 
 Injuries while loading or un- 
 loading cars, vol. 8, p. 477. 
 
 CARRIERS OF FREIGHT — 
 Continued. 
 
 Intoxicating liquors, carrier as 
 purchaser's agent, vol. 16, p. 
 185. 
 
 Liability of carrier for cotton 
 in compress, vol. 8, p. 477. 
 
 I/iability of carrier of goods 
 where shipment is improperly 
 loaded by shipper, vol. 9, p. 
 562. 
 
 Liability of company trans- 
 ferring cars as carrier, vol. 
 12, p. 849. 
 
 Limitations of actions for re- 
 covery of excessive charges, 
 vol. 13, p. 287. 
 
 Limitation of Liability. 
 Burden of proof on carrier to 
 
 shew that loss did not occur 
 
 through negligence, vol. 10, 
 
 p. 335. 
 Connecting carriers, vol. 7, 
 
 p. 713. 
 Contracts limiting time 
 
 within which claim for loss 
 
 may be made, vol. 10, p. 
 
 863. 
 Contracts of exemption from 
 
 liability, delivery of goods 
 
 at flag station, vol. "10, p. 
 
 352. 
 How far liability may be 
 
 limited, vol. 2, p. 678. 
 Limiting duration of liability 
 
 of carrier by stipulation in 
 
 bill of lading, vol. 20, p. 
 
 459. 
 Losses not resulting from 
 
 negligence, vol. 20, p. 681. 
 Necessity of consideration, 
 
 vol. 13, p. 168. 
 
 Negligence, vol. 2, p. 682; 
 vol. 10, p. 337. 
 
 Option as to rates as consid- 
 eration, vol. 13, p. 169. 
 
 Provision relied on must be 
 referred to by considera- 
 tion proved, vol., 13, p. 169. 
 
 Reduced rates as considera- 
 tion for, vol. 20, p. 681. 
 
 Restriction in bill of lading 
 limiting liability of carriers 
 of goods, vol. 5, p. 80. 
 
 Right of carrier to limit its 
 liability to its own line, 
 vol. 7, p. 609. 
 
 Stipulation limiting duration 
 of liability construed to pro- 
 vide only for termination 
 of liability as common car- 
 rier, vol. 20, p. 460. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 119 
 
 CARRIERS OF FREIGHT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Stipulation limiting time in 
 which suit must be brought, 
 vol. 8, p. 430. 
 
 To fixed amount in consider- 
 ation of reduced rates, vol. 
 7, p. 573; vol. 10, p. 337. 
 
 Value limitation, vol. 13, p. 
 170. 
 
 When consideration unneces- 
 sary, vol. 13, p. 170. 
 
 Without order of railroad 
 commissioners, Kansas 
 statute, vol. 11, p. 144. 
 Mandamus to compel receiving 
 
 and carriage of freight, vol. 
 
 13, p. 84. 
 Misdelivery. 
 
 Failure to require identifica- 
 tion of consignee, vol. 17, 
 p. 339. 
 
 Iviability for, vol. 17, p. 338. 
 
 Liability for delivery to 
 fraudulent purchaser, vol. 
 17, p. 340. 
 
 Liability of carriers for de- 
 livery of goods refused by 
 one person to another per- 
 son of same name, vol. 17, 
 p. 340. 
 
 Presumption of proper deliv- 
 ery, where consignee has 
 not been identified, vol. 17, 
 p. 340. 
 
 Whether willful misconduct, 
 vol. 17, p. 341. 
 Penal statutes, vol. 8, p. 638. 
 ■Place of 'sale of intoxicating 
 
 liquors delivered to carrier, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 18S. 
 Railroads as common carriers, 
 
 vol. 2, p. S66. 
 Rates. 
 
 Competition as justifying 
 difference in rates, vol. 13, 
 p. 313. 
 
 Discrimination by companies 
 forming new line, vol. 17, 
 p. 379. 
 
 Discrimination, effect on 
 right of shipper to recover 
 rebate, vol. 16, p. 236. 
 
 Limitation of action to re- 
 cover excessive charges, 
 vol, 13, p. 287. 
 
 Overcharges in freights and 
 fares, vol. 8, p. 639. 
 
 Rebates in violation of in- 
 terstate commerce act, vol. 
 13, p. 297. 
 
 Recovery of excess of rate 
 charged over agreed rate 
 
 CARRIERS OF FREIGHT— 
 Continued. 
 
 where latter was in violation 
 
 of interstate commerce 
 
 schedule, vol. 13, p. 277. 
 Reasonable time for removal of 
 goods after their arrival at 
 destination, question for jury, 
 vol. 20, p. 461. 
 Rebates. 
 Right of shipper to recover 
 
 excess over agreed rate, vol. 
 
 16, p. 236. 
 Recovery of overcharges, vol. 
 
 10, p. 363. 
 Stoppage in transitu, vol. 21, 
 
 p. 501. 
 Termination of liability, vol. 
 
 2, p. 720. 
 Warehousemen. 
 
 Carrier's liability, vol. 13, p. 
 
 92; vol. 17, p. 397. 
 Common carriers by water, 
 
 vol. 11, p. 115. 
 Company's liability as in 
 
 case of loss by fire, vol. 
 
 IS, p. 498. 
 Liabilit3' under statute mak- 
 ing railroad liable for loss 
 
 by fire, vol. 13, p. 2S9. 
 Massachusetts doctrine, vol. 
 
 11, p. 111. 
 New Hampshire doctrine, vol. 
 
 11, p. 114. 
 Reasonable time for removal 
 
 of goods, question for jury, 
 
 vol. 11, p. 120. 
 When liability begins, vol. 
 
 11, p. Ill ; 'vol. 17, p. 398 ; 
 
 vol. 20, p. 461. 
 What constitutes common car- 
 riers, vol. 2, p. 565. 
 When Relation of Shipper and 
 Carrier Begins. 
 General rule, vol. 20, p. 463. 
 Goods on spur track that must 
 
 be moved in order to weigh, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 463. • 
 Not when goods are in cars 
 
 on side track and station 
 
 agent refuses to ship, vol. 
 
 20, p. 464. 
 When goods are in car on side 
 
 track with carrier's consent, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 463. 
 Whether Carrier Liable for Non- 
 delivery of Freight Seized by 
 Public Authorities under Po- 
 lice Regulations. 
 Collusive agreement in eva- 
 sion of law, vol. 21, p. 507. 
 
120 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 CARRIERS OF FREIGHT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Failure to deliver firearms 
 believed to be intended for 
 mob, vol. 21, p. S06. 
 
 Failure to pay custom dues 
 on goods before their deliv- 
 ery to carrier, vol. 21, p. 507. 
 
 Game seized without legal 
 process, vol 21, p. 506. 
 
 Goods intrusted to carrier by 
 police, vol. 21, p. 505. 
 
 Intoxicating liquors destroyed 
 by United States soldiers to 
 prevent its sale to Indians, 
 vol. 21, p. 506. 
 
 Intoxicating liquors not lia- 
 ble to attachment taken by 
 officer, vol. 21, p. 506. 
 
 Officers seizing intoxicating 
 liquors in hands of carrier 
 as a trespasser, vol. 21, p. 
 S07. 
 
 Seizure of liquors intended 
 for sale in violation of law, 
 vol. 21, p. SOS. 
 Whether Carrier Liable for Non- 
 Delivery of Freight Seized 
 
 While in Its Custody under 
 
 Legal Process. 
 
 Burden of proof as to validity 
 of process, vol. 21, p. SOS. 
 
 Carrier could not hold goods 
 forcreditorsof shipper, vol. 
 21, p. S04. 
 
 Carrier holding goods to al- 
 low creditors to attach, vol. 
 21, p. 502.' 
 
 Carrier must give notice of 
 seizure, vol. 21, p. 502. 
 
 Carrier not bound to remove 
 goods to prevent seizure, 
 vol. 21, p. 502. 
 
 Carrier not bound to resist 
 officer to prevent seizure, 
 vol. 21, p. 502. 
 
 Carrier not bound to sur- 
 render goods to mortgagee, 
 vol. 21, p. 504. 
 
 Carrier not chargeable with 
 knowledge ot unconstitu- 
 tionality of statute, vol. 21, 
 p. SOS. 
 
 Cfarrier's duty as to goods 
 after dissolution of attach- 
 ment, vol. 21, p. 505. 
 Duty of carrier after giving 
 notice of seizure, vol. 21, 
 p. 504. 
 Garnishment, carrier's lack 
 of knowledge as to owner- 
 ship of consignment, vol. 
 21, p. 504. 
 
 CARRIERS OF FREIGHT— 
 
 Continued. 
 
 General rule, vol. 21, p. SOl. 
 
 Goods cannot be attached for 
 vendor's debt, vol. 21, p. 
 SOS. 
 
 Goods not attachable in suit 
 against consignee, vol. 21, 
 p. SOS. 
 
 Negligence in complying 
 with mere telegram from 
 sheriff, vol. 21, p. 505. 
 
 Right to yield possession of 
 goods to one having para- 
 mount title, vol. 21, p. S02. 
 
 Seizure must be under legal 
 process, vol. 21, p. 504. 
 Whether carrier can compel 
 
 shipper to insure goods for 
 
 its benefit, vol. 21, p. 861. 
 Whether carrier may contract 
 
 for benefit of insurance on 
 
 goods, vol. 21, p. 860. 
 Whether notice to consignee of 
 
 arrival of goods is essential 
 
 to the termination of liability 
 
 as carrier, vol. 20, p. 461. 
 
 CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Assumption of risk by shipper, 
 
 vol. 7, p. S2S. 
 Burden of proof where carrier 
 
 has contracted for exemption 
 
 from negligence, vol. 18, p. 
 
 425. 
 
 Burden of proof where shipper 
 has charge, vol. 18, p. 424. 
 
 Burden on carrier to prove 
 causes of injury, vol. 18, p. 
 423. 
 
 Constitutionality of statutes 
 prohibiting the transporta- 
 tion of diseased live stock, 
 vol. 4, p. 630. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Of shipper as defense where 
 carrier has furnished defect- 
 ive cattle pens, vol. 18, p. 
 292. 
 
 Shipper not charged with 
 knowledge of defect not 
 patent, vol. 7, p. 525. 
 
 Delivery, received for immedi- 
 ate shipment, vol. 22, p. 89. 
 
 Delivery to carrier, agents of 
 both parties engaged in load- 
 ing cattle received in carrier's 
 pens, vol. 22, p. 90. 
 
 Delivery to carrier, horses in- 
 jured by reason of rotten 
 gangway, vol. 22, p. 89. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 121 
 
 CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK CARRIERS OP LIVE STOCK 
 — Continued. — Continued. 
 
 Delivery to carrier, owner con- 
 tracting to take personal 
 charge and assuming risk of 
 transportation, vol. 22, p. 90. 
 
 Delivery to carrier, placing in 
 pens by permission of agent 
 before received for shipment, 
 vol. 22, p. 90. 
 
 Delivery to carrier, placing 
 stock in pen, vol. 22, p. 89. 
 
 Delivery to carrier, received for 
 transportation, vol. 22, p. 89. 
 
 Delivery to carrier receiving 
 hogs in pen, vol. 22, p. 89. 
 
 Delivery to carrier, stock re- 
 ceived bj' employee without 
 authority, vol. 22, p. 90. 
 
 Duty as to feeding and watering 
 stock, vol. 9, p. 674. 
 
 Duty to furnish cars, vol. 7, p. 
 524. 
 
 Inspection of cars by shipper, 
 vol. 7, p. 525. 
 
 Liability for damage from load- 
 ing where loaded by shipper, 
 vol. 19, p. 28. 
 
 Liability for injuries occa- 
 sioned by propensities of ani- 
 mals, vol. 18, p. 419. 
 
 Liability for stock shipped in 
 owner's private car, vol. 19, 
 p. 29. 
 
 Liability of carrier as affected 
 by the effect of delay on pro- 
 pensities of animals, vol. 18, 
 p. 422. 
 
 Liability of carrier where ship- 
 per assumes duty of caring 
 for stock, vol. 11, p. 137. 
 
 Liability where drovers per- 
 mitted to load, vol. 19, p. 30. 
 
 Liability where injury is caused 
 by negligence of the carrier 
 and propensities of the ani- 
 mal, combined, vol. 18, p. 422. 
 
 Liability where shippers in- 
 sisted on loading, vol. 19, 
 p. 29. 
 
 Limitation of Liability. 
 Right of carrier to limit its 
 liability as to cars fur- 
 nished, vol. 7, p. 524. 
 Right of carrier to limit its 
 liability to its own line, 
 vol. 7, p. 609. 
 Stipulation limiting time in 
 which suit must be brought, 
 vol. 8, p. 430. 
 Validity of contract of ex- 
 emption from liability for 
 damages from defective 
 cars, vol. 7, p. 525. 
 
 Validity of contracts for 
 shipment of live stock lim- 
 iting carrier's liability by 
 imposing upon shipper the 
 duty of loading and unload- 
 ing, vol. 21, p. 436. 
 
 Validity of stipulation of ex- 
 emption from liability in 
 consideration of drover's 
 pass, vol. 8, p. 420. 
 Recovery allowed notwithstand- 
 ing shipper''s improper load- 
 ing, vol. 19, p. 30. 
 Special contract for feeding and 
 
 watering, vol. 18, p. 275. 
 Stipulation Requiring Notice to 
 
 Be Given before Removal of 
 
 Stock. 
 
 Burden of proof, vol. 6, p. 
 635. 
 
 Cattle shipped to distant 
 point, vol. 6, p. 634. 
 
 Connecting lines, vol. 6, p. 
 634. 
 
 Damage not discovered at 
 the time, vol. 6, p. 633. 
 
 No agent at destination, vol. 
 6, p. 634. 
 
 Pleading, vol. 6, p. 636. 
 
 Removal by carrier's agent, 
 vol. 6, p. 634. 
 
 Substantial compliance, vol. 
 6, p. 636. 
 
 Validity in general, vol. 6, 
 p. 632. 
 
 Waiver, vol. 6, p. 634. 
 
 What is a violation of the 
 stipulation, vo!. 6, p. 637. 
 Stockman traveling on drover's 
 
 pass a passenger, vol. 8, p. 
 
 419. 
 What are injuries resulting from 
 
 propensities of animals for 
 
 which carrier is not liable, 
 
 vol. 18, p. 420. 
 What constitutes delivery of 
 
 live stock to carrier, held to 
 
 constitute deliV^ery, vol. 22, 
 
 p. 89. 
 
 CARRIERS 
 GBRS. 
 
 OF PASSBN- 
 
 See Accidents. 
 Assaults. 
 Baggage. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Damages. 
 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 Mandam,us. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 Street Railways. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
122 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 CARBIBRS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Action OQ tort or contract for 
 injury to passenger, vol. 8, 
 p. 375. 
 
 Appliances. 
 
 Duty of carrier in providing, 
 vol. 12, p. 179. 
 
 Duty to adopt improved ap- 
 pliances, vol. 19, p. 194. 
 
 Question for jury whether an 
 improved appliance should 
 have been adopted, vol. 19, 
 p. 197. 
 
 Appliances, Inspection of. 
 
 Defects caused by manufac- 
 turer's negligence, vol. 18, 
 p. 639. 
 
 Early rule, vol. 18, p. 639. 
 
 General rule, vol. 18, p. 638. 
 
 Inspection does not relieve 
 carrier from liability, vol. 
 18, p. 638. 
 
 Latent defects, vol. 18, p. 638. 
 
 Sufficiency of, a question of 
 fact, vol. 18, p. 638. 
 
 Baggage. 
 
 Injuries to passenger by col- 
 lision with baggage trucks 
 or by the removal of bag- 
 gage, vol. 6, pp. 486, 487. 
 Burden of proof in action for 
 
 death by derailment of train, 
 
 vol. S, p. 309. 
 
 Carrying Passengers beyond 
 Destination. 
 
 Fright, vol. 10, p. 259. 
 Inconvenience, vol. 10, p. 259. 
 In general, vol. 10, p. 259. 
 Injury, vol. 8, p. 522; vol. 10, 
 
 p. 259. 
 Liability of carrier, vol. 2, 
 
 p. 185; vol. 10, p. 259. 
 Liability of company for car- 
 rj'ing child beyond destina- 
 tion, vol. 8, p. 378. 
 Measure of damages, vol. 2, 
 
 p. 185. 
 Mental anxiety, vol. 10, p. 
 
 260. 
 Sickness, vol. 10, p. 259. 
 Sleeping passenger, vol. 8, 
 p. 522. 
 Change, vol. 6, p. 689. 
 Collisions, vol. 7, pp. 317, 318. 
 Collisions with baggage trucks, 
 
 vol. 6, p. 486. 
 Concurrence of accident and 
 negligence, liability of car- 
 rier, vol. 12, p. 147. 
 
 CABRIEBS OF PASSENGERS 
 
 — Continued. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Vol. 10, pp. 385, 562. 
 
 Boarding moving car, -wol. 6, 
 pp. 231, 235. . 
 
 Boarding train elsewhere 
 than at pl'ace provided, 
 effect of custom, vol. 11, p. 
 193. 
 
 Boarding train elsewhere than 
 at place provided, effect of 
 known rule, vol. 11, p. 193. 
 
 Boarding train elsewhere than 
 at place provided, negli- 
 gence, vol. 11, p. 193. 
 
 Boarding train elsewhere 
 than at place provided, not 
 negligence per se, vol. 11, 
 p. 193. 
 
 Degree of care required of 
 passenger, vol. 9, p. 652. 
 
 Duty of passengers to inform 
 themselves as to trains, 
 vol. 11, p. 162. 
 
 Failure of passenger to use 
 safe means of ingress and 
 egress to the cars, vol. 6, 
 p. 290. 
 
 Hearsay evidence of intoxica- 
 tion of passenger not ad- 
 missible, vol. 11, p. 834. 
 
 Injury' to passengers riding 
 in perilous position, vol. 9, 
 p. 820. 
 
 In riding on platform of car, 
 question for jury, vol. 7, p. 
 306. 
 
 Intoxication as contributory 
 negligence, vol. 11, p. 834. 
 
 Jumping after train starts, 
 vol. 6, p. 192. 
 
 Of passenger injured while 
 attempting to avoid incon- 
 venience, vol. 12, p. 148. 
 
 Part of person protruding 
 beyond car, vol. 8, pp. 362, 
 364. 
 
 Passenger crossing track at 
 station to board train in- 
 jured by passing train, vol. 
 12, p. 302. 
 
 Passenger leaving moving 
 train at invitation of con- 
 ductor, vol. 12, p. 164. 
 
 Passenger leaving moving 
 train contrary to warning, 
 vol. 12, p. 222. 
 
 Riding in baggage car, vol. 
 14, p. 372. 
 
 Riding in baggage, mail and 
 freight cars, vol. 14, p. 413. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 123 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Coniinued. 
 
 Riding in dangerous place, 
 effect of direction or consent 
 of trainmen, vol. 14, p. 372. 
 
 Riding in dangerous place, 
 effect of direction or con- 
 sent of trainmen, Alabama 
 rule, vol. 14, p. 374. 
 
 Riding in dangerous place, 
 passenger assumes risk, 
 vol. 14, p. 371. 
 
 Riding on platform, after be- 
 ing requested to enter, vol. 
 14, p. 333. 
 
 Riding on platform, by per- 
 mission of carrier, vol. 14, 
 p. 334. 
 
 Riding on platform, in viola- 
 tion of rule, vol. 14, p. 333. 
 
 Riding on platform, negli- 
 gence in, a question for 
 jury, vol. 14, p. 321. 
 
 Riding on platform, prima 
 facie negligence, vol. 14, p. 
 335. 
 
 Riding on platform, where 
 act is unnecessary, vol. 14, 
 p. 332. 
 
 Riding on platform, where 
 there are no vacant seats, 
 vol. 14, p. 334. 
 
 Riding on platform, where 
 there are unoccupied seats, 
 vol. 14, p. 334. 
 
 Riding with limb on window 
 sill, or part of person pro- 
 truding from car, vol. 20, p. 
 934. 
 
 Standing in aisle, vol. 14, 
 p. 4S8. 
 
 When evidence of intoxica- 
 tion of passenger is admis- 
 sible, vol. 11, p. 834. 
 
 Whether contributory negli- 
 gence for passenger to al- 
 low ladies to occupy safest 
 position in car, vol. 17, 
 p. 101. 
 Contributory negligence, ques- 
 tion for jury, vol. 11, p. 207. 
 Damages. 
 
 Ejected party must avoid in- 
 creasing damage, vol. 14, 
 p. 391. 
 
 Ejection of passengers, vol. 
 2, p. 164. 
 
 Elements of damages for 
 ejection, vol. 14, p. 391. 
 
 Elements of damages for fail- 
 ure to carry passenger, vol. 
 12, p. S3. 
 
 Elements of damages where 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGBRS 
 — Continued, 
 
 passenger is ejected, vol. 
 14, p. 391. 
 
 Exemplary damages for in- 
 jury to passenger from act 
 of servant, vol. 12, p. 131. 
 
 Exemplary damages for in- 
 jury to passenger, right to 
 give questioned, vol. 12, p. 
 131. 
 
 Exemplary damages for in- 
 jury to passenger, various 
 expressions of rule, vol. 12, 
 p. 130. 
 
 Exemplary damages for in- 
 jury to passenger, when al- 
 lowed, vol. 12, p. 130. 
 
 Exemplary damages for in- 
 sults and abuse, vol. 12, 
 p. 92. 
 
 Exemplary damages for sim- 
 ple negligence, vol. 10, p. 
 258. 
 
 Exemplary damages where 
 malice is shown, vol. 10, p. 
 269. 
 
 For mental suffering where 
 passenger wrongfully 
 ejected, vol. 18, p. 45. 
 
 Illegal arrest of passenger, 
 ' vol. 12, p. 279. 
 
 Inconvenience an element for 
 failure to carry, vol. 12, 
 p. 55. 
 
 Insulting passenger, recovery 
 of exemplary damages for, 
 vol. 12, p. 92. 
 
 Measure of damages for inju- 
 ries to passengers, vol. 2, 
 p. 214. 
 
 Mental suffering of passenger 
 carried beyond destination, 
 vol. 18, p. 45. 
 
 Sickness as elements of dam- 
 ages for failure to carry, 
 vol. 12, p. 54. 
 Degree of Care. 
 
 Age, sex and condition of pas- 
 senger as affecting degree 
 of care, vol. 9, p. 658. 
 
 Care consistent with nature 
 of conveyance and business, 
 vol. 9, p. 657. 
 
 Care required, general rule, 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Degree' of care to be exer- 
 cised towards passengers on 
 freight train, vol. 18, p. 760. 
 
 Drunken passengers, vol. 6, 
 p. 271; vol. 10, p. 69. 
 
 Reasonable human care, vol. 
 9, p. 657. 
 
124 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Utmost care, voU 9, p. 654. 
 
 Utmost care of prudent men, 
 vol. 9, p. 6S6. 
 Disability as an excuse for 
 
 failure to carry, vol. 6, p. 
 
 269. 
 Discharging Passengers. 
 
 Assistance of passenger 
 alighting, vol. 9, p. 8S3. 
 
 Duty of carrier to stop train 
 alongside platform, vol. 12, 
 p. 225. 
 
 Duty to stop at station a rea- 
 sonable time, vol. 6, p. 191. 
 
 Liability for failure to assist 
 passenger to alight, vol. 19, 
 p. 498. 
 
 Platform, duty of carrier to 
 stop train alongside, vol. 
 12, p. 225. 
 
 Stopping of train after an- 
 nouncement of station as 
 invitation to alight, alight- 
 ing in dark, vol. 12, p. 249. 
 
 Stopping of train after an- 
 nouncement of station as 
 invitation to alight, alight- 
 ing in daytime, vol. 12, p. 
 249. 
 
 Stopping of trains after an- 
 nouncement of station as 
 invitation to alight, ques- 
 tions for jury, vol. 12, p. 
 249. 
 
 Time allowed passengers to 
 leave train, vol. 6, p. 191. 
 
 Time allowed passengers to 
 leave train, evidence, vol. 
 6, p. 193. 
 
 Time allowed passengers to 
 leave train, questions of 
 law and fact, vol. 6, p. 193. 
 
 Time allowed passengers to 
 leave train, sick or decrepit 
 passengers, vol. 6, p'. 192. 
 
 Time allowed passengers to 
 leave train, when company 
 is liable, vol. 6, p. 191. 
 
 Time allowed passengers to 
 
 leave train, when company 
 
 is not liable for accident, 
 
 vol. 6, p. 192. 
 
 Duty of carrier as to persons 
 
 assisting passenger, vol. 12, 
 
 p. 212. 
 Duty of carrier to allow reason- 
 able time for boarding and 
 
 alighting from train, vol. 10, 
 
 p. 300. 
 Duty of company to provide 
 
 safe means of ingress and 
 
 egress, vol. 6, p. 290. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 
 — Continued. 
 Duty of Railroad Companies, as 
 
 Carriers of Passengers, to 
 
 Provide Safe Road. 
 
 Bridges and trestles, acts of 
 public enemy, vol. 22, p. 
 335. 
 
 Bridges and trestles, actual 
 knowledge of defect not re- 
 quired to render company 
 liable, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Bridges and trestles, burden 
 of proving negligence where 
 unusual flood, vol. 22, p. 
 335. 
 
 Bridges and trestles, general 
 rule, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Bridges and trestles, inspec- 
 tion of material, vol. 22, 
 p. 335. 
 
 Bridges and trestles, mate- 
 rial, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Bridges and trestles, may be 
 liable for defect in con- 
 struction by competent en- 
 gineer, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Bridges and trestles, must be 
 constructed with reference 
 to accidents, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Bridges and trestles, not re- 
 quired to provide against 
 extraordinary flood, vol. 22, 
 p. 335. 
 
 Cuts and embankments, care 
 required to prevent derail- 
 ment, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Erroneous instruction mak- 
 ing carrier insurer of per- 
 fection of roadbed, vol. 22, 
 p. 335. 
 
 General rule, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Lack of means no defense for 
 failure to build better 
 bridge, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Landslide in cut not act of 
 God, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Liability for culvert insuflB- 
 cient because of breaking 
 of dam on adjoining prop- 
 erty, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Liable for slight negligence 
 with respect to tracks, vol. 
 22, p. 335. 
 
 Not an insurer, but must use 
 a high degree of skill, vol. 
 22, p. 335. 
 
 Not relieved from liability 
 for defective culvert by 
 employing competent engi- 
 neer, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Ordinary means for repairing 
 bridge may not be suffi- 
 cient, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 125 
 
 OARUIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Providing against extraordi- 
 nary floods, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Providing against ordinary 
 rainfall, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Rails, breaking merely be- 
 cause of cold, vol. 22, p. 
 335. 
 
 Rails, defect in as evidence 
 of negligence, vol. 22, p. 
 335. 
 
 Rails, different length, vol. 
 32, p. 335. 
 
 Rails, expansion and con- 
 traction caused by heat and 
 cold, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Rails, injuries to passenger 
 of another company, vol. 
 22, p. 335. 
 
 Rails, inspection, vol. 22, p. 
 335. 
 
 Rails, length, vol. 22, p. 33S. 
 
 Rails, much used "U" rail 
 next to "T," vol. 22, p. 
 335. 
 
 Rails, pieces of old rail used 
 as substitute for broken 
 rail, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Rails, presumption of negli- 
 gence from broken rails, 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Rails, presumption of negli- 
 gence from defective rail, 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Rails, pushed out of position 
 by reason of trains being 
 run only one way over each 
 track, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Rails, spread of bent rails, 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Selection of material used, 
 vol. 22, p. 33S. 
 
 Showing knowledge of defect 
 in embankment, vol. 22, p. 
 335. 
 
 Statements ot general rule, 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Storms as notice of need of 
 repairs, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Storms which may be ex- 
 pected though of rare occur- 
 rence, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Switches, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, care that very cau- 
 tious person would exercise, 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, defect at other point 
 than where car left track 
 may be shown, vol. 22, p. 
 335. 
 
 Tracks, duty to repair, vol. 
 22, p. 335. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Tracks, engine derailed by 
 reason of depression in, 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, excavating under or 
 about, vol. 22, p. 33S. 
 
 Tracks, failure to place frogs 
 to prevent car going in 
 wrong direction from being 
 derailed, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, ice on, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, inspection, vol. 22, 
 p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, must keep pace with 
 science, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, not required to exer- 
 cise the utmost possible 
 precaution imaginable, vol. 
 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks of another company, 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, passenger on freight 
 train, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, pecuniary condition 
 no excuse, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, perfectly safe ones 
 not required, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, proximity of causing 
 injury to passenger stand- 
 ing on platform of crowded 
 car, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, rotten ties, vol. 22, 
 p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, rough roadbed caus- 
 ing window sash to fall on 
 passenger's hand, vol. 22, 
 p. 335. 
 
 Tracks, ties not required to 
 support derailed train, vol. 
 22, p. 335. 
 
 Trestle damaged by unusual 
 rain, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Using lift-bridge owned by 
 state, liability for defect in 
 balancing weight, vol. 22, 
 p. 335. 
 
 Washing away of embank- 
 ment, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 Duty to furnish equal advan- 
 tage to all, vol. 2, p. 18. 
 Duty to furnish seat, vol. 12, 
 
 p. 158. 
 Duty to have suflScient force of 
 
 employees, vol. 14, p. 366.' 
 Duty to person assisting de- 
 parting passenger, vol. 20, 
 
 p. 121. 
 Duty to person assisting sick 
 
 passenger, vol. 20, p. 121. 
 Duty to protect passenger from 
 
 strangers at station, vol. 14, 
 
 p. 249. 
 
126 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 Duty to Receive Passengers. 
 
 Vol. 6, p. 269. 
 
 Carrier not bound to carry- 
 intoxicated person, vol.11, 
 p. 834. 
 
 Disabled persons without at- 
 tendant, vol. 6, p. 270. 
 
 Disability as an excuse for 
 failure to carry, vol. 6, p. 
 269. 
 
 In general, vol. 6, p. 270. 
 
 Insane persons, right to re- 
 fuse to carry, vol. 11, p. 835. 
 
 Persons who may be excluded 
 vol. 6, p. 270. 
 
 Right to refuse transportation 
 to intoxicated persons, vol. 
 11, p. 833. 
 
 Slight intoxication no reason 
 for refusing transportation, 
 vol. 11, p. 833. 
 Duty to restrain passenger from 
 
 voluntarily exposing himself, 
 
 vol. 8, p. 727. 
 Duty to stop train alongside 
 
 platform, vol. 12, p. 225. 
 
 Duty to Warn and Instruct Pas- 
 senger. 
 
 Approaching train, vol. 21, 
 p. 933. 
 
 Danger of alighting from rear 
 platform, vol. 21, p. 933. 
 
 Distance between platforms 
 of cars, vol. 21, p. 931. 
 
 Failure to give notice of de- 
 fective condition of car, vol. 
 21, p., 932. 
 
 Failure to warn person in 
 charge of stock and obliged 
 to walk on top of car shed, 
 vol. 21, p. 931. 
 
 Injured by reason of differ- 
 ence of level between cars 
 while carrying sick fellow 
 passenger, vol. 21, p. 931. 
 
 Leaving car by wrong door, 
 vol. 21, p. 932. 
 
 Location of trains at eating 
 stations, vol, 21, p. 933. 
 
 Passenger injured while 
 alighting, vol. 21, p. 932. 
 
 Passenger injured while 
 alighting by reason of 
 switch engine being 
 brought in violent contact 
 with car, vol. 21, p. 932. 
 
 Passenger on walk near track 
 injured by reason of ex- 
 traordinary projection of 
 brakes, vol. 21, p. 931. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 
 — Continued. 
 
 Unexpected €xodus of passen- 
 gers, vol. 21, p. 933. 
 
 Unsafe place to alight, vol. 
 21, p. 932. 
 Eating house stations, vol. 6, 
 
 p. 488. 
 Ejection of Passengers. 
 
 Disorderly conduct, vol. 2, p. 
 164. 
 
 Drunken passengers, vol. 10, 
 p. 69. 
 
 Ejection of passenger for fail- 
 ing to pay child's fare, vol. 
 17, p. 139. 
 
 Ejection of passenger unable 
 to care for himself, vol. 2, 
 p. 213. 
 
 Intoxicated persons, vol. 11, 
 p. 835. 
 
 Mistake of ticket agents and 
 conductors, vol. 5, p. 226; 
 vol. 10, p. 272. 
 
 Nonpayment of fare, vol. 2, 
 p. 162. 
 
 Passenger holding defective 
 ticket, vol. 10, p. 49. 
 
 Place of ejection of com- 
 muter, vol. 14, p. 394. 
 
 Statutory provisions as to 
 place of, vol. 16, p. 120. 
 
 Tender of fare during or after 
 ejection, vol. 2, p. 163. 
 Employees as passengers, vol. 
 
 8, p. 689. 
 
 Evidence. 
 Hearsay evidence of intoxica- 
 tion not admissible, vol. 11, 
 p. 834. 
 When evidence of intoxication 
 admissible, vol. 11, p. 834. 
 Exclusive privileges at stations 
 to local carriers, vol. 19, p. 
 307. 
 
 Exemption from Liability. 
 
 Validity of stipulation of ex- 
 emption from liability in 
 consideration of a drover's 
 pass, vol. 8, p. 420. 
 Exemption from liability for 
 injury to newsboy, vol. 14, 
 p. 541. 
 
 Freight Trains. 
 
 Assumption of increased risks 
 by passenger, vol. 2, pp. 
 17, 22; vol. 9, p. 668; vol. 
 10, p. 263. 
 
 Liability of company, vol. 
 10, p. 263. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 127 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 How Relation of Carrier and 
 Passenger Created. 
 
 Acceptance by carrier essen- 
 tial, vol. 20, p. 123. I 
 
 Consent of carrier essential, 
 vol. 20, p. 123. 
 
 Entry into cars not essential, 
 
 vol. 20, p. ne. 
 
 Not by contract for future 
 transportation, vol. 20, p. 
 123. 
 
 Not by mere failure to order 
 from train, vol. 20, p. 126. 
 
 Not by offer to pay fare to 
 unauthorized employee, vol. 
 20, p. 125. 
 
 Offering- himself for carriage 
 essential, vol. 20, p. 122. 
 
 Payment of fare not essen- 
 tial, vol. 20, p. 124. 
 
 Possession of ticket not es- 
 sential, vol. 20, p. 123. 
 
 Purchase of ticket not essen- 
 tial, vol. 20, p. 123. 
 Ice on car step, vol. 8, p. 480. 
 
 Imputable Negligence. 
 Whether negligence of car- 
 rier is imputable to pas- 
 senger, vol. 10, p. 837. 
 
 Increasing number of trains, 
 vol. 6, p. 260. 
 
 Inevitable accident, vol. 9, p. 
 659. 
 
 Injuries to passengers by serv- 
 ants of carrier and by fellow 
 passengers, vol. 2, p. 445. 
 
 Injury caused by things thrown 
 from car, vol. 6, p. 486. 
 
 Injury to passengers walking 
 back after being carried be- 
 yond destination, vol. 8, p. 
 522; vol. 10, p. 259. 
 
 Insane persons, degree of care, 
 vol. 6, pp. 266, 271. 
 
 InsufiBcient platform between 
 tracks, vol. 7, p. 729. 
 
 Insults and abuse, passenger's 
 right to recover for, vol. 12, 
 p. 19. 
 
 Intoxicated Persons. 
 
 Entitled to due care, vol. 11, 
 p. 833. 
 
 Leases and Running Powers. 
 
 Iviabilities for injuries where 
 there is a partnership ar- 
 rangement between several 
 
 , carriers, vol. 12, p. 252. 
 
 Iviability for collision caused 
 by other company having 
 statutory running powers 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 over defendant's line, vol. 
 19, p. 522. 
 Legal tender of fare, vol. S, 
 p. 308. 
 
 Liability for Assaults by Em- 
 ployees, f 
 
 Assaults outside scope of em- 
 ployment, application of 
 rule, vol. 22, p. 924. 
 
 Assaults outside scope of em- 
 ployment commenced on car 
 and continued in office of 
 company, vol. 22, p. 924. 
 
 Assaults outside scope of em- 
 ployment, forcible expul- 
 sion of passengers by 
 brakeraan without authority 
 to expel, vol. 22, p. 924. 
 
 Assaults outside scope of em- 
 ployment, in general, vol. 
 22, p. 924. 
 
 Assaults outside scope of em- 
 ployment, limitation of 
 rule, vol. 22, p. 924. 
 
 Assaults outside scope of em- 
 ployment, minority rule, 
 vol. 22, p. 924. 
 
 Assaults outside scope of em- 
 ployment, prevailing rule, 
 vol. 22, p. 924. 
 
 Assaults provoked by passen- 
 gers, vol. 22, p. 924. 
 
 Assaults within scope of em- 
 ployment, vol. 22, p. 924. 
 
 In general, vol. 22, p. 924. 
 
 Justifiable assaults, vol. 22, 
 p. 924. 
 
 Vaccination of passengers 
 on steamship, vol. 22, p. 
 924. 
 
 Which are or are not within 
 scope of employment, vol. 
 22, p. 924. 
 Liability for injuries received 
 
 by passenger through fright^ 
 
 vol. 7, p. 584. 
 
 Liability for Injury to Passen- 
 ger Traveling on Through 
 1 icket. 
 
 Doctrine in the United States, 
 
 vol. 12, p. 254. 
 English doctrine, vol. 12, p. 
 
 253. 
 Minority doctrine in the 
 
 United States, vol. 12, p. 
 
 253. 
 
 Liability for Malicious Acts of 
 Employees. 
 
 Doctrine in England, vol. 12, 
 p. 272. 
 
128 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 CABRIBRS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 Doctrine in United States, 
 
 vol. 12, p. 266. 
 Doctrine of special liability 
 
 of carriers, vol. 12, p. 267. 
 Doctrine of special liability 
 
 of carriers denied, vol. 12, 
 
 p. 269. 
 New York cases recognizing- 
 
 special liability of carriers, 
 
 vol. 12, p'. 271. 
 New York following general 
 
 doctrine, vol. 12, p. 270. 
 lyiability for slight negligence, 
 
 vol. 9, p. 656. 
 Liability of company where 
 there are two exits, one safe 
 and the other unsafe, vol. 7, 
 p. 729. 
 
 Limiting Liability. 
 I/imitation of liability for 
 negligence, vol. 18, p. 658. 
 Mail clerks, vol. S, p. 406. 
 
 Mandamus. 
 
 Duty of carrier to receive and 
 carry enforceable by, vol. 
 13, p. 84. 
 
 Mixed train, vol. 6, p. 259. 
 
 Operation of mixed trains, 
 vol. 12, p. 243. 
 
 Operation of trains com- 
 pelled, vol. 12, p. 242. 
 
 Operation of trains not com- 
 pelled, vol. 12, p. 244. 
 
 Stopping trains at station, 
 vol. 6, p. 258; vol. 12, p. 
 245. 
 
 Mistakes of Agents. 
 
 Connecting carriers, vol. 10, 
 
 p. 274. 
 Invalid ticket or token, vol. 
 
 10, p. 273. 
 Mistake of agent in sale of 
 
 ticket, vol. 5, p. 226; vol. 
 
 10, p. 272. 
 
 Obstructions on or near Track. 
 
 Cars, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 Car step broken against pile 
 
 of stones, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 Coal bins, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 Coming in contact with 
 
 column of elevated railroad, 
 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 Duty to fence track, vol. 22, 
 
 p. 335. 
 
 Gates across highway, vol. 
 
 22, p. 335. 
 Passenger on double decker 
 
 street car injured by bridge, 
 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 —Continued, 
 
 Passengers on step or run- 
 ning-board, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 Postal clerk struck by bridge 
 while catching mail bag, 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 Telegraph pole, vol. 22, p. 
 
 335. 
 Timber and bushes near 
 
 track, vol. 22, p. 335. 
 Track moved near derrick, 
 
 vol. 22, p. 335. 
 Upright plank in trench, vol. 
 
 22, p. 335. 
 Upright sewer plank, vol. 22, 
 p. 33b. 
 Overcharges in freights and 
 
 fares, vol. 8, p. 639. 
 Passengers for flag stations, 
 duty of conductor as to, 
 vol. 14, p. 216. 
 Passengers injured by removal 
 
 of trunk, vol. 6, p. 487. 
 Passengers struck by mail bag, 
 
 vol. 6, p. 487. 
 Penal statutes, vol. 8, p. 638. 
 
 Presumption of Negligence. 
 
 Arising from injury to pas- 
 sengers, vol. 14, p. 289. 
 Arising from injury to pas- 
 senger alighting, vol. 14, 
 p. 290. 
 Cases where presumption does 
 
 not arise, vol. 16, p. 128. 
 Derailment as giving rise to, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 126. 
 Derailment merely prima 
 facie proof of negligence, 
 vol. 16, p. 129. 
 From injury to passenger in 
 collision between trains, 
 vol. 17, p. 240. 
 Illustration of what may give 
 rise to, vol. 12, p. 173; vol. 
 16, p. 127. 
 Presumption of, from injury 
 to passenger in collision be- 
 tween trains, vol. 17, p. 240. 
 Presumption that one was a 
 passenger, when arising, vol. 
 20, p. 131. 
 Presumption that one was a 
 passenger, when not arising, 
 vol. 20, p. 131. 
 Protection of colored passen- 
 gers, vol. 8, p. 713. 
 Railroad compelled to run 
 
 trains, vol. 6, p. 258. 
 Right of recovery where colli- 
 sion occurs through concur- 
 rent negligence of carriers, 
 vol. 12, p. 13. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 129 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. — Continued. 
 
 Right to exclude persons from 
 station, vol. 8, p. 660. 
 
 Rules and Regulations. 
 
 Freight train, vol. 2, p. 17. 
 Passengers must take notice 
 of, and are bound by rea- 
 sonable regulations, vol. 2, 
 p. 23. 
 Right of carriers of passen- 
 gers to make, vol. 2, p. 22. 
 Rules, waiver by conductor, 
 vol. 17, p. 431; vol. 20, p. 
 278. 
 What regulations are reason- 
 able, vol. 2, p. 23. 
 Running train between car and 
 
 station, vol. 17, p. 58. 
 Sick persons, duty of carrier, 
 
 vol. 11, p. 836. 
 Sick persons, liability of carrier 
 where passenger with apo- 
 plexy is thought to be intoxi- 
 cated and taken from car, 
 vol. 11, p. 836. 
 Sick persons, right to refuse 
 transportation, vol. 11, p. 833. 
 Stopping at station a reason- 
 able time, vol. 6, p. 193. 
 Stranger causing injury to pas- 
 senger, liability of carrier, 
 vol. 12, p. 179. 
 Sudden starting of train, vol. 
 
 10, p. 76. 
 Tender of fare, vol. 6, p. 689. 
 Tender of large sum to con- 
 ductor to make change, vol. 
 6, pp. 689, 690. 
 
 Termination of Relation. 
 
 Alighting at eating stations, 
 vol. 12, p. 118. 
 
 Alighting at intermediate 
 station, vol. 20, p. 131 ; vol. 
 12, p. 117. 
 
 Alighting at intermediate 
 station, view that passen- 
 ger may recover, vol. 12, p. 
 118. 
 
 Alighting at stops to allow 
 other trains to pass, vol. 13, 
 p. 118. 
 
 Illustrations, vol. 12, p. 88. 
 
 I/eaving train before reach- 
 ing station for the purpose 
 of walking home, vol. 20, 
 p. 131. 
 
 Misconduct of passenger, vol. 
 12, p. 89. 
 
 Passenger working on train 
 at request of trainmen, vol. 
 20, p. 131. 
 
 ID— 9 
 
 Person crossing intervening 
 tracks to platform after 
 alighting, vol. 20, p. 131. 
 
 Reasonable time to depart 
 from premises, vol. 12, 
 p. 88. 
 
 When , relation terminates, 
 vol. 20, p. 131. 
 
 Who Are Passengers. 
 
 Vol. 2, pp. 18, 21. 
 
 Adult son riding on family 
 commutation ticket, vol. 
 20, p. 124. 
 
 Bridge superintendent riding 
 over incomplete road, vol. 
 20, p. 121. 
 
 Child for whom ticket should 
 have been procured, vol. 20, 
 p. 121. 
 
 Child nine years of age in 
 car with her mother, vol. 
 20, p. 121. 
 
 Circus employee on defective 
 car controlled by his mas- 
 ter, vol. 20, p. 121. 
 
 Employees of company, vol. 
 2, p. 18. 
 
 Employees on pay cars, vol. 
 10, p. 636. 
 
 Employees riding to and 
 from work, vol. 20, p. 122. 
 
 Express messengers, vol. 20, 
 p. 122. 
 
 Fraudulent evasion of pay- 
 ment of fart, vol. 2, p. 16. 
 
 Freight trains, vol. 2, pp. 
 17, 22. 
 
 Holder of pass procured, by 
 fraud, vol. 20, p. 125. 
 
 Invitation to become passen- 
 ger, vol. 2, p. 18. 
 
 Mail agent, vol. 2, p. 17; vol. 
 5, p. 405. 
 
 Mail clerks, vol. 20, p. 122. 
 
 Mere purchaser of ticket is 
 not, vol. 20, p. 128. 
 
 Passenger defined, vol. 2, 
 p. 21. 
 
 Payment of fare or entry into 
 cars not essential, vol. 2, 
 p. 21. 
 
 Persons allowed to remain 
 after justifiable refusal to 
 pay fare, vol. 20, p. 126. 
 
 Persons allowed to remain 
 after wrongful refusal to 
 pay fare, because of threats 
 to resist, vol. 20, p. 126. 
 
 Persons assisting departing 
 passengers, vol. 20, p. 121. 
 
130 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Persons assisting sick pas- 
 senger, vol. 20, p. 121. 
 
 Person attempting to ride in 
 good faith on nontransfer- 
 able ticket of another, vol. 
 20, p. 123. 
 
 Person attempting to board 
 moving street car, when, 
 through neglect, no atten- 
 tion has been paid to his 
 signals to stop, vol. 20, p. 
 128. 
 
 Person attempting to board 
 moving street car without 
 indicating his intention, 
 vol. 20, p. 128. 
 
 Person attempting to board 
 train, vol. 2, p. 17. 
 
 Person attempting to board 
 train stopping only for the 
 purpose of leaving passen- 
 gers, without indicating 
 his intention, vol. 20, p. 
 130. 
 
 Persons being tran sf erreiQ 
 around washout or wreck, 
 vol. 8, p. 727 ; vol. 20, p. 122. 
 
 Persons boarding moving 
 train, vol. 9, p. 619; vol. 20, 
 p. 128. 
 
 Persons boarding moving 
 train, before reaching a 
 place of safety inside, vol. 
 20, p. 128. 
 
 Persons boarding train with- 
 out permission, vol. 20, p. 
 127. 
 
 Persons fraudulently evading 
 payment of fare, vol. 20, p. 
 125. 
 
 Persons getting on or oflE 
 moving street cars, where 
 forbidding rule has been 
 waived, vol. 20, p. 128. 
 
 Persons hailing street car, 
 vol. 20, p. 128. 
 
 Person having no notice of 
 conductor's lack of author- 
 ity received by him as pas- 
 senger on construction 
 train, vol. 20, p. 129. 
 
 Person inducing conductor 
 to allow him to ride on 
 freight train in violation 
 of rules, vol. 20, p. 130. 
 
 Person in ticket office refused 
 ticket, vol. 20, p. 127. 
 
 Person in waiting-room, vol. 
 20, p. 127. 
 
 Persons on train by permis- 
 sion of employee, vol. 17, 
 p. 267. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 
 — Continued. 
 
 Persons on wrong train by 
 mistake, vol. 20, p. 129. 
 
 Persons on wrong train 
 through carelessness, after 
 punching of ticket, vol. 20, 
 p. 130. 
 
 Person permitted to take 
 train at place other than 
 depot, vol. 20, p. 128. 
 
 Person presenting ticket pur- 
 chased of scalper in another 
 state, vol. 20, p. 124. 
 
 Person riding on hand car, 
 vol. 2, p. 18. 
 
 Person riding on nontransfer- 
 able ticket of another, ques- 
 tion for jury, vol. 20, p. 128. 
 
 Person riding on special train 
 by permission of conductor, 
 without paying fare, but 
 without notice of conduct- 
 or's lack of authority, vol. 
 20, p. 129. 
 
 Person riding on ticket he 
 was induced by conduct of 
 carrier's employees to be- 
 lieve to be good for round 
 trip, vol. 20, p. 124. 
 
 Person riding to station in 
 compaDj''s stage, vol. 20, 
 p. 127. 
 
 Person traveling on train by 
 permission of employees, 
 vol. 20, p. 122. 
 
 Person using empty car as 
 waiting-room by permission 
 of station agent, vol. 20, 
 p. 127. 
 
 Person waiting in station for 
 horse car, after missing his 
 train, vol. 20, p. 128. 
 
 Person walking from con- 
 necting steamboat to rail- 
 way, vol. 20, p. 127. 
 
 Person with knowledge board- 
 ing train intended for a 
 certain class, vol. 20, p. 130. 
 
 Porter on sleeping car, vol. 
 20; p. 122. 
 
 Postal clerk a passenger, vol. 
 2, p. 17 ; vol. S, p. 405. 
 
 Stockman traveling on drov- 
 er's pass, vol. 8, p. 419; vol. 
 20, p. 122. 
 
 OARS. 
 
 See Taxation. 
 
 CAR STEPS. 
 
 See Street Railways. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 131 
 
 OAR TRUST LEASES. 
 
 Liability of receiver for rental 
 upon assumption of lease of 
 rolling- stock, vol. 10, p. 175. 
 
 CATTLE GUARDS. 
 See Stock, Injuries to. 
 Duty of railroad companies to 
 construct and maintain cattle 
 guards, vol. 10, p. 746. 
 
 CHANGE OF LOCATION. 
 
 Vol. 9, p. lis. 
 
 CHARTERS. 
 
 See Taxation. 
 Consent of stockholders to 
 
 amendment of, vol. IS, p. 34S. 
 Construction of, vol. 14, p. 810. 
 
 CHILDREN. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Evidence. 
 Turntables. 
 Actioti for death of child, 
 Georgia statute, vol. 12, p. 
 537. 
 Care required in ejection of in- 
 fant trespasser from train, 
 vol. 20, p. 327. 
 Children injured on tracks or 
 ground of company, vol. 5, 
 p. 343; vol. 9, p. 742. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Apprehension of danger by 
 child, vol. 19, p. 357; vol. 
 20, p. 322. 
 Children fourteen years of 
 age, vol. 19, p. 3S6; vol. 20, 
 p. 322. 
 Children non sui juris, vol. 
 13, p. 729; vol. 19, p. 95; 
 vol. 20, p. 322. 
 Degree of care required of 
 children, vol. 9, p. 75S; vol. 
 13, p. 729; vol. 16, p. 615; 
 vol. 20, p. 299. 
 Duty of court to instruct as 
 to contributory negligence 
 of children, vol. 19, p. 355. 
 Injuries to children through 
 negligence of parents, vol. 
 ' 10, p. 880. 
 Playing on turntable, vol. 19, 
 
 p. 99. 
 Running in front of street 
 ■ car, vol. 10, p. 818. 
 Damages. 
 Damages for wrongful death 
 of minor, vol. 13, p. 539. 
 
 GTLnSDB.'SiS— Continued. 
 
 For death of child, vol. 10, p. 
 
 557. 
 Measure of damages for death 
 by wrongful act, vol. 15, p. 
 734. 
 When damages for impair- 
 ment of earning capacity 
 during minority are not re- 
 coverable, vol. 11, p. 297. 
 EJvidence as to number of chil- 
 dren of deceased, vol. 10, p. 
 866. 
 
 Imputed Negligence. 
 
 Distinction between action 
 by parent and action by 
 child, vol. 13, p. 714. 
 Parent's negligence imputed 
 
 to child, vol. 13, p. 712. 
 Parent's negligence not im- 
 puted to child, vol. 13, p. 
 713. 
 Question whether parent's 
 negligence imputed to child 
 is for jury, vol. 13, p. 715. 
 
 Injuries by street car to child 
 playing in street, vol. 6, p. 
 692. 
 
 Injuries to children on track, 
 vol. 5, p. 348 ; vol. 9, p. 742. 
 
 Injuries to children through 
 negligence of parents, vol. 
 10, p. 880. 
 
 Injuries to trespassing chil- 
 dren, vol. 6, p. 318. 
 
 Liability for injuring infant 
 trespasser on track where 
 absence of lookout on rear of 
 car, vol. 20, p. 327. 
 
 Liability for injuries to chil- 
 dren riding on train by per- 
 mission of employees, vol. 19, 
 p. 701 ; vol. 20, p. 327. 
 
 Liability for injuring bo3' tres- 
 passer ordered from engine 
 about to start, vol. 20, p. 327. 
 
 Liability for injury to boy rid- 
 ing on footboard of engine, 
 vol. 20, p. 327. 
 
 Liability for injury to boy tres- 
 passer ordered from moving 
 car, vol. 19, p. 754; vol. 20, 
 p. 327. 
 
 Liability for injury to child 
 non sui juris playing about 
 cars left on gravity railroad, 
 vol. 20, p. 327. 
 
 Liabilitj' for injury to child 
 playing on pile of bridge 
 ties in company's lumber 
 yard, vol. 20, p. 335. 
 
132 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 CUIUDRISN— Continued. 
 
 Liability for Injury to Children 
 as Affected by Failure to 
 Fence. 
 
 Child straying on track 
 through defective gate and 
 fence, vol. 18, p. 688. 
 
 Failure to fence as negli- 
 gence, vol. 18, p. 687. 
 
 Failure to fence considered in 
 determining existence of 
 negligence, vol. 18, p. 637. 
 
 General rule, vol. 18, p. 686. 
 
 Statute making railroad liable 
 for injuries to stock in ab- 
 sence of fence, vol. 18, p. 
 689. 
 
 Where fence required by city 
 ordinance, vol. 18, p. 688. 
 
 Whether failure to fence is 
 negligence in absence of 
 statute, vol. 18, p. 668. 
 Liability where children are 
 
 injured on track or grounds of 
 
 railroad company, vol. 13, p. 
 
 814; vol. 20, p. 327. 
 Street railways, vol. 9, p. 532 ; 
 
 vol. 10, p. 818. 
 Trespass, vol. 6, p. 318. 
 Trespassing on train, vol. 13, 
 
 p. 742. 
 
 Turntables. 
 
 Contributory negligence of 
 child, vol. 11, p. 310. 
 
 Degree of care required of 
 company, vol. 11, p. 307. 
 
 Duty to fasten and secure, 
 vol. 11, p. 306. 
 
 Injuries to children, com- 
 pany's negligence a ques- 
 tion of fact, vol. 11, p. 309. 
 
 Injuries to children, proxi- 
 mate cause, vol. 11, p. 308. 
 
 Injury to child playing on 
 turntable, vol. 11, p. 305; 
 vol. 20, p. 327. 
 
 Liability for injuries to chil- 
 dren, rule of Massachusetts 
 and New Hampshire, vol. 
 11, p. 310. 
 
 Liability where table is 
 turned by others, vol. 11, 
 p. 307. 
 
 Proof of company's negli- 
 gence, generally, vol. 11, 
 p. 308. 
 
 Proof showing custom of 
 railroad companies, vol. 11, 
 p. 308. 
 
 Sufficiency of proof of inju- 
 ries to children, vol. 11, p. 
 309. 
 
 CIRCUS EMPLOYEES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 CITIZENSHIP. 
 See Railroads. 
 
 COLLISIONS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Intersection of street railways, 
 
 vol. 9, p. 863. 
 Liability of joint tort feasors, 
 
 vol. 9, p. ISl. 
 Street railways, vol. 9, p. 864. 
 
 COLORED PASSENGERS. 
 See Separate Coaches. 
 Protection of colored passen- 
 gers, vol. 8, p. 713. 
 
 COMITY. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Receivers. 
 
 COMMON CARRIERS. 
 
 Liability of sleeping car com- 
 panies, vol. 8, p. 78. 
 Railroads, vol. 2, p. 566. 
 
 COMPARATIVE NEGLI- 
 GENCE. 
 
 Definition, vol. 11, p. 842. 
 
 Doctrine abrogated, vol. 11, p. 
 844. 
 
 Existence of rule questioned, 
 vol. 11, p. 844. 
 
 Status of doctrine, vol. 11, p. 
 843. 
 
 COMPETING LINES. 
 See Judicial Notice. 
 Leases. 
 Railroads . 
 
 COMPETITION. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 
 Purchase of competing line, 
 vol. 7, p. 346. 
 
 Validity of contracts between 
 railroads to prevent competi- 
 tion, vol. 11, p. 796. 
 
 CONCURRENT NEGLI- 
 GENCE. 
 
 Vol. 12, p. 336. 
 See Negligence. 
 Right of recovery where colli- 
 sion occurs through concur- 
 rent negligence of carriers, 
 vol. 12, p. 13. 
 
 CONDEMNATION. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 133 
 
 CONPIilOT OF LA'WS. 
 
 Contract for carriage cf goods, 
 
 vol. 4, p. 4Sl. 
 Death by -wrongful act, vol. 7, 
 
 p. 114. 
 
 <30NNE0TING CARRIERS. 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 Authority of agent employed to 
 solicit passengers to receive 
 freight from connecting line, 
 vol. 20, p. 729. 
 
 Authority of local agent to 
 make contract to carry goods 
 beyond carrier's line, vol. 20, 
 p. 728. 
 
 Authority of station foreman of 
 freight department to make 
 contract to carry goods be- 
 yond carrier's line. vol. 20, 
 p. 729. 
 
 -Defective cars, vol. 4, p. 664. 
 
 .Existence of Partnerships be- 
 tween Connecting Carriers. 
 Held not to constitute a part- 
 nership, illustrations, vol. 
 21, p. 869. 
 What constitutes between 
 connecting carriers, illus- 
 trations, vol. 21, p. 869. 
 
 TExtentof carrier's right to con- 
 tract over connecting lines, 
 vol. 2, p. 649. 
 
 Liability, vol. 9, p. 290. 
 
 Liability for loss of baggage, 
 vol. 2, p. ii. 
 
 Liability in general, vol. 2, p. 
 649. 
 
 Liability of connecting carrier 
 upon sale of through tickets, 
 vol. S, p. 229. 
 
 Liability of initial carrier, vol. 
 2, p. 647. 
 
 Xiability of initial carrier on 
 contract for through ship- 
 ment, vol. 17, p. 289. 
 
 Xiability of initial carrier un- 
 der statutory provisions, vol. 
 13, p. 194. 
 
 Liability of owner of goods, 
 vol. 9, p. 290. 
 
 4.inriiting Liability. 
 
 Liability of initial carrier 
 limited to its own line, vol. 
 13, p. 187. 
 
 Right of carrier to limit lia- 
 bility to its own line, vol. 
 7, p. 609; vol. 8, p. 11. 
 
 When stipulation limiting 
 liability inures to benefit of 
 connecting carrier, vol. 7, 
 p. 713. 
 
 CONNECTING CARRIERS— 
 Continued. 
 
 Mistake of agents as to tickets, 
 vol. 10, p. 274. 
 
 Presumption as to which carrier 
 wis negligent, vol. S, p. 59. 
 
 Presumption that injury oc- 
 curred on last line, vol. 14, p. 
 212. 
 
 When liability of connecting 
 carrier terminates, vol. 9, p. 
 824. 
 
 Whether railroad can be com- 
 pelled to make contracts for 
 transportation beyond their 
 own lines, vol. 11, p. 586. 
 
 CONSOLIDATION. 
 
 See Leases. 
 
 Municipal Aid. 
 
 Railroads. 
 
 Taxation. 
 
 Effect of, on existing liabil- 
 ities, contracts, vol. 11, p. 
 596. 
 
 Effect on pending suits in gen- 
 eral, vol. 4, p. 318. 
 
 Eminent domain, right of con- 
 solidated company to condemn 
 land, vol. 4, p. 317. 
 
 Powers of new corporations, 
 vol. 8, p. 511. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
 See Consolidation. 
 Taxation. 
 
 Constitutionality and effect of 
 statutes making railroads lia- 
 ble as insurers, vol. 15, p. 
 498. 
 
 Constitutionality of anti-ticket 
 scalper laws, vol. 20, p. 478. 
 
 Constitutionality of employer's 
 liability act, vol. 21, p. 925. 
 
 Constitutionality of Kansas fel- 
 low-servant act, vol. 12, p. 
 702. 
 
 Constitutionality of separate 
 coach statute, vol. 11, p. 156. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 making occurrence of fire 
 presumptive evidence of neg- 
 ligence, vol. 15, p. 517. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 making railroad companies 
 liable for all damagies by fire, 
 vol. 6, p. 387. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute re- 
 quiring signals at crossings, 
 vol. 15, p. 179. 
 
 Constitutionality of statutes re- 
 quiring track connections at 
 railroad intersections, vol. 20, 
 p. 504. 
 
134 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL L A W — 
 Continued. 
 
 Effect of reserved power of 
 amendment on clause of char- 
 ter exempting' from taxation, 
 vol. 19, p. 276. 
 
 Employer's liability act, vol. 
 9, p. 816. 
 
 Fence law, vol. 9, p. 274. 
 
 Power of legislature to fix 
 maximum rates, vol. 8, p. ."511. 
 
 Reserved right to revoke, alter 
 or amend charter or fran- 
 chise, vol. 1, p. 121. 
 
 Stopping trains at county seats, 
 constitutionality of statute, 
 vol. 14, p. 851. 
 
 CONSTBTJOTION. 
 
 See Railroads. 
 Statutes, 
 
 CONTRACTORS. 
 
 See Independent Contractors. 
 Liens. 
 
 CONTRACTS. 
 
 See Bills of Lading. 
 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Consolidation. 
 Medical Services. 
 Railroads. 
 Ultra Vires. 
 Agreement by railroad to stop 
 at particular place, vol. 6, p. 
 71S. 
 Verbal contract by railroad to 
 maintain switch for benefit 
 of shipper, vol. 6, p. 714. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY N B G L I - 
 GBNOB. 
 
 See Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Children. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Employer'' s Liability Acts. 
 Fences. 
 Fires. 
 
 Imputable Negligence. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 , Ordinances. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Turntables. 
 Accidents on Track. 
 No defense to action under 
 Tennessee statute where 
 company has failed to ob- 
 serve statutory precautions, 
 vol. 13, p. 701. 
 Whether pedestrian injured 
 by a street car has used due 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY N B G L I - 
 
 GENCB — Continued. 
 
 care, a question for the jury, 
 vol. S, p. 4S8. 
 Burden of proof, in action, 
 
 upon administrator for death 
 
 of decedent, vol. 10, p. 583. 
 Burden of proof to show due 
 
 care upon part of deceased, 
 
 vol. 10, p. 522. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 As a-complete defense in ac- 
 tion against carrier of pas- 
 sengers for personal injury 
 resulting from failure to 
 maintain depot premises 
 and approaches in good 
 condition, vol. 10, p. 385. 
 
 Contributory negligence in 
 getting off car, vol. 5, p. 
 629. 
 
 Degree of care required of 
 passenger, vol. 9, p. 259. 
 
 B'ailure of passenger to use 
 safe means of ingress and 
 egress to the cars, vol. 6, 
 p. 290. 
 
 Instinctive efforts of passen- 
 ger to avoid injury, vol. 7, 
 p. 305. 
 
 Overcome by greater negli- 
 gence of carrier, vol. 7, p. 
 305. 
 
 Part of person protruding be- 
 yond car, vol. 8, pp. 362, 
 364. 
 
 Person alighting from street 
 car, passing behind it and 
 starting across parallel 
 tracli without looking to 
 see if another car was ap- 
 proaching, vol. 6, p. 651. 
 
 Protrusion of arm from win- 
 dow on street car, vol. 8, 
 pp. 362, 364. 
 
 Question for jury, vol. 7, pp. 
 306, 533. 
 
 What constitutes contributory 
 negligence, vol. 2, p. 301. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Vol. 5, p. 183. 
 
 Attempting to cross before 
 moving street car, vol. 10, 
 p. 562. 
 
 Attempting to cross in front 
 of approaching train, vol. 
 10, p. 471. 
 
 Company liable for injury at 
 crossing occasioned by 
 negligence after becoming 
 aware of the party's peril, 
 notwithstanding his con- 
 tributory negligence, vol. 
 10, p. 505. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 135 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NBGLI- 
 
 GENCE— Continued. 
 
 Contributory negligence at 
 crossing as matter of law, 
 vol. 7, p. 532. 
 
 Crossing in front of moving 
 train, vol. 10, p. 472. 
 
 Excessive speed does not ex- 
 cuse contributory negli- 
 gence, vol. 10, p. 717. 
 
 Horse beyond control, vol. S, 
 p. 482. 
 
 Presumption of negligence at 
 crossing, vol. 10, p. 848. 
 
 Province of court and jury, 
 vol. 10, p. 8S6. 
 
 Special trains, vol. 5, p. 470. 
 
 Using defective bridges at 
 crossing, though with 
 knowledge was not, vol. 
 IS, p. 205. 
 
 Violation of ordinance limit- 
 ing speed, vol. 8, p. 428. 
 
 Whether crossing before ap- 
 proaching train is negli- 
 gence per se, vol. 10, p. 484. 
 Deaf and dumb persons, vol. 
 
 10, p. 613. 
 Deaf persons, vol. 6, p. 319. 
 Drunkenness. 
 
 As contributory negligence, 
 vol. 7, p. 122; vol. 9, p. 264; 
 vol. 11, p. 834. 
 
 As evidence of, vol. 13, p. 
 689. 
 
 As proximate cause where 
 plaintiff has voluntarily in- 
 capacitated himself, vol. 13, 
 p. 690. 
 
 Effect of defendant's knowl- 
 edge of, vol. 13, p. 690. 
 
 Effect of, on contributory 
 negligence, vol. 13, p. 689. 
 
 Intoxication as evidence of, 
 vol. 13, p. 689. 
 
 Proximate cause, vol. 13, p. 
 690. 
 Fires Set by Locomotives. 
 Vol. 10, p. 689. 
 
 Combustibles near right of 
 way, vol. 10, pp. 689, 878. 
 Mail clerks, vol. S, p. 406. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Injury to employee from over- 
 head structures, vol. 8, p. 
 471. 
 
 Knowledge of defective ma- 
 chinery a question of fact 
 for jury, vol. 6, p. 751. 
 Necessity of negativing, vol. 6, 
 
 p. 353; vol. 9, p. 100. 
 Nonsuit proper where plaintiff's 
 
 evidence establishes contribu- 
 
 CONTRIBITTORY N B G L I - 
 GENCB— Continued. 
 tory negligence, vol. 18, p. 
 467. 
 Nonsuit where contributory 
 negligence appears in decla- 
 ration, vol. 14, p. 289. 
 Obvious danger incurred at di- 
 rection of servants of com- 
 pany, vol. S, p. 304. 
 One caused by terror to adopt 
 perilous alternative not guilty 
 of, as a matter of law, vol. 
 12, p. 789. 
 Question of law, vol. 13, p. 698. 
 Whether contributory negli- 
 gence to incur danger to save 
 human life, vol. 20, p. 808. 
 Whether the Declaration Need 
 Negative Contributory Negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Vol. 6, p. 353.; vol. 9, p. 100. 
 
 Averments in lieu of direct 
 
 negation of contributory 
 
 negligence, vol. 6, p. 359. 
 
 Freedom from contributory 
 
 negligence shown by facts, 
 
 vol. 6, pi 358. 
 
 Negativing in general terms, 
 
 vol. 6, p. 360. 
 Plaintiff must negative con- 
 tributory negligence, vol. 
 6, p. 357. 
 
 CORPORATIONS. 
 
 See Railroads. 
 
 . Stock and Stockholders. 
 Pleading. 
 Allegation of corporate exist- 
 ence, vol. 10, p. 884. 
 Power of railroad to purchase 
 competing line, vol. 7, p. 346. 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 Abandonment of condemnation 
 proceedings, vol. 3, p. 32. 
 
 COTTON. 
 
 L/iability of carrier for cotton 
 in compress, vol. 8, p. 477. 
 
 COUNSEL. FEES. 
 See Damages. 
 Abandonment of condemnation 
 proceedings, vol. 3, p. 33. 
 
 COUNTERFEIT MONEY. 
 Vol. 5, p. 309. 
 
 COUNTY SEATS. 
 Whether statute requiring 
 trains to stop at, is an inter- 
 ference with interstate com- 
 merce, vol. 7, p. 558. 
 
136 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 COUPLING OARS. 
 
 I See Master and Servant. 
 
 COUPLINGS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 Foreign cars, mismatched 
 coupling's, vol. 8, p. SS9. 
 
 Mismatched couplings not neg- 
 ligence per ae, vol. 8, p. SS8. 
 
 COUPONS. 
 
 See Bonds. 
 Interest upon maturity, vol. 9, 
 
 p. 327. 
 Validity, vol. 9, p. 326. 
 
 CROSSINGS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Frightening Teams. 
 Judicial Notice. 
 Licensees. 
 Adequacy, vol. 7, p. 623. ■ 
 Authority to fix depot and 
 terminal facilities, side tracks 
 and switches, vol. 8, p. 614. 
 Authority to impose on railroad 
 the duty to make bridges and 
 crossings over new streets 
 and highways, vol. 11, p. 284. 
 
 Backing Cars. 
 
 Care required, vol. S, p. 444; 
 
 vol. 12, p. 372. 
 Lookout on rear car, vol. 12, 
 
 p. 374. 
 Signals, vol. 12, p. 373. 
 
 Care to be exercised by com- 
 pany at populous places, vol. 
 13, p. 499; vol. 16, p. 615. 
 
 Care to be observed by railroad 
 company in erecting culverts, 
 bridges, etc., vol. 8, p. 701. 
 
 Company not bound to guard 
 against accidents at old 
 abandoned way never legally 
 laid out, vol. 20, p. 399. 
 
 Construction of, as invitation 
 to cross, vol. 13, p. 469. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Vol. S, p. 183. 
 
 Attempting to cross in front 
 of approaching train, vol. 
 10, p. 471. 
 
 Care commensurate with dan- 
 ger required of traveler, 
 vol. 12, p. 341. 
 
 Climbing between cars ob- 
 structing crossing, vol. 9, 
 p. 876. 
 
 Collision with a second train 
 immediately after one has 
 passed, vol. 10, p. 493. 
 
 Company liable for injury at 
 
 CROSSINGS— Co«if«>«erf. 
 
 crossing occasioned by neg- 
 ligence after becoming 
 aware of the party's peril, 
 notwithstanding his con- • 
 tributory negligence, vol. 
 
 10, p. SOS. 
 Contributory negligence as 
 
 matter of law, vol. 7, p. 
 532. 
 Crossing in front of moving 
 train, vol. 10, p. 472; vol. 
 
 11, p. 99. 
 
 Crossing where safety gates 
 are closed, vol. IS, p. 6. 
 
 Failure to give signals does 
 not excuse, vol. 18, p. 466. 
 
 Failure to give statutory 
 signals will not entitle one 
 guilty of contributory neg- 
 ligence in attempting to 
 cross before moving train 
 to recover, vol. 12, p. 406. 
 
 Leaving team unhitched near 
 crossing, vol. 18, p. 466. 
 
 Negligence of injured person 
 not presumed, vol. 12, p. 
 415. 
 
 Negligence of injured person 
 presumed, vol. 12, p. 414. 
 
 No presumption either way, 
 vol. 12, p. 417. 
 
 Obstruction of view at cross- 
 ing not negligence per se, 
 vol. 18, p. 160. 
 
 Presumption as to negligence 
 and contributory negligence 
 at crossing, vol. 10, p. 848. 
 
 Province of court and jury, 
 vol. 10, p. 856. 
 
 Question of fact, vol. 7, pp. 
 306, 533. 
 
 Using defective bridge at 
 crossing, vol. IS, p. 205. 
 
 Whether crossing before ap- 
 proaching train is negli- 
 gence per se, vol. 10, p. 
 484. 
 Deaf persons, vol. 6, p. 319. 
 Drunken persons, vol. 7, p. 122. 
 Duty of company as to con- 
 struction and maintenance, 
 
 vol. 7, p. 623. 
 Duty of company as to restora- 
 tion of highway, vol. 16, p. 
 
 60S. 
 
 Duty of company to construct 
 crossing over highway subse- 
 quently laid out, vol. 18, p. 
 668. 
 
 Duty of company to repair 
 track, and keep it in safe 
 condition for passage, vol 
 10, p. 510. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 137 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 Farm Crossings. 
 Location, vol. 19, p. 390. 
 Right of landowner to locate, 
 vol. 19, p. 391. 
 Flagmen. 
 
 Absence of signals bj' flag- 
 man indicates that safe 
 passage may be made, vol. 
 12, p. 422. 
 
 Failure to comply with ordi- 
 nance requiring whether 
 negligence per se, vol. 19, 
 p. 319. 
 Flying switches at, vol. 13, p. 
 
 500. 
 Gates. 
 
 Care required in managing, 
 vol. 22, p. 272. 
 
 Care required in managing, 
 illustration, vol. 22, p. 272. 
 
 Eftect of negligence in man- 
 aging where train might 
 have been seen bj' traveler, 
 vol. 22, p. 272. 
 
 Failure to comply with ordi- 
 nance requiring, whether 
 negligence per se, vol. 19, 
 p. 319. • 
 
 Gate striking traveler, vol. 
 22, p. 272. 
 
 Injur}' to stock, vol. 22, p. 
 272. 
 
 Open gates as invitation to 
 cross, vol. S, p. 666; vol. 7, 
 p. 742; vol. 9, p. 709. 
 
 Permitting stranger to open, 
 vol. 22, p. 272. 
 
 Grade Crossings. 
 
 Abolishing grade crossings 
 as exercise of police power, 
 vol. 16, p. 599. 
 
 General rule, vol. 12, p. 435. 
 
 Jurisdiction of courts of 
 equity, vol. 12, p. 437. 
 
 Practicability of other cross- 
 ing, presumption, vol. 12, 
 p. 437. 
 Highway crossing railroad, 
 
 right to compensation, vol. 
 
 19, p. 570. 
 Implied invitation to cross, vol. 
 
 17, p. 752. 
 
 l-bokouts. 
 
 Duty of engineer to keep look- 
 out at crossing, vol. 11, 
 p. 80. 
 
 Obstruction of. 
 
 By railroad as proximate 
 cause of injury to traveler, 
 vol. 14, p. 7. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Negligence per se, vol. 14, p. 
 834. 
 
 Not proximate cause of in- 
 jury, vol. 14, p. 834. 
 Obstruction of view by cars, 
 
 vol. 9, p. 24. 
 Overhead crossing, vol. 7, p. 
 
 537. 
 Presumption of negligence and 
 
 contributory negligence, vol. 
 
 10, p. 848. 
 Right of public to use railroad 
 
 tracl' as footpath when it is 
 
 in the highway, vol. 7, p. 742; 
 
 vol. 10, p. 504. 
 Right to cross track of another 
 
 company, vol. 4, p. 418. 
 
 Signals. 
 
 Vol. 9, p. 241. 
 
 Act rendering signals un- 
 availing, vol. 12, p. 378. 
 
 Admissibility of negative evi- 
 dence, vol. 19, p. 386. 
 
 Character of warning to be 
 given, vol. 12, p. 328. 
 
 Comparative weight of posi- 
 tive and negative evidence, 
 vol. 19, p. 384. 
 
 Comparative weight of posi- 
 tive and negative evidence, 
 question for jury, vol. 19, 
 p. 385. 
 
 Constitutionality of statutes 
 requiring, vol. IS, p. 179. 
 
 Contributory negligence of 
 one attempting to cross 
 before moving train will 
 prevent recovery though 
 statutory signals were not 
 given, vol. 12, p. 406. 
 
 Distance at which to be 
 given, vol. 12, p. 376. 
 
 Distance for giving, how as- 
 certained, vol. 12, p. 377. 
 
 Distance for giving, statutory 
 provisions as to, vol. 12, p. 
 377. 
 
 Distance must be adequate 
 for purpose intended, vol. 
 12, p. 378. 
 
 Duty to give at private cross- 
 ings, general rule, vol. 19, 
 p. 557. 
 
 Duty to instruct as to com- 
 parative weight of positive 
 and negative evidence, vol. 
 19, p. 385. 
 
 Evidence of other omissions 
 to give, vol. 12, p. 384. 
 
 Exceptions to general rule as 
 to duty to give at private 
 crossings, vol. 19, p. 559. 
 
138 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 CROSSINGS— ConHnued. 
 
 Failure to give as affected 
 
 by contributory negligence, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 22S. 
 Failure to give signals, vol. 
 
 9, p. 354. 
 
 Failure to give signals as 
 affected by existence of 
 other means of information, 
 vol. IS, p. 164. 
 
 Failure to give signals as 
 proximate cause, vol. 16, p. 
 631. 
 
 Failure to give signals, prox- 
 imate cause of injury, vol. 
 
 10, p. 518. 
 
 Failure to obey statutory re- 
 quirements as to signals 
 and speed at crossings, de- 
 grees of negligence, vol. 
 
 11, p. 857. 
 
 Negative testimony given 
 greater weight, vol. 19, p. 
 386. 
 
 Question whether failure to 
 give was cause of injury is 
 one for jury, vol. 11, p. 859. 
 
 Statutory signals as measure 
 of company's duty, vol. IS, 
 p. 173. 
 
 Sufficiency of, a question for 
 jury, vol. 15, p. 174. 
 
 Where cars are backed over 
 crossings, vol. 12, p. 373. 
 
 Where highway passes over 
 or under track, vol. IS, p. 
 
 , 185. 
 
 Where train starts within dis- 
 tance at which statute pre- 
 scribed for giving signals, 
 vol. 12, p. 377. 
 
 Whether failure to give signal 
 is negligence per se, vol. 
 S, p. 430. 
 
 Whether statutes requiring 
 crossing signals to be given 
 are applicable in actions for 
 injuries not inflicted on 
 tracks at public crossings, 
 vol. 22, p. 204. 
 Signboards. 
 
 Liability of railroad for fail- 
 ure to erect signboard at 
 highway crossing, vol. 18, 
 p. 13. 
 Special trains, vol. 9, p. 248. 
 
 Speed. 
 
 Vol. 10, p. 106. 
 Failure to obey statutory re- 
 quirements as to signals 
 and speed at crossings, de- 
 grees of negligence, vol. 
 11, p. 857. 
 
 CROSSn^GS—Coniinued. 
 
 Whether any rate is negli- 
 gence per se, vol. 11, p. 
 859. 
 
 Whether rate of speed is neg- 
 ligence, a question for jury, 
 vol. 12, p. 322. 
 Stop, Look and Listen. 
 
 Vol. 7, p. 742; vol. 10, pp. 
 467, 489, 504. 
 
 Duty of employee crossing 
 track, vol. 12, p. 317. 
 
 Failure to do so before driv- 
 ing cattle across track, vol. 
 20, p. 793. 
 
 Failure to look and listen as, 
 affected by violation of or- 
 dinance limiting speed, vol. 
 19, p. 320. 
 
 Failure to, not negligence 
 per se, vol. 12, p. 445. 
 
 Failure to, Pennsylvania rule 
 and its application, vol. 12, 
 p. 446. 
 
 Failure to stop not negligence 
 per se, vol. 12, p. 444. 
 
 Obstructed view, vol. 6, p. 
 570 ; vol. 10, p. 467. 
 
 Pennsylvania rule as to fail- 
 ure to stop, vol. 12, p. 445. 
 
 Plaintiff's evidence rebutted 
 by circumstances of case, 
 vol. 7, pp. 532, 742. 
 
 Street railways, rule as to 
 right of passage, vol. 1, p. 
 281. 
 Watchmen. 
 
 Duty to have, in the absence 
 of statute, vol. 15, p. 191. 
 
 CULVERTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Liability for injuries to stock 
 passing through culvert, un- 
 der statute requiring track to 
 be fenced, vol. 20, p. 237. 
 
 CUTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Children. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Exemplary Damages. 
 Fires. 
 Pleading. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Abutters, vol. 1, pp. 65-67. 
 Aggravation of injuries by- 
 plaintiff's negligence, vol. 
 10, p. 739. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 139 
 
 DAM-A-GES—Coniinued. 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 •Delay in transportation, vol. 
 8, p. S14. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Carrying- passengers beyond 
 destination, vol. 2, p. 185; 
 vol. 10, p. 2S9. 
 
 Damages for anxiety of pas- 
 senger carried beyond desti- 
 nation, vol. 18, p. 45. 
 
 Damages for illegal arrest of 
 passenger, vol. 12, p. 279. 
 
 Damages for mental suffering 
 of passenger wrongfully 
 ejected, vol. 2, p. 164; vol. 
 
 18, "p. 45. 
 
 Failure to stop at station, 
 vol. 2, p. 185. 
 
 Measure of damages for in- 
 juries to passenger, vol. 2, 
 p. 214. 
 Children. 
 
 Elements for death of minor 
 child, vol. 13, p. 539. 
 
 Contributory negligence caus- 
 ing mitigation of damages, 
 vol. 13, p. 702. 
 
 Cost of medical treatment, vol. 
 6, p. 751; vol. 11, p. 599; vol. 
 12, p. 195; vol. 20, p. 178. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Highway crossing railroad, 
 elements of damages, vol. 
 
 19, p. 570. 
 
 Measure of damages where 
 highway crosses ' railroad, 
 vol. 19, r- 572. 
 Damages for trespass under 
 
 honest claim of title, vol. 11, 
 
 p. 838. 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 beneficiary's health in ac- 
 tion to recover for death by 
 wrongful act, vol. 16, p. 475. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 pecuniary condition of 
 plaintiff or beneficiary in 
 action for death by wrong- 
 ful act, vol. 13, p. 507. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 that deceased furnished 
 support for plaintiff, vol. 
 13, p. 509. 
 
 Dependency upon deceased, 
 vol. 8, p. 398. 
 
 Death of child, vol. 10, pp. 
 557, 734. 
 
 Evidence of age, habits, etc., 
 in showing value of serv- 
 ices, vol. 12, p. 404. 
 
 DAMAGiES—Coniinued. 
 
 Evidence of number and ages 
 of surviving children in 
 action by wife for death of 
 husband, vol. 15, p. 759. 
 
 Evidence of pecuniary condi- 
 tion of plaintiff or bene- 
 ficiary admissible in action 
 for death, vol. 13, p. 507. 
 
 Evidence of pecuniary loss, 
 admissibility of indirect 
 evidence of, in action for 
 death by wrongful act, vol. 
 
 12, p. 403. 
 
 Evidence that deceased fur- 
 nished support for plaintiff 
 admissible, vol. 13, p. 509. 
 
 Funeral expenses, vol. 5, p. 
 682; vol. 9, p. 252; vol. 10, 
 p. 557. 
 
 Life expectancy, vol. 8, p. 
 398. 
 
 Measure of damages, vol. 10, 
 p. 542; vol. 13, p. 552. 
 
 Rule of computation in Rail- 
 road Co. V. Trammell, vol. 
 14, p. 803. 
 
 Solatium for wounded feel- 
 ings in action for wrongful 
 death, vol. 18, p. 46. 
 
 Suffering of deceased and 
 wounded feelings or grief 
 for relatives, vol. 10, p. 533. 
 Death of Husband and Parent. 
 
 Elements of recovery, vol. 
 11, p. 750. 
 
 Intellectual and moral train- 
 ing of children, vol. 11, p. 
 753. 
 
 Solatium for wounded feel- 
 ings, vol. 11, p. 755. 
 
 Solatium for wounded feel- 
 ings, modified doctrine, vol. 
 11, p. 758. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 
 For incidental expenses ren- 
 dered necessary by taking 
 under eminent domain, vol. 
 8, p. 710. 
 
 Use of railroad right of way 
 by telegraph company, vol. 
 
 13, p. 422. 
 
 Evidence of lack of malice, 
 provocation and intent when 
 admissible in assessing dam- 
 ages, vol. 12, p. 123. 
 Exemplary Damages. 
 Death by wrongful act, vol. 
 
 13, p. 552. 
 Pleading, vol. 11, p. 183. 
 Punitive or exemplary dam - 
 ages for acts of employees, 
 vol. 22, p. 440. 
 
140 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 "DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 Recovery of counsel's fees as, 
 where injuries are wanton, 
 vol. 12, p. 47. 
 Fences. 
 
 Double damages for breach 
 of fence law, vol. 9, p. 275. 
 Fires Set by Locomotives. 
 
 Evidence of value of trees 
 destroyed by fire, vol. IS, 
 p. 519. 
 Fright, injuries resulting from 
 
 fright, vol. 8, p. 218. 
 Frightening teams, vol. 5, p. 
 
 304. 
 .Interest. 
 
 Allowed because of gross neg- 
 ligence in actions against 
 carriers, vol. 19, p. 628.' 
 
 In actions against carriers, 
 general rule, vol. 19, p. 626. 
 
 In actions against carriers, 
 Illinois rule, vol. 19, p." 627. 
 
 In actions against carriers, 
 Missouri cases, vol. 19, p. 
 627. 
 
 In actions against carriers, 
 Wew York doctrine, vol. 19, 
 p. 627. 
 
 On damages in eminent do- 
 main cases, vol. 9, p. 409. 
 
 When interest not recoverable 
 as part of damages for kill- 
 ing stock, vol. 10, p. 111. 
 
 When interest recoverable as. 
 part of damages for killing 
 stock, vol. 10, p. 111. 
 
 When not recoverable, vol. 
 11, p. 337. 
 
 When recoverable, vol. 11, p. 
 336. 
 Mental suffering, general rule 
 
 as to recovery for, vol. 18, p. 
 
 44. 
 Mental suffering is proximate 
 
 result of actionable wrong, 
 
 vol. 18, p. 45. 
 Mental suffering of deceased 
 
 and relatives, vol. 18, p. 46. 
 Opinion evidence as to amount 
 
 of damages, vol. 8, p. 411. 
 Personal Injuries. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to plaintiff's position in 
 life, business, etc., vol. 11, 
 p. 143. 
 
 ASraissibility of evidence of 
 plaintiff's domestic rela- 
 tions, the number of his 
 children, etc., in action for 
 personal injuries, vol. 20, 
 p. 632. 
 
 DAMA-GTSS— Continued. . 
 
 Declarations of suffering, 
 vol. 15, p. 122. 
 
 Evidence that plaintiff in ac- 
 tion for personal injuries is 
 married and has family, 
 vol. 14, p. 793. 
 
 Future pain and suffering, 
 vol. 12, p. 193; vol. 20, p. 
 178. 
 
 Ivoss of earning capacity, 
 vol. 12, p. 292. 
 
 Loss of time and wages, vol. 
 
 11, p. 872; vol. 20, p. 178. 
 Measure of damages for loss 
 
 of leg, vol. 13, p. 825. 
 
 Mitigation of damages be- 
 cause of contributory neg- 
 ligence, vol. 13, p. 702. 
 
 Mortality tables, in action for 
 personal injuries, vol. 14, p. 
 435. 
 
 Nursing by member of family, 
 vol. 12, p. 195. 
 
 Pain and suffering, vol. 12, 
 p. 193 ; vol. 20, p. 178. 
 
 Shame and mortification 
 caused by personal injuries, 
 vol. IS, p. 804; vol. 18, p. 
 46. 
 
 Verdicts for injuries to, and 
 loss of legs and feet, vol. 
 
 12, p. 851. 
 
 Wages lost not recoverable as 
 
 such, vol. 11, p. 873. 
 Where wages are paid during 
 disability, vol. 11, p. 873. 
 
 Special damages must be ex- 
 pressly pleaded, vol. IS, p. 
 803. 
 
 When evidence of lack of mal- 
 ice, provocation, and intent 
 admissible, in assessing, vol. 
 12, p. 123. 
 
 DEAF AND DUMB PERSONS. 
 See Occidents on Track. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings 
 Street Railways. 
 Contributory negligence, vol. 
 6, p. 319; vol. 10, p. 613. 
 
 DEATH BY 'WRONGPUL 
 ACT. 
 
 See, Crossings. 
 Dainages. 
 
 Admissions of deceased as evi- 
 dence in action for death by 
 wrongful act, vol. 11, p. 646. 
 
 Burden of proof, vol. 10, p. 583. 
 
 Child's death, action under 
 Georgia statute, vol. 12, p. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 141 
 
 DEATH BY ■WRONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued. 
 
 Common-law limitation of ac- 
 tion for death by wrongful 
 act, vol. 11, p. 613. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Burden of proving due care on 
 part of deceased, vol. 13, p. 
 800. 
 Presumption of due care on 
 part of deceased, vol. 13, 
 p. 800. 
 Damages. 
 Evidence as to number of 
 
 children, vol. -10, p. 866. 
 Evidence of number and ages 
 of children, in action by 
 wife, vol. IS, p. VS9. 
 Expectation of pecuniary 
 benefit as a cause of action, 
 vol. 10, p. 526. 
 Euneral expenses, vol. 5, p. 
 
 682. 
 Mortality tables, vol. .5, p. 
 
 361 ; vol. 9, p. 846. 
 Reckoning the expectancies 
 of the deceased, vol. S, p. 6. 
 Death caused by acts committed 
 without the state, vol. 6, p. 
 SO. 
 Existence of similar statute in 
 state where suit is brought is 
 essential, vol. 12, p. 714. 
 Extraterritorial effect of stat- 
 utes, vol. 12, p. 711. 
 Instantaneous death, whether 
 
 action lies, vol. 10, p. 608. 
 Massachusetts statute as to 
 death by wrongful act a penal 
 statute, vol. 13, p. 603. 
 Mother's right of action for in- 
 jury to minor child where 
 father has abandoned her, 
 vol. 12,' p. 857. 
 Penal action, enforcement in 
 other jurisdiction, vol. 12, p. 
 713. 
 Presumption that deceased ex- 
 ercised due care, vol. 10, p. 
 584. 
 Statutory limitation of action, 
 
 vol. 11, p. 613. 
 Suits in sister state under 
 statute of state where acci- 
 dent occurred, vol. 13, p. 712. 
 Whether a recovery in an ac- 
 tion for injuries causing 
 death is a bar to an action 
 for the death, vol. 11, p. 634. 
 
 DECLARATIONS. 
 
 See Agents. 
 Evidence. 
 
 DECLARATIONS — Continued. 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Res GestcE. 
 
 Admissibility of statements 
 made to physician, vol. 9, p. 
 358. 
 
 Declarations of employees while 
 acting within the scope of 
 their authority, vol. 10, p. 
 373. 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 See Streets and Highways. 
 Whether railroad companies 
 may acquire land by common- 
 law dedication, vol. 20, p. 
 156. 
 
 DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 DELIVERY. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 
 Bill of lading as evidence of 
 delivery, vol. 8, p. 478. 
 
 DEMURRAGE. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Right of carrier to charge for 
 detention of cars by shipper, 
 vol. 2, p. 735. 
 
 DEPOTS. 
 
 See Stations and Depots. 
 
 DERAILMENT. 
 See Negligence. 
 
 DISOHARGEJ LISTS. 
 
 5^1? Master and Servant. 
 
 Blacklisting a misdemeanor, 
 statutory provisions, vol. 12, 
 p. 755. 
 
 Distribution among other com- 
 panies, vol. 12, p. 754. 
 
 Libel, vol. 12, p. 754. 
 
 Prima facie, privileged commu- 
 nication, vol. 12, p. 754. 
 
 Privileged communication, vol. 
 12, p. 753. 
 
 DISCHARGING PASSEN- 
 GERS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 DISCRIMINATION . 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 DOGS. 
 
 Liability for killing, vol. IS, p. 
 
 577. 
 
142 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 DRAINS. 
 
 Liability of railroad for injury 
 to drain, vol. 5, p. 639. 
 
 DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Contributory negligence, vol. 
 9, p. 264. 
 
 Crossing's, vol. 7, p. 121. 
 
 Refusal of carrier to carry in- 
 toxicated person, vol. 6, p. 
 271. 
 
 Riding on platform of car, vol. 
 7, p. 313. 
 
 DUE PROCESS OP LAW. 
 Elevators, taking property 
 
 without due process of law, 
 
 vol. 6, p. 157. 
 Eminent domain, vol. 7, p. 26. 
 
 DYNAMITE. 
 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 
 BASEMENTS. 
 
 See Adverse Possession. 
 
 EATING HOUSES. 
 Vol. 6, p. 488. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Liability for personal injuries 
 caused by failure to keep foot 
 bridge in repair, vol. 6, p. 
 488. 
 
 EJECTION. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Damages. 
 Trespassers. 
 
 Averments of complaint, vol. 
 IS, p. 410. 
 
 Equitable restraint, vol. IS, p. 
 413. 
 
 Injunction to restrain proceed- 
 ings in, vol. IS, p. 413. 
 
 Notice to quit essential, vol. 
 IS, p. 410. 
 
 Recovery of lands seized by 
 railroads, vol. IS, p. 409. 
 
 Waiver of right, vol. 15, p. 412. 
 
 Wrongful use of street, vol. 1, p. 
 49. 
 
 ELECTION. 
 Eminent domain, vol. 6, p. 499. 
 
 ELECTRIC RAILROADS. 
 
 See Street Railways. 
 
 Electric railway wires distin- 
 guished from telephone wires, 
 vol. 4, p. 401. 
 
 Whether trolley an additional 
 burden, vol. 4, p. 400. 
 
 ELEMENTS OP DAMAGE. 
 See Damages. 
 
 ELEVATED RAILROADS. 
 See Street Railways. 
 
 Damages, vol. 1, pp. 380, 384. 
 
 Duty of carrier to allow reason- 
 able time for boarding and 
 alighting from train, vol. 10, 
 p. 300. 
 
 Evidence as' to damages, vol. 1, 
 p. 384. 
 
 Evidence as to rental value, 
 vol. S, p. 644. 
 
 Open gates, vol. 10, p. 299. 
 
 Rights of abutters, vol. 1, p. 
 378; vol. 9, p. 731. 
 
 Right of abutting owners to 
 compensation where elevated 
 railroad is erected in street, 
 vol. 10, p. 706. 
 
 ELEVATORS. 
 
 Due process of law, statutes 
 requiring railroad company 
 to permit individuals to 
 maintain private elevators on 
 its land, vol. 6, p. 157. 
 
 EMBANKMENTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 See Railroads. 
 
 Abandonment after confirma- 
 tion of proceedings, vol. 3, p. 
 .5. 
 
 Abandonment as estoppel, vol. 
 3, p. 24. 
 
 Abandonment, at what stage 
 may the proceedings be aban- 
 doned, vol. 3, p. iv. 
 
 Abandonment, company cannot 
 retain possession after aban- 
 donment, vol. 3, p. xxiii. 
 
 Abandonment, effect of aban- 
 donment of proceedings, vol. 
 3, p. xxiii. 
 
 Abandonment leaves parties in 
 statu quo, vol. 3, p. xxiii. 
 
 Abandonment of proceedings as 
 part of land, vol. 3, p. 11. 
 
 Abandonment of proceedings 
 prior to confirmation, vol. 3, 
 p. iv. 
 
 Action for the value of the land, 
 vol. 6, p. SOO. 
 
 Additional Servitude. 
 
 Vol. 1, p. 6S. 
 Electric street railway, vol. 
 
 1, p. 326; vol. 4, p. 400. 
 Extra tracks on original 
 
 grade, vol. 1, p. S3. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 143 
 
 EMINENT T30MAIN— Cont'd. EMINENT DOMAIN— Cow/fV. 
 
 Measure and elements of dam- 
 age, vol. 1, p. 52. 
 
 Modern judicial tendency, 
 vol. 1, p. 46. 
 
 Noise, stenches, etc., vol. 1, 
 p. 48. 
 
 Ordinary railroads, vol. 1, p. 
 46. 
 
 Private railroads, vol. 1, p. 
 47. 
 
 Railroad in street, coal house 
 and appurtenances, damage 
 to abutter, side track, vol. 
 1, p. 52. 
 
 Steam motors, vol. 1, p. 47. 
 
 Street railways, vol. 1, p. 72; 
 vol. 10, p. 230. 
 As to the right under federal 
 
 statutes to take railroad 
 
 rights of way for telegraph 
 
 line, vol. 18, p. 373. 
 Compensation. 
 
 Injunction where payment of 
 award is refused, vol. IS, p. 
 834. 
 
 Payment, a prerequisite, vol. 
 IS, p. 830. 
 
 What is suflBcieut compliance 
 with constitutional require- 
 ment for payment of com- 
 pensation, vol. IS, p. 833. 
 
 What is sufficient' compliance 
 with constitutional require- 
 ment where prepayment is 
 not expressly required, vol. 
 IS, p. 833. 
 Condemnation of railroad right 
 
 of way for telegraph line, 
 
 grant of exclusive right, vol. 
 
 18, p. 373. 
 Consolidation. 
 
 Right of consolidated com- 
 pany to condemn land, vol. 
 4, p. 317. 
 Construction of road over other 
 
 lands, vol. 3, p. xviii. 
 Costs and expenses, vol. 3, p. 
 
 xxxii. 
 Counsel fees, vol. 3, p. xxxiii. 
 Curtesy, vol. 6, p. SOO. 
 Damages. 
 
 Vol. 9, p. 402. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 sales of similar property in 
 condemnation proceedings, 
 vol. 11, p. S7S. 
 
 Condemnation of railroad 
 right of way for telegraph 
 line, vol. 13, pp. 422, 437; 
 vol. 18, p. 372. 
 
 Condemnation of railroad 
 right of way for telegraph 
 
 line, compensation, vol. 18, 
 p. 372. 
 
 Danger from lire as element 
 of, in eminent domain pro- 
 ceedings, vol. IS, p. S19. 
 
 For abandonment of proceed- 
 ings, vol. 3, p. 30. 
 
 Highway crossing railroad, 
 right to compensation, vol. 
 19, p. 570. 
 
 Incidental expenses rendered 
 necessary by the taking, 
 vol. 8, p. 710. 
 
 Injury to land not taken, vol. 
 13, p. 851. 
 
 Interest on damages, vol. 9, p. 
 409. 
 
 Measure of, vol. 13, p. 376. 
 
 Measure of, where railroad 
 right of way is taken for 
 telegraph line, vol. 18, p. 
 373. 
 
 Occupancy of track of another 
 company, vol. 4, p. 414. 
 
 Property injuriously affected, 
 vol. 13, p. 37S. 
 
 Prospective profits, vol. 13, 
 p. 384. 
 
 Railroad right of way for 
 telegraph line, federal stat- 
 utes, vol. 18, p. 373 ; vol. 13, 
 p. 408. 
 
 Right of abutting owner to, 
 where railroad is placed in 
 street, vol. 13, p. 444. 
 
 Special adaptability of land 
 as element of damage, vol. 
 
 16, p. 717. 
 
 Street crossing railroad, vol. 
 
 13, p. 371. 
 Where no part of premises is 
 
 taken, vol. 13, p. 393; vol. 
 
 17, p. 737. 
 
 Whether damages will be al- 
 lowed for improvements 
 made by railroad company 
 before condemnation, vol. 
 11, p. 569. 
 Due process of law, vol. 7, p. 
 
 26. 
 Election, vol. 6, p. 499. 
 Elevated railroads, vol. 1, p. 
 378. 
 
 Estate to be taken, vol. 13, p. 
 334. 
 
 Estate to be taken where ex- 
 tent is fixed by legislature, 
 vol. 13, p. 335. 
 
 Evidence. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 sales of similar property, 
 vol. 10, p. 419. 
 
144 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Cont'd. 
 Exercise by foreign corpora- 
 tion, vol. 3, pT 36. 
 Experimental assessments, vol. 
 
 3, p. iii. 
 Extension of street, vol. 9, p. 
 
 402. 
 Eailure to file final order estab- 
 lishing road, vol. 3, p. xix. 
 Failure to pay award and take 
 possession of land within a 
 reasonable time, vol. 3, p. 
 xvi. 
 Injunction against Entry before 
 Payment of Award. 
 Entry must be permanent, 
 
 vol. IS, p. 836. 
 Foreign company using line 
 by consent of another com- 
 pany, vol. 15, p. 836. 
 Where award has been paid 
 and other remedies are ex- 
 hausted, vol. IS, p. 835. 
 Where entry is under misap- 
 prehension of municipal 
 authority, vol. 15, p. 836. 
 Where payment of damages is 
 refused or neglected, vol. 
 15, p. 834. 
 Judgment, vol. 3, p. 36. 
 Landowner permitting railroad 
 to take possession of his land, 
 vol. 6, p. 499. 
 Leasing line to another com- 
 pany, vol. 3, p. XX. 
 Liability of company after 
 entry upon land under bond, 
 vol. 3, p. xxviii. 
 Liability of company for unrea- 
 sonable delay, vol. 3, p. 
 xxviii. 
 Limitation of actions, vol. 1, 
 
 pp. 51, 52. 
 Market Value. 
 Definition, vol. 13, p. 338. 
 Estimation of, vol. 13, p. 339. 
 Right acquired, not the use 
 of the right to be consid- 
 ered in estimating, vol. 13, 
 p. 339. 
 What property would bring at 
 fair public sale, vol. 13, p. 
 339. 
 Nature, extent and exercise of 
 
 the right, vol. 3, p. 32. 
 Nonuser during pendency of 
 
 proceedings, vol. 3, p. xxii. 
 Notice. 
 Necessity for notice to owners 
 of lands of proceedings to 
 condemn same, vol. 3, p. 11. 
 Not necessary that need should 
 be immediate, vol. 3, p. 35. 
 
 EMINENT T)OMA.IN—Ccni'd. 
 Occupancy of Track of Another 
 
 Company. 
 
 In general, vol. 4, p. 411. 
 
 Proceedings to appropriate 
 the use of track of another 
 company, vol. 4, p. 417. 
 Only necessary estate to be 
 
 taken, vol. 13, p. 335. 
 Power to condemn right of way 
 
 for railroad branches, spurs, 
 
 or private railroads to or 
 
 from private property to be 
 
 especially benefited, vol. 20, 
 
 p. 614. 
 Power to make additional con- 
 demnation, vol. 9, p. 424. 
 Prior occupation, vol. 3, p. 35. 
 Provisions as to view by jury 
 
 in condemnation proceedings, 
 
 vol. 17, p. 691. 
 Railroads as beneficiaries of 
 
 right, vol. 3, p. 33. 
 Recovery for loss of profits, 
 
 vol. 6, p. 174. 
 Rejection of motion to accept 
 
 land at a certain valuation, 
 
 vol. 3, p. xxi. 
 Restitution, writ of, vol. 3, p. 
 
 xxxiv. 
 Reversion, where easement is- 
 
 taken, vol. 13, p. 335. 
 Reversion, where fee is taken, 
 
 vol. 13, p. 337. 
 Right of foreign company to 
 
 condemn railroad right of way 
 
 for telegraph line, vol. 22, p. 
 
 282. 
 Right of one railroad company 
 
 to condemn property of other 
 
 corporations and railroads, 
 
 vol. 3, pp. 99, 103. 
 Right of way, presumption as 
 
 to width, vol. 9, p. 419. 
 Rights of abutter, vol. 1, p. 65. 
 Right of abutter to reasonable 
 
 passage, vol. 1, p. 65. 
 Right to abandon proceedings, 
 
 vol. 3, p. i. 
 
 Right to abandon proceedings- 
 where landowner's title is- 
 qualified and partial, vol. 3, 
 p. ii. 
 
 Right to select another route or 
 recondemn, vol. 3, p. xxiv. 
 
 Single exercise of power does 
 not exhaust right, vol. 3, p. 
 34. 
 
 Spur track as public use, vol. 
 13, p. 448. 
 
 Statutory provisions as to- 
 abandonment of proceedine-s.. 
 vol. 3, p. X. . ^ "■ 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 14S 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— CowifW. 
 Statutory provisions as to lia- 
 bility of company for aban- 
 donment, vol. 3, p. xxix. 
 
 Street Railway Crossing Rail- 
 road. 
 
 Compensation, vol. 18, p. 442. 
 Injunction to prevent, vol. 18, 
 p. 441. 
 
 Telegraph company's power to 
 condemn railroad right of way 
 under federal statute, vol. 13, 
 p. 408. 
 
 Telegraph lines as public im- 
 provements, vol. 13, p. 437. 
 
 Transferring right of way to 
 another company, vol. 3, p. 
 xxi. 
 
 Trespass, vol. 6, p. 499. 
 
 Value of land to the owner and 
 not to the company to be con- 
 sidered, vol. 9, p. 6S. 
 
 View by Jury. 
 
 General rule as to effect, vol. 
 
 17, p. 691. 
 Impression produced by, is 
 part of evidence, vol. 17, p. 
 693. 
 Impression produced by, not 
 part of evidence, vol. 17, p. 
 693. 
 Statutory provisions, vol. 17, 
 p. 694. 
 Waiver of remedies by owner, 
 
 vol. 6, p. SOO. 
 What constitutes an abandon- 
 ment of the proceedings, vol. 
 3, p. xvi. 
 What may be considered in re- 
 duction of damages, vol. 3, p. 
 xxiii. 
 When company deemed a tres- 
 passer ab initio, vol. 3, p. 
 xxiii. 
 When company is liable in 
 damages, after abandonment 
 of condemnation proceedings, 
 vol. 3, p. xxvi. 
 Writ of restitution, vol. 3, p. 
 xxxiv. 
 
 EMPLOYEES. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Witnesses, 
 
 EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY 
 ACTS. 
 
 Vol. 9, pp. 9, 97, 481. 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 
 Constitutionality, vol. 9, p. 816. 
 Constitutionality of Iowa stat- 
 ute, vol. 9, p. 9. 
 
 I D— 10 
 
 EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY 
 
 Acts— Continued. 
 Contributory negligence as bar 
 
 to recovery under, vol. 18, p. 
 
 696. 
 Massachusetts statute, vol. 9, p. 
 
 97. 
 Particular cases, vol. 9, pp. 
 
 9,11. 
 To what servants applicable, 
 
 vol. 9, p. 9. 
 
 ESTOPPEL. 
 
 See Adverse Possession. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Ultra Vires. 
 
 Abutters, vol. 1, p. 66. 
 Municipality, estoppel to deny 
 
 recital in municipal aid bond, 
 
 vol. 12, p. 868. 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Agents. 
 
 Bills of Lading. 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings. 
 Damages. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Fences. 
 Fires. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 Photographs. 
 Res Gesics. , 
 Witnesses. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 compromise with persons hav- 
 ing similar claims, vol. 20, 
 p. S7S. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 offer to arbitrate or settle, 
 voi. 20, p. 575. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 result of subsequent experi- 
 ments, vol. 11, p. 424. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 subsequent repairs, vol. 11, p. 
 407. 
 Admissibility of minutes and 
 records of company as evi- 
 dence, vol. 11, p. 721. 
 Bill of lading as evidence of 
 
 delivery, vol. 8, p. 478. 
 Books of science, vol. 13, p. 756. 
 Checks, vol. 2, p. xxxiv. 
 Collateral facts, vol. 14, p. 16. 
 
 Death by wrongful act, declara- 
 tions of suffering, vol. IS, p. 
 122. 
 
146 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 E'VIDE1>!C'Ej— Continued. 
 
 Death by wrongful act, depend- 
 ency upon deceased, vol. 8, p. 
 398. 
 Elevated Railroads. 
 Evidence as to damages, vol. 
 1, p. 384. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 View by jury as, vol. 17, p. 
 693. 
 Expert Testimony. 
 Admissibility of opinion of 
 medical experts, vol. 11, p. 
 640. 
 As to proper position of 
 brakeman on a train, vol. 
 17, p. 481. 
 Reasonableness of bill for 
 medical services, vol. 12, 
 p. 854. 
 Frightening horses, vol. S, p. 
 
 303. 
 Hypothetical questions, vol. 14, 
 
 p. 792. 
 
 Mortality tables, vol. S, p. 361. 
 
 Mortality tables as, in action 
 
 for permanent injuries, vol. 
 
 11, pp. 539, 600; vol. 14, p. 
 
 435; vol. 15, p. 793. 
 
 Opinion evidence, vol. 14, p. 
 
 767. 
 Photographs, vol. 11, p. 771. 
 Photograph of locus in quo, 
 
 vol. 7, p. 519. 
 Speed of trains, vol. 13, p. 799. 
 Tax list as evidence of value, 
 
 vol. 12, p. 859. 
 Use of intoxicants, vol. 9, p. 
 
 264. 
 Usual conduct of employees, 
 
 vol. 10, p. 280. 
 X-ray photographs, vol. 16, p. 
 508. 
 
 EXECUTION. 
 Franchises, vol. 10, p. 774. 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINIS- 
 TRATORS. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Power of railroad company to 
 attack collaterally the ap- 
 pointment of an administra- 
 tor, vol. 7, p. 536. 
 Right of railway company to 
 object to appointment, vol. 7, 
 p. 536. 
 
 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Damages. 
 Ejection of passengers where 
 
 EXEMPLARY DAMAGE S— 
 Continued. 
 
 malice is shown, vol. 10, p. 
 269. 
 
 Exemplary damages for simple 
 negligence of carrier of pas- 
 sengers, vol. 10, p. 258. 
 
 Gross negligence, vol. 10, p. 
 548. 
 
 Negligence of servant, vol. 10, 
 p. 534. 
 
 When allowed, vol. 10, p. 548. 
 
 EXEMPTION FROM LIA- 
 BILITY. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 EXEMPTION FROM TAXA- 
 TION. 
 
 See Consolidation. 
 Taxation. 
 
 EXPERIMENTS. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 EXPERT AND OPINION EVI- 
 DENCE. 
 
 Opinion as to damages, vol. 8, 
 p. 411. 
 
 EXPLOSIVES. 
 Carrier Not Bound to Receive 
 Certain Goods. 
 Vol. 4, p. 306. 
 Criminal liability, vol. 4, p. 
 
 307. 
 Duty to give carrier notice, 
 vol. 4, p. 307. 
 
 EXPRESS MESSENGERS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Are passengers, vol. 9, p. 835. 
 
 EXTRAORDINARY CARE. 
 
 Vol. 9, p. 655. 
 
 EXTRA TRAINS. 
 
 Injuries to section hands, vol. 
 4, p. 545. 
 
 FARM CROSSINGS. 
 Vol. 9, pp. 198, 336. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 See furisdiction. 
 
 FEDERAL STATUTES. 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 147 
 
 FELLO"W SERVANTS. 
 Vol. 9, p. 9. 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 Employer's Liability Acts. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Blasters and teamsters are, vol. 
 20, p. 296. 
 
 Blasting crew and foreman 
 having- charge of dynamite 
 may be, vol. 20, p. 296. 
 
 Brakeman not felloyy servant 
 of car inspector, vol. 19, p. 
 435. 
 
 Burden of proof, vol. 14, p. 624. 
 
 Car inspectors are not vice 
 principals, vol. 14, p. 558. 
 
 Car inspectors are vice princi- 
 pals, vol. 10, p. 877; vol. 14, 
 p. 558. 
 
 Concurring negligence of mas- 
 ter and fellow servant, vol. 
 12, p. 791 ; vol. 16, p. 570. 
 
 Conductor as vice principal, 
 vol. 8, p. 630. I 
 
 Constitutionality of employer's 
 liability act, vol. 9, p. 816. 
 
 Constitutionality of Iowa stat- 
 ute, vol. 9, p. 9. 
 
 Criterion of fellow service, vol. 
 12, p. 684; vol. 16, p. 570; 
 vol. 20, p. 491. 
 
 Different Department Limitation 
 
 of Fellow-Servant Rule. 
 
 Apparently favoring doc- 
 trine, vol. 22, p. 847. 
 
 Authorities supporting doc- 
 trine, vol. 22, p. 847. 
 
 Effect of consociation or ab- 
 sence of consociation on 
 application of doctrine, vol. 
 22, p. 847. 
 
 General statements of doc- 
 trine, vol. 22, p. 847. 
 
 Illustrations supporting doc- 
 trine, vol. 22, p. 847. 
 
 Rejection of doctrine, illus- 
 trations, vol. 22, p. 847. 
 
 Weight of authority against 
 doctrine, vol. 22, p. 847. 
 Employee's knowledge of fellow 
 
 servant's incompetency as 
 
 notice to master, vol. 14, p. 
 
 624. 
 
 Employees of One Railroad as 
 Fellow Servants of Employees 
 of Another Company. 
 
 Are fellow servants, vol. 22, 
 p. 455. 
 
 Are, when working under di- 
 rections of servants of an- 
 other company, vol. 22, p. 
 455. 
 
 FELLOW SERVANTS— Co«i'rf. 
 
 Engineer and employee of 
 coal company directing as 
 to time and place for dump- 
 ing cars, are, vol. 22, p. 455. 
 
 Express or implied consent of 
 servant necessary to trans- 
 fer of services, vol. 22, p, 
 455. 
 
 In general, vol. 22, p. 455. 
 
 Not fellow servants, vol. 22, 
 p. 455. 
 
 Employees of Different Trains. 
 
 Brakeman and engineer are, 
 vol. 20, p. 489. 
 
 Brakeman of freight train 
 acting as switchman and 
 engineer of passenger train 
 are, vol. 20, p. 489. 
 
 Conductor and brakeman are, 
 vol. 20, p. 489. 
 
 Conductor and brakeman held 
 not to be, vol. 20, p. 490. 
 
 Conductor and fireman are 
 not, vol. 20, p. 491. 
 
 Conductor of construction 
 train and fireman of pas- 
 senger train are, vol. 20, p. 
 489. 
 
 Conductor of wild train and 
 laborer on gravel train are 
 not, vol. 20, p. 491. 
 
 Engineer and conductor are 
 not, vol. 20, p. 491. 
 
 Engineer and fireman are, 
 vol. 20, p. 490. 
 
 Engineer and those in charge 
 of another train are not, 
 vol. 20, p. 491. 
 
 Engineers are, vol. 20, p. 490. 
 
 Expressman and baggage- 
 man of passenger train and 
 employees of freight train 
 are not, vol. 20, p. 491. 
 
 Held not to be fellow serv- 
 ants, vol. 20, p. 490. 
 
 Wreckers and trainmen of 
 another train are, vol. 20, 
 p. 490. 
 Employer's liability act, vol. 9, 
 
 pp. 481, 816. 
 Engineer and brakeman, vol. 
 
 4, p. 668. 
 Engineer and brakeman on 
 
 another train, vol. 9, p. 433. 
 Engineer and foreman, vol. 9, 
 
 p. 829. 
 Engineer and switchman are, 
 
 vol. 14, p. 574. 
 Engineer and switchman are 
 
 not, vol. 14, p. 574. 
 Express messenger and engi- 
 neer, vol. 5, p. 39. 
 
148 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 FELLOW SERVANTS— Cont'd. 
 
 Florida statute, vol. 12, p. 735. 
 
 Foreman and conductor, vol. 4, 
 p. 487. 
 
 Foreman and engineer, vol. 4, 
 p. 487. 
 
 Having charge of dangerous 
 instrumentalities does not 
 prevent employee from being 
 fellow servant of other em- 
 ployees, vol. 20, p. 296. 
 
 In general, vol. 9, pp. 9, 11. 
 
 Injury to servant through neg- 
 ligence of fellow servant in 
 selection of appliances, vol. 
 
 11, p. IS. 
 
 Kansas Statute. 
 
 Contracts in contravention 
 
 of, vol. 12, p. 703. 
 Interpretation, vol. 12, p. 703. 
 Receivership does not affect, 
 
 vol. 12, p. 70S. 
 Scope, vol. 12, p. 703. 
 To what servants applicable, 
 vol. 12, p. 703. 
 
 Kentucky doctrine as to liabil- 
 ity of master for negligence 
 of fellow servant, vol. 19, p. 
 290. 
 
 Liability of master for incom- 
 petency of fellow servants, 
 vol. 10, p. 617. 
 
 Machinists, vol. 6, p. 614. 
 
 Mechanics, vol. 6, p. 614. 
 
 Negligence of fellow servant in 
 keeping roadway of railroad 
 in proper condition is, as to 
 employee injured thereby, 
 chargeable to master, vol. 12, 
 p. 719. 
 
 Particular cases, vol. 9, pp. 9, 
 11. 
 
 Eoadmasters as, vol. 17, p. 420. 
 
 Section boss and hands, vol. 6, 
 p. 600. 
 
 Section foreman not fellow 
 servant of trainmen, vol. 12, 
 p. 684. 
 
 Servants in common service 
 under common master, vol. 
 
 12, p. 6S2. 
 
 Switchmen and trainmen are, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 439. 
 Telegraph operator as fellow 
 
 servant of trainmen, vol. 18, 
 
 p. S43. 
 Telegraph operator not fellow 
 
 servant of trainmen, vol. 18, 
 
 p. S44. 
 To what servants rule is appli- 
 cable, vol. 9, p. 9. 
 Trackmen and train hands are, 
 
 vol. 14, p. S86. 
 
 PBLLO"W SERVANTS— Co«if' or. 
 
 Train dispatcher as a fellow 
 servant, vol. 11, p. 404. 
 
 Train dispatcher is a vice prin- 
 cipal, vol. 14, p. 609. 
 
 Trainmen and conductor on 
 same train are, vol. 14, p. 
 638. 
 
 Trainmen and Other Employees 
 Riding on Train. 
 Blacksmith riding to work 
 
 and engineer are, vol. 20, 
 
 p. 214. 
 Carpenter riding to work and 
 
 engineer are, vol. 20, p. 214. 
 Conductor and surveyor are, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 214. 
 Construction hand riding to 
 
 work and engineer are, vol. 
 
 20, p. 214. 
 Foreman of construction 
 
 hands and engineer are not, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 21S. 
 General rule, vol. 20, p. 213. 
 Laborer on construction train 
 
 and engineer are, vol. 20, 
 
 p. 214. 
 Laborer on gravel train and 
 
 engineer are, vol. 20, p. 214. 
 Mechaaic riding to and from 
 
 work and trainmen are not, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 21S. 
 Not fellow servants in juris- 
 dictions where different 
 
 department limitation is 
 
 controlling, vol. 20, p. 21S. 
 Road master, conductor and 
 
 engineer are, vol. 20, p. 
 
 214. 
 Section foreman riding to 
 
 work and conductor of re- 
 pair train are not, vol. 20, 
 
 p. 215. 
 Section hand riding to work 
 
 and conductor and engineer 
 
 are, vol. 20, p. 215. 
 Servant riding to work and 
 
 train guard are, vol. 20, p. 
 
 214. 
 Trainmen and laborer on 
 
 gravel train riding to work 
 
 are, vol. 20, p. 215. 
 Trainmen and roundhouse 
 
 employees are, vol. 14, p. 
 
 624. 
 
 Vice principal, vol. 9, p. 211. 
 Watchman and gripman, vol. 
 14, p. 574. 
 
 FENCE LAW. 
 Constitutionality, vol. 9, p. 274. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 149 
 
 FENCES. 
 
 See Children. 
 Gates. 
 
 Judicial Notice. 
 Pleading. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Burden of proof as to com- 
 pany's knowledge of defect, 
 vol. 19, p. ISO. 
 . Cities and towns, vol. 5, p. 186. 
 Duty of landowner to notify 
 company of deficiency in 
 fence, vol. IS, p. S68. 
 Duty to fence at switches and 
 sidings, vol. 11, p. 267. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Notice of defect in fence 
 implied from lapse of time, 
 vol. 19, p. ISO. 
 Notice of defect in original 
 construction of fence need 
 not be proved, vol. 19, p. 
 ISO. 
 
 Frightening teams, vol. S, p. 
 284. 
 
 Lack of reasonable time to re- 
 pair fence must be pleaded, 
 
 , vol. 19, p. 153. 
 
 Liability for injuries to ani- 
 mals unlawfully at large, 
 where failure to fence track, 
 vol. 19, p. 726. 
 
 Liability for injuries to stock 
 passing through culvert, un- 
 der statute requiring track to 
 be fenced, vol. 20, p. 237. 
 
 Liability for injury to animals 
 fixed by place of entry, vol. 
 8, p. 684. 
 
 Liability for injury to employee 
 as affected by violation of 
 statute requiring track to be 
 fenced, vol. 19, p. 147. 
 
 Liability for killing stock 
 where owner failed to comply 
 with fence law, vol. 19, p. 728. 
 
 No duty to fence track within 
 city limits, vol. 11, p. 651. 
 
 Notice of defect, vol. 19, p. 149. 
 
 Notice of defect implied from 
 lapse of time, vol. 19, p. ISO. 
 
 Notice of defect in original 
 construction need not be 
 proved, vol. 19, p. ISO. 
 
 Notice of defects required from 
 landowner, vol. 19, p. l.SO. 
 
 Repairs must be made in rea- 
 sonable time, vol. 19, p. 151. 
 
 FIRES. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Appliances, Duty of Company 
 as to. 
 
 'WXB.'EB—Continued. 
 
 General rule, vol. IS, p. 509. 
 
 Most approved appliances, 
 vol. 15, p. Sll. 
 
 I^eed not buy all patents, vol. 
 IS, p. 512. 
 
 Preventing escape of fire ab- 
 solutely, vol. IS, p. 510. 
 
 Combustibles on Right of Way. 
 
 Vol. IS, p. 509. 
 Dry grass, vol. IS, p. S09. 
 
 Company's liability as ware- 
 houseman, vol. 15, p. 498. 
 
 Company not liable when free 
 from negligence, vol. 15, p. 
 497. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Combustibles near right of 
 way, vol. 10, pp. 70S, 878; 
 vol. 15, p. 513. 
 
 Effect of, in case of fire, 
 where statute makes rail- 
 road insurer, vol. 15, p. 498. 
 
 Failure to attempt to extin- 
 guish fire, vol. 15, p. 514. 
 
 Plaintiff's duty to guard 
 against fires, generally, 
 vol. IS, p. S13. 
 
 Stacking grain and hay near 
 track a question for jury, 
 vol. 15, p. 513. 
 
 Whether land owner is guilty 
 of contributory negligence 
 in allowing combustibles to 
 accumulate near right of 
 way, vol. 11, p. 272. 
 Degree of care required of com- 
 pany, generally, vol. 15, p. 
 
 508. 
 
 Duty as to Fuel Used. 
 Fuel in common use, vol. IS, 
 
 p. 513. 
 Wood used as fuel, vol. 15, p. 
 
 S13. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Vol. 6, pp. 193, 206; vol. 9, 
 pp. 135, 493. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 
 value of trees destro3'ed, 
 
 vol. 8, p. 665. 
 Fact constituting negligence 
 
 must be proved, vol. 12, p. 
 
 845. 
 Origin of fire, vol. IS, p. 518. 
 Other fires, vol. 12, p. 848; 
 
 vol. 15, p. 518. 
 That claim for other goods 
 
 burned at same time was 
 
 paid, vol. 12, p. 848. 
 Value of trees destroyed by 
 
 fire, vol. 15, p. 519. 
 
150 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 'P1R'E&— Continued. 
 Insurance. 
 
 Inability to procure, as affect- 
 ing company's liability, 
 vol. IS, p. 5S7. 
 Intervening Cause. 
 
 Burning oil in stream, vol. 
 IS, p. SOS. 
 
 Fire breaking out afresh, 
 vol. IS, p. 508. 
 
 Wind an intervening cause, 
 vol. IS, p. S07. 
 
 Wind not an intervening 
 cause, vol. IS, p. 506. 
 Personal Injuries. 
 
 Company's liability, vol. 15, 
 p. 498.- 
 
 Injury caused by attempt to 
 extinguish fire, vol. IS, p. 
 499. 
 Plaintiff's duty to guard 
 
 against fires, vol. 10, p. 690. 
 Presumption of Negligence. 
 
 Constitutionality of statutes 
 making occurrence of fire 
 presumptive evidence of 
 negligence, vol. IS, p. 517. 
 
 Presumption arises, vol. 15, 
 p. SIS. 
 
 Presumption does not arise, 
 vol. IS, p. 517. 
 Proximate Cause. 
 
 Question for jury, vol. IS, p. 
 501. 
 
 Question of law, vol. 15, p. 
 S04. 
 
 Test, vol. IS, p. 500. 
 
 Where fire spreads to other 
 property, vol. 15, p. 499. 
 
 Where injury is received 
 while attempting to extin- 
 guish fire, vol. IS, p. 499. 
 Statutes affecting company's 
 
 liability construed, vol. IS, 
 
 p. 499. 
 Statute Making Railroad In- 
 surer. 
 
 Constitutionality, vol. IS, p. 
 498. 
 
 Effect of contributory negli- 
 gence under, vol. 15, p. 498. 
 
 Subrogation of insurer, vol. 
 14, p. 144; vol. 15, p. 519. 
 
 FLAGMAN. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Floods, vol. 5, p. 79. 
 
 Forcible entry to condemn land 
 wrongfully taken by a rail- 
 road, vol. 6, p. SCO. 
 
 Frightening horses, vol. S, p. 
 294. 
 
 FORECLOSURE. 
 See Mortgages. 
 
 FORECLOSURE SALE. 
 Exemption of railroad from 
 
 taxation as affected by, vol. 
 
 14, p. 199. 
 Right of purchaser of railroad 
 
 to earnings before completion 
 
 of sale, vol. 14, p. 817. 
 
 FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain, 
 Removal of Cause. 
 Taxation. 
 Service of process on agent of, 
 vol. 15, p. 425. 
 
 FOREIGN STATUTES. 
 See Statutes. 
 
 FORFEITURE. 
 See Franchises. 
 
 FRANCHISES. 
 
 See Alienation of Franchises. 
 Ultra Vires. 
 Acquisition of railroad fran- 
 chises by purchaser at fore- 
 closure sale, vol. 20, p. 349. 
 Acquisition of railroad fran- 
 chises by purchaser at fore- 
 closure sale where purchaser 
 is an individual, vol. 20, p. 
 349. 
 Corporate franchises are subject 
 to legislation affecting reme- 
 dies, vol. 11, p. 342. 
 Execution, vol. 10, p. 774. 
 Forfeiture. 
 Abandonment of road, vol. 
 
 17, p. 624. 
 Absence from state, vol. 17, 
 
 p. 623. 
 Cannot be taken advantage of 
 
 collaterally, vol. 17, p. 628. 
 Failure to construct road, vol. 
 
 17, p. 623. 
 Failure to operate road, vol. 
 
 17, p. 624. 
 Failure to pay stock subscrip- 
 tion not ground for, vol. 
 
 17, p. 625. 
 Forfeiture must be judicially 
 
 ascertained where nonuser 
 
 or misuser is the ground, 
 
 vol. 17, p. 625. 
 Nonresidence of officers and 
 
 directors, vol. 17, p. 623. 
 Nonuser or misuser, vol. 17, 
 
 p. 622. 
 Nonuser or misuser ihust be 
 
 positive and wilful act, vol. 
 
 17, p. 624. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 151 
 
 FRANCHISES— Co«^i»«srf. 
 Parties, vol. 17, p. 627. 
 Power of court to appoint 
 
 receiver in adjudging, vol. 
 
 17, p. 628. 
 Statutory declaration of, vol. 
 
 17, p. 626. 
 Suing in federal court not 
 
 ground for, vol. 17, p. 62S. 
 Transfer and sale of property, 
 
 vol. 17, p. 624. 
 Waiver by statute, vol. 17, p. 
 
 629. 
 Reserved right to revoke, alter 
 or amend charter or fran- 
 chise, vol. 1, p. 121. 
 Sale under execution, vol. 20, 
 
 p. 349. 
 Who may avoid a public grant 
 and how, vol. 11, p. 119. 
 
 FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. 
 
 Agreement by railroad to stop 
 
 at particular places, vol. 6, p. 
 
 715. 
 Verbal agreement as to the 
 
 location of stations, vol. 6, 
 
 p. 715. 
 Verbal contract by railroad to 
 
 maintain switch for benefit of 
 
 shippers, vol. 6, p. 714. 
 
 FREE PASSES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 FREIGHT TRAINS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Assumption of increased risks 
 by passenger, vol. 10, p. 263. 
 
 liiability of carrier as to per- 
 sons riding- on, vol. 9, p. 
 668. 
 
 Liability of company as car- 
 riers of passengers, vol. 2, pp. 
 17, 22; vol. 10, p. 263. 
 
 FRIGHT. 
 Injuries resulting from fright, 
 
 vol. 8, p. 218. 
 Liability for injuries received 
 
 by passenger through fright, 
 
 vol. 7, p. 584. 
 
 FRIGHTENING HORSES. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 fudicial Notice. 
 Vol. 1, p. 68; vol. S, p. 282; 
 vol. 6, p. 501; vol. 7, p. 
 733; vol. 9, pp. 30, 724. 
 Absence of guards, vol. 5, p. 
 
 291. 
 Attempt to cross on invitation 
 of flagman, vol. 5, p. 295. 
 
 FRIGHTENING HORSES— 
 Continued. 
 
 Automatic valves, vol. 5, p. 290. 
 Blowing whistle, vol. 9, p. 724. 
 Bridges, vol. 5, p. 289. 
 Cars on or near highways, vol. 
 
 5, p. 291. 
 Continuance of noise after horse 
 
 has taken fright, vol. S, p. 
 
 286. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Attempt to escape from dan- 
 ger, vol. 5, p. 299. 
 
 Hand car, vol. 5, p. 299. 
 
 Horse left unhitched, vol. 5, 
 p. 300. 
 
 Infant, vol. 5, p. 299. 
 
 Stop, look and listen, vol. 5, 
 p. 299. 
 
 Team easily frightened, vol. 
 S, p. 300. 
 
 Vicious horse, vol. 5, p. 300. 
 Damages, vol. 5, p. 304. 
 Derrick, vol. 5, p. 295. 
 Duty to erect fences or barrier 
 
 to screen the highway, vol. 
 
 5, p. 284. 
 Duty to give warning of ap- 
 proach, vol. 5, p. 287. 
 Duty to give warning whfire 
 
 person whose horse was 
 
 frightened had no intention 
 
 to cross, vol. 5, p. 298. 
 Electric cars, vol. 9, p. 725. 
 Escape of steam, vol. 5, pp. 284, 
 
 289; vol. 9, p. 724. / 
 
 Escape of steam from car stand- 
 ing on track, vol. 5, p. 297. 
 Escape of steam where highway 
 
 is obstructed, vol. 5, p. 293. 
 Evidence, vol. 5, p. 303. 
 Flagman, vol. 5, p. 295. 
 Generally, vol. 22, p. 440. 
 Hand car obstructing highway, 
 
 vol. 5, p. 293. 
 Horse frightened after crossing 
 
 track, vol. 5, p. 283. 
 Intervening agency, vol. 5, p. 
 
 298. 
 Judicial notice, vol. 5, p. 303. 
 Liability in general, vol. 5, p. 
 
 283. 
 Malicious acts of railroad's serv- 
 ants, vol. S, p. 291. 
 Negligence in sounding whistle, 
 
 question for jury, vol. 5, p. 
 
 302; vol. 9, p. 724. 
 Noises, vol. 5, p. 28S. 
 Noises, contrary to ordinance, 
 
 vol. 5, p. 287. 
 Obstruction of highways, vol. 
 
 5, p. 291. 
 Pleading, vol. 5, p. 303. 
 
152 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 FRIGHTENING HORSES — 
 
 Continued. 
 Proximate cause, vol. S, p. 296. 
 Questions of law and fact, vol. 
 
 S, p. 302; vol. 9, p. 724. 
 Ringing bell and sounding 
 
 whistle, vol. S, p. 285; vol. 9, 
 
 pp. 724, 726. 
 Signals, vol. 5, pp. 285, 287. 
 Sounding whistle, vol. 5, p. 
 
 285; vol. 9, pp. 724, 726. 
 Speed of train, vol. 5, p. 287. 
 Statute authorizing recovery of 
 
 animals run over by train, 
 
 vol. 5, p. 284. 
 Stop, look, and listen, vol. 5, 
 
 p. 299. 
 Vicious horses, vol. 5, p. 300. 
 Warning at bridge, vol, 5, p. 
 
 289. 
 Warning at crossings, vol. 5, p. 
 
 288. 
 Whether Railroad Company Is 
 
 Liable for Injury Resulting 
 
 from Malicious Conduct of Its 
 
 Employees in Frightening 
 
 Teams. 
 
 Held liable for wantonly 
 sounding whistle and injur- 
 ing horse grazing near 
 barbed-wire fence, vol. 22, 
 p. 440. 
 
 Not liable, vol. 22, p. 441. 
 
 FROGS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 FUNERAL, EXPENSES. 
 See Damages. 
 Vol. S, p. 682; vol. 9, p. 252; 
 vol. 10, p. 557. 
 
 GARNISHMENT. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Goods in depot, vol. 19, p. 206; 
 vol. 21, p. 501. 
 
 GATES. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Contributory negligence in 
 
 crossing when safety gates 
 
 are closed, vol. IS, p. 6. 
 Duty of company to make 
 
 gates, bars and crossings for 
 
 landowners, vol. 15, p. 567. 
 Dutj' of landowner to give 
 
 notice of open gates, vol. IS, 
 
 p. S68. 
 Gate is part of fence, vol. 15, 
 
 p. 569. 
 
 GATES — Continued. 
 Liability of company where 
 
 landowner leaves gate . open, 
 
 vol. 15, p.- 568. 
 Open gates, as invitation to 
 
 cross, vol. 5, p. 666 ; vol. 7, p. 
 
 742; vol. 9, p. 709. 
 
 GRANTS. 
 Who may avoid a public grant, 
 and how, vol. 1, p. 119. 
 
 GRAVEL PITS. 
 See Railroads. 
 
 GROSS NEGLIGENCE. 
 See Ordinances. 
 
 GUARANTY. 
 
 See Railroads. 
 
 HAOKMEN. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Stations and Depots, 
 
 Exclusion from station, vol. 8, 
 
 p. 661 ; vol. 22, p. SIS. 
 Power to designate location of 
 hack stands, vol. 7, p. 733. 
 
 HAND OARS. 
 
 Running into hand car, vol. 4, 
 p. 544. 
 
 HIGHWAYS. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Streets and Highways. 
 
 Bridges as part of highways, 
 vol. 1, p. 213. 
 
 Dedication of land for high- 
 ways, vol. 1, pp. 12, IS. 
 
 Duty of railway companies as 
 to maintenance of ways lead- 
 ing to its stations and yards, 
 vol. 5, p. 418. 
 
 Restoration of highway, vol. 9, 
 p. 272. 
 
 Right of abutting owner to 
 enjoin use of street by rail- 
 road, vol. 10, p. 221. 
 
 Right of public to use railroad 
 track as footpath when it is 
 in the highway, vol. 10, p. 
 504. 
 
 Right of street railway in, vol. 
 6, pp. 110, 113. 
 
 HORSES. 
 
 See Ft ightening Teams. 
 
 HOTELS. 
 
 See Railroads. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 153 
 
 lOB. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 ILLEGAL ARREST. 
 See Arrest. 
 
 IMPROVEMENTS . 
 
 See Eminent Dotnain. 
 Local Assessments. 
 
 IMPUTABLE NEGLIGENCE. 
 See Children. 
 Negligence. 
 
 Prevalence of doctrine, vol. 2, 
 p. 682 ; vol. 8, p. 437 ; vol. 10, 
 p. 837. 
 
 INDEPENDENT CONTRACT- 
 ORS. 
 
 See Railroads. 
 
 Direction by company, vol. 13, 
 p. 468. 
 
 Effect of superintendence of 
 work by company, vol. 13, p. 
 468. 
 
 Liability of company for neg- 
 ligence of, generally, vol. 13, 
 pp. 91, 467. 
 
 INDICTMENT. 
 
 Obstruction of travel, vol. 1, p. 
 70. 
 
 INEVITABLE ACCIDENTS. 
 
 Vol. 9, p. 659. 
 
 INJUNCTIONS. 
 
 See Ejectment. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Railroads. 
 Injunction not granted to pre- 
 vent street railway from 
 crossing railroad, vol. 18, p. 
 441. 
 Right of abutting owners to 
 enjoin railroads in street, vol. 
 4, p. 271 ; vol. 10, pp. 126, 221. 
 Use of railroad right of way by 
 telegraph company, vol. 13, p. 
 422. 
 Wrongful use of street, vol. 1, 
 p. 50. 
 
 INSANE PERSONS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Kefusal of carrier to carry in- 
 sane persons, vol. 6, pp. 266, 
 271. 
 
 INSPECTION. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carrie} s of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Foreign cars, vol. 9, p. 788; 
 vol. 11, p. 24. 
 
 INSPECTION OP TRACKS. 
 Vol. 9, p. 610. 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS. 
 
 Conflicting instructions, vol. 
 
 10, p. 559. 
 Scope of, in action for negli- 
 gence, vol. 12, p. 21. 
 
 INSULTS AND ABUSE. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Fires. 
 Life insurance as reducing 
 
 damages, vol. 3, p. 380. 
 Subrogation of insurer, vol. 15, 
 p. 557. 
 
 INTEREST. 
 
 Vol. 9, p. 409. 
 See Damages. 
 
 Matured coupons, vol. 9, p. 327. 
 
 When interest not recoverable 
 as part of the damages for 
 killing stock, vol. 10, p. 111. 
 
 When interest recoverable as 
 part of the damages for kill- 
 ing stock, vol. 10, p. 111. 
 
 INSOLVENCY. 
 
 See Preferential Claims. 
 Receivers. 
 Expenses of operation and man- 
 agement, vol. 9, p. 590. 
 
 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
 
 Act prohibiting discriminatiorr 
 applicable to contracts made 
 prior to its passage, vol. 22, 
 p. 267. 
 
 Action may be maintained for 
 loss of freight through negli- 
 gence although contract pro- 
 vided for rates. in' violation of 
 interstate commerce law, vol. 
 22, p. 268. 
 
 Competition as justifying dif- 
 ference in rates, vol. 13, p. 
 313. 
 
 Constitutionality of statutes 
 prohibiting the transportation 
 of diseased live stock, vol. 4, 
 p. 630. 
 
 Interpretation of act, vol. 9, p. 
 640. 
 
 License tax on corporation en- 
 gaged in, vol. 9, p. 36; vol. 
 14, p. 208. 
 
 Power of commissions to fix 
 rates, vol. -9, p. 640. 
 
1S4 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 INTERSTATE COMMERCE— 
 Continued. 
 
 Rebates, vol. 13, p. 297. 
 
 Recovery of excess of rate 
 
 charged over agreed rate, 
 
 where latter is in excess of 
 
 ' interstate commerce schedule, 
 
 vol. 13, p. 277. 
 
 Shipments between points in 
 same state, but passing 
 through another state, vol. 
 
 21, p. 148. 
 
 Statutes regulating stoppage of 
 
 trains, vol. 7, p. SS8. 
 Stopping Trains at County 
 Seats. 
 Constitutionality of statute, 
 
 vol. 14, p. 851. 
 Not a violation of federal 
 constitution, vol. 14, p. 851. 
 Supreme court's modification 
 of general rule, vol. 14, p. 
 851. 
 Sunday laws, interference with 
 interstate commerce, vol. 4, 
 p. 505. 
 Whether there may be recovery 
 for a breach of contract pro- 
 viding for rates prohibited by 
 interstate commerce law, vol. 
 
 22, p. 267. 
 
 INTERVENING- CAUSE. 
 See Fires. 
 
 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 
 Carrier as purchaser's agent, 
 vol. 16, p. 185. 
 
 INTOXICATION. 
 
 See Carriers of Passens^ers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Drunkenness. 
 
 JOINDER. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Parties. 
 
 JOINT TORT-FEASORS. 
 
 Street railway collisions, vol. 
 9, p. 151. 
 
 JUDICIAL NOTICE. 
 Capacity of car, vol. 16, p. 586. 
 Checking baggage, vol. 16, p. 
 
 585. 
 Comparative assessed values of 
 
 different railroad lines, vol. 
 
 16, p. 587. 
 Competing lines, vol. 16, p. 
 
 586. 
 Construction of road, vol. 16, p. 
 
 582. 
 Corporate existence, vol. 16, p. 
 
 581. 
 Crossings, gates and gatekeep- 
 
 JUDICIAL NOTICE— Oiwif'rf. 
 
 ers promote safety, vol. 16, 
 
 p. 585. 
 Cultivation of right of way by 
 
 abutting owners, vol. 16, p. 
 
 586. 
 Express business, vol. 16, p. 
 
 587. 
 Extent of railway system, vol. 
 
 16, p. 582. 
 Fences, vol. 16, p. 585. 
 Foreign statutes, vol. 16, p. 581. 
 Incidents of travel, vol. 16, p. 
 
 584. 
 Inspection of cars, vol. 16, p. 
 
 586. 
 Killing stock, vol. 16, p. 586. 
 Land grant, vol. 16, p. 583. 
 Liability of car to frighten 
 
 horses, vol. 16, p. 586. 
 Location of road, vol. 16, p. 
 
 582. 
 Loss of arm in accident, vol. 
 
 16, p. 586. 
 Management of railroads, vol. 
 
 16, p. 583. 
 Matters relating to railways, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 580. 
 Name of railroad, vol. 16, p. 
 
 581. 
 Negligence, reasonable care, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 586. 
 Powers and duties of officers 
 
 and employees, vol. 16, p. 584. 
 Residence of corporation, vol. 
 
 16, p. 582. 
 Seal of company, vol. 16, p. 
 
 582. 
 Speed down grade, vol. 16, p. 
 - 585. 
 Unblocked frogs and switches, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 585. 
 
 JURISDICTION. 
 
 See Receivers. 
 
 As dependent upon county lines, 
 vol. 5, p. 633. 
 
 Court appointing receiver may 
 retain jurisdiction, after his 
 discharge of claims arising 
 during receivership, vol. 13, 
 p. 666. 
 
 Death caused by injuries in- 
 flicted in other states, vol. 6, 
 p. SO; vol. 9, p. 352. 
 
 Federal Jurisdiction. 
 Incorporation of railroad in 
 another state as affecting, 
 vol. 15, p. 374. 
 
 Whether action against master 
 and servant for servant's neg- 
 ligence may be removed to 
 federal court on ground of 
 existence of separable contro- 
 versy, vol. 21, p. 87. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 155 
 
 LABORERS. 
 
 See Liens. 
 LACHES. 
 Vendor's laches do not affect 
 his right of stoppage in tran- 
 situ, vol. 16, p. 253. 
 
 LAND. 
 
 See Railroads. 
 Right of Way. 
 
 LAND GRANTS. 
 
 See Judicial Notice. 
 Public Lands. 
 
 LANDSLIDES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 LATENT DEFECTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 LEASES AND RUNNING 
 PO"WERS. 
 
 See Competing Lines. 
 Ultra Vires. 
 
 Competing road, vol. 7, p. 346. 
 
 Effect of statute prohibiting 
 leases of right to use track, 
 vol. 4, p. 419. 
 
 Lessor's liability for injuries 
 inflicted while its road is 
 operated by lessee, vol. 20, p. 
 847. 
 
 Liability for injuries to pas- 
 senger in collision caused by 
 company having statutory 
 running powers over defend- 
 ant's line, vol. 19, p. 522. 
 
 Liability of lessor for defects 
 in construction, vol. 7, p. 665. 
 
 Liability of lessor for failure 
 to maintain fences, vol. 7, p. 
 666. 
 
 Liability of lessor generally, 
 vol. 7, p. 665. 
 
 Liability of master for injury 
 to employee caused by defect- 
 ive track owned by another 
 company, vol. 20, p. 107. 
 
 Whether constitutional prohibi- 
 tion against consolidation of 
 competing lines prevents leas- 
 ing, vol. 11, p. 381; vol. 15, 
 p. 841. 
 
 LICENSEES. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Trespassers. 
 Care due from railroad company 
 to licensees, general rule, vol. 
 20, p. 399. 
 Care due to bare licensee, vol. 
 20, p. 400. 
 
 LICENSEES— Co»«»«ear. 
 
 Care required of licensee while 
 walking at night on track, 
 vol. 20, p. 396. 
 
 Duty to give signals at points 
 used as crossings by li- 
 censees, vol. 20, p. 399. 
 
 Duty to give warning where 
 track within city is used as 
 footpath, vol. 20, p. 396. 
 
 Duty to licensee on right of 
 way, vol. 20, p. 396. 
 
 Duty to persons using crossing 
 leading from private premises 
 to owner's well, vol. 20, p. 
 399. 
 
 Implied license to cross siding 
 on unfenced lot in city, vol. 
 20, p. 397. 
 
 Implied license to cross switch 
 track in railroad yard, vol. 20, 
 p. 397. 
 
 Implied license to cross track at 
 point reached by stairs con- 
 structed by persons using 
 track, vol. 20, p. 397. 
 
 Implied license to public to cross 
 track at its junction with 
 road kept open for company's 
 employees, vol. 20, p. 397. 
 
 Implied license to public to use 
 crossing leading only to pri- 
 vate premises, vol. 20, p. 398. 
 
 Implied license to school chil- 
 dren to use footpath, vol. 20, 
 p. 398. 
 
 Implied license to use footway 
 over railroad property, vol. 
 20, p. 394. 
 
 Implied license to use railroad 
 bridge as footpath, vol. 20, p. 
 394. 
 
 Invitation to cross switch im- 
 plied from habit of leaving 
 space between cars, vol. 20, 
 p. 398. 
 
 Invitation to public to use pri- 
 vate crossing implied from 
 construction of bridge, vol. 
 20, p. 398. 
 
 License not implied from use 
 of track as footpath, vol. 20, 
 p. 395. 
 
 License to use implied from 
 construction by railroad of 
 private crossing in city, vol. 
 20, p. 398. 
 
 License to implied use from 
 construction of crossing over 
 private road, vol. 20, p. 398. 
 
 No invitation to cross fenced 
 track implied from user for 
 four years, vol. 20, p. 399. 
 
156 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 LICENSEES — Continued. 
 
 Notice to servant of habitual 
 use of trestle by licensee, 
 when notice to master, vol. 
 20, p. 396. 
 
 Not liable to licensee on track 
 in absence of wilfulness or 
 wantonness, vol. 20, p. 396. 
 
 Person having business in 
 freight office injured in 
 freight yard is not a licensee, 
 
 . vol. 20, p. 395. 
 
 Where license to cross track is 
 implied, vol. 20, p. 397. 
 
 Where license to use roadbed 
 as footpath is implied from 
 use without objection, vol. 20, 
 p. 394. 
 
 Where license to use track as 
 footpath is not implied, vol. 
 20, p. 395. 
 
 Whether use of right of way as 
 footpath for over twenty years 
 by the public is evidence of a 
 license, vol. 20, p. 3%. 
 
 LICENSE TAX. 
 See Taxation. 
 
 LIENS. 
 
 Claims for personal injuries, 
 
 vol. 10, p. 795. 
 Contractors as laborers, vol. 12, 
 
 p. 863. 
 
 LIFE EXPECTANCY. 
 Vol. 8, p. 398. 
 
 LIFE TABLES. . 
 
 See Mortality Tables. 
 
 LIGHTING STATIONS. 
 Vol. 6, p. 186. 
 
 LIGHTS. 
 
 See Stations and Depots. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute re- 
 quiring railroads to light por- 
 tions of their roads, vol. 9, 
 p. 198. 
 
 LIMITATION OP ACTIONS. 
 See Adverse Possession. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Death by wrongful act, vol. 10, 
 p. 873. 
 . Eminent domain, vol. 1, p. 51. 
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 LIVE STOCK. 
 
 See Carriers of Live Stock. 
 
 LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. 
 See Taxation. 
 
 Contract exempting street rail- 
 way and requiring it to keep 
 street in repair, validity,' 
 vol. 20, p. 274. 
 
 Liability of Riglit of Way and 
 Roadbed to Assessment for 
 Local Improvements. 
 
 Company having mere license 
 to run trains over tracks of 
 another company not assess- 
 able on account of it, vol. 
 20, p. 273. 
 
 Must be specially benefited, 
 vol.' 20, p. 269. 
 
 Not assessable for cost of 
 street paving, vol. 20, p. 
 271. 
 
 Not assessable for paving 
 sidewalk, vol. 20, p. 272. 
 
 Not for cost of opening adja- 
 cent street, vol. 20j p. 272. 
 
 Not for cost of opening street 
 across track, vol. 20, p. 272. 
 
 Right of way and track not 
 assessable as abutting prop- 
 erty, vol. 20, p. 271. 
 
 Right of way liable to assess- 
 ment for construction of 
 turnpike, vol. 20, p. 270. 
 
 Right of way liable to assess- 
 ment for cost of construct- 
 ing sewer in adjoining 
 street, vol. 20, p. 269. 
 
 Right of way liable to assess- 
 ment for cost of construct- 
 ing sewer in same street, 
 vol. 20, p. 269. 
 
 Right of way liable to assess- 
 ment for drainage benefits, 
 vol. 20, p. 270. 
 
 Right of way liable to assess- 
 ment for prior street im- 
 provements, vol. 20, p. 270. 
 
 Right of way liable to assess- 
 ment for street crossing 
 improvements, vol. 20, p. 
 270. 
 
 Right of way not assessable 
 for widening street, vol. 20, 
 p". 272. 
 
 Roadbed liable, vol. 20, p. 269. 
 
 Roadbed not liable, vol. 20, p. 
 271. 
 
 Special assessments on rail- 
 road propertj- through 
 which right of way extends, 
 held not invalid as an as- 
 sessment of the right of 
 way, vol. 20, p. 273. 
 
 Track liable as abutting prop- 
 erty, vol. 20, p. 271. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 157 
 
 LOCAL ASSESSMENTS— Cb«- 
 tinued. 
 
 Tracks and right of way not 
 liable to assessment for 
 street improvements, vol. 
 20, p. 271. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Assessable for widening 
 street, vol. 20, p. 273. 
 
 General rule, vol. 20, p. 273. 
 
 Liable to assessment for street 
 paving-, vol. 20, p. 273. 
 
 Not assessable for cost of new 
 pavetoients, vol. 20, p. 274. 
 
 Not assessable unless bene- 
 fited, vol. 20, p. 274. 
 
 Not considered benefited by 
 street paving, vol. 20, p. 
 274. 
 
 Roadbed not assessable under 
 charter provision as land 
 bordering on street, vol. 20, 
 p. 273. 
 
 Tracks assessable as real 
 estate for cost of paving 
 street, vol. 20, p. 273. 
 
 Validity of assessment on 
 abutting owner as affected 
 by failure to assess street 
 railway company, vol. 20, 
 p. 274. 
 
 LOCAL CARRIERS. 
 See'Hackmen. 
 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 LOOKOUTS. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 Railroads. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 LOOKOUT ON REAR OF 
 
 CAR. 
 
 Vol. 6, p. 318. 
 
 Lookout on rear of car back- 
 ing over crossing, vol. 12, 
 p. 374. . 
 
 MAIL BAGS. 
 Persons struck by, vol. 
 486. 
 
 6, p. 
 
 MAIL CLERKS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory negligence, vol. 
 5, p. 406. 
 
 MALICE. 
 
 See Frightening Teams. 
 
 MALICIOUS ACTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers, 
 
 MANDAMUS. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 Construction of bridge, vol. 12, 
 p. 860. 
 
 Increasing number of trains, 
 vol. 6, p. 260. 
 
 Operation of mixed trains, vol. 
 12, p. 243. 
 
 Operation of trains compelled, 
 vol. 6, p. 2S8; vol. 12, p. 242. 
 
 Stopping of trains at stations, 
 vol. 6, p. 258; vol. 12, p. 245. 
 
 To compel construction of 
 operation, vol. 6, pp. 667, 
 669. 
 
 Whether . mandamus will lie at 
 the instance of a private citi- 
 zen to compel the operation 
 of a road, vol. 11, p. 75. 
 
 MARKET VALUE. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 See Agents. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Discharge Lists. 
 Employer's Liability Acts. 
 Fellow Servants. 
 Fences. 
 
 Frightening Teams. 
 Medical Services. 
 ' Negligence. 
 Pes Gestiz. . 
 Trespassers. 
 Witnesses. 
 Appliances. 
 
 Absence of bunters at end of 
 track, vol. 12, p. 652. 
 
 Absence of jaw strap from 
 car, vol. 19, p. 434. 
 
 Best appliances, vol. 6, p. 
 584. 
 
 Burden of proving that mas- 
 ter had notice of defect in 
 appliance is on injured em- 
 ployee, vol. 12, p. 744. 
 
 Care required of master as to 
 inspection of appliances, 
 vol. 19, p. 428. 
 
 Defective appliances, servant 
 injured by, must show that 
 master had notice of, or 
 could, by the exercise of 
 reasonable care, have ob- 
 tained notice thereof, vol. 
 12, p. 744. 
 
 Defective grab iron, question 
 for jury, vol. 19, p. 434. 
 
 Defective hand holds, vol. 19, 
 p. 431. 
 
158 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Defective ladders, vol. 19, p. 
 434. 
 
 Duty of master as to inspec- 
 tion, vol. 19, p. 427. 
 
 Duty of master as to safe 
 track and machinery, vol. 
 16, p. 570. 
 
 Duty of master to inspect for 
 latent defects, vol. 19, p. 
 428. • 
 
 Duty to furnish automatic 
 couplers, vol. 14, p. 717. 
 
 Latent defect in hand holds, 
 question for jury, vol. 19, 
 p. 431. 
 
 Liability for negligence of 
 fellow servant in selection of 
 machinery, vol. 11, p. IS. 
 
 Only reasonable care in in- 
 specting required of either 
 masfer or servant, vol. 19, 
 p. 428. 
 
 Safe track and machinery, 
 degree of care in furnish- 
 ing, vol. 12, p. 66S. 
 
 Unblocked frogs and guard- 
 rails, vol. 12, p. 604. 
 Ashes in freight yard causing 
 
 injury to servant, vol. 12, p. 
 
 640. 
 
 Assaults. 
 
 Lawful force by conductor 
 assaulted by passengers, vol. 
 20, p. 442. 
 
 Liability for abduction of 
 boy by conductor, vol. 20, 
 p. 444. 
 
 Liability for assault at station 
 by police ofScer in employ- 
 ment of railroad company, 
 • vol. 20, p. 443. 
 
 Liability for assault by 
 motorman on driver of ob- 
 structing wagon, vol. 20, p. 
 445. 
 
 Liability for assault on boy 
 
 - by driver of street car, vol. 
 20, p. 445. 
 
 Liability for assault on fellow 
 servant, vol. 20, p. 444. 
 
 Liability for assault on pas- 
 senger by conductor resent- 
 ing insult, vol. 20, p. 442. 
 
 Liability for assault upon 
 person having no connec- 
 tion with the railroad com- 
 pany, vol. 20, p. 445. 
 
 Liability for attack with 
 deadly weapons in seizing 
 railroad of another com- 
 pany, vol. 20, p. 444. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 
 Continued. 
 
 Liability for homicide by 
 station agent, vol. 20, p. 
 443. 
 
 Liability for killing of cus- 
 tomer by station agent, vol. 
 20, p. 443. 
 
 Liability for assault by sta- 
 tion agent on person at 
 depot to receive freight, 
 vol. 20, p. 443. 
 
 Liability of carrier for as- 
 sault on passenger by serv- 
 ant not in line of duty, 
 vol. 20, p. 442. 
 
 Liability of railroad com- 
 pany for act of conductor 
 in shooting person who had 
 broken into car, vol. 20, p. 
 443. 
 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for assault by employees not 
 acting within scope of em- 
 ployment, vol. 20, p. 442. 
 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for assault by its physician 
 on his assistant, vol. 20, p. 
 444. 
 
 Liability of sleeping-car com- 
 pany for assault by porter 
 on passenger, vol. 20, p. 
 442. 
 
 Assumption of Risk; 
 
 Assumption of risk must be 
 pleaded, vol. 12, p. 512. 
 
 Burden of proving servant's 
 knowledge of defect, vol. 
 11, p. 489. 
 
 Coupling cars, vol. 12, p. 609. 
 
 Defective appliances, vol. 11, 
 p. 412; vol. 14, p. 830. 
 
 Defective hand car, vol. 9, p. 
 347. 
 
 Defective structures, vol. 11, 
 p. 453. 
 
 Defective track, vol. 11, p. 
 863. 
 
 Effect where servant contin- 
 ues in employment without 
 objection after he has 
 knowledge of defect, vol. 
 11, p. 485. 
 
 Effect where servant uses de- 
 fective appliance under 
 promise of company to re- 
 pair, vol. 11, p. 487. 
 
 Effect where servant uses 
 defective appliance under 
 protest, vol. 11, p. 487. 
 
 EJmployee chargeable with 
 notice of defective appli- 
 ance, vol. 11, p. 412. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 159 
 
 MASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. 
 Employee on repair train, 
 
 vol. 14, p. 658. 
 Excavation, vol. 8, p. 741. 
 Palling objects, vol. 12, p. 
 
 624. 
 From violation of statutory 
 duty by master, vol. 17, p. 
 513. 
 General rule as to defective 
 appliances, vol. 11, p. 484. 
 Insufficient number of -serv- 
 ants, vol. 16, p. 419. 
 Insufficient space between 
 
 tracks, vol. 16, p. 319. 
 Latent defects, vol. 11, p. 
 
 485. 
 Master not liable for injury 
 to employee acting beyond 
 scope of his employment if 
 he was chargeable with no- 
 tice of danger to same de- 
 gree as master, vol. 14, p. 
 779. 
 Of collisions with cattle, vol. 
 
 9, p. 648. 
 Overhead structure, vol. 12, 
 
 p. 555. 
 Risks assumed by servant 
 coupling cars, vol. 11, p. 
 866. 
 Structures near track, vol. 11, 
 
 p. 453. 
 Whether servant assumes risk 
 of injury from overhead 
 structure, vol. 8, p. 470. 
 "Whether servant assumes risk 
 of obeying order which 
 places him in obvious dan- 
 ger, vol. 11, p. 429. 
 Whether trainmen assume 
 risks arising from defective 
 roadbed, vol. 20, p. 107. 
 Authority of servants to eject 
 
 trespassers, vol. 6, p. 59. 
 Ballasting side tracks, mas- 
 ter's duty, vol. 16, 839; vol. 
 ' 17, p. 428. 
 Burden is on servant seeking 
 to recover for injuries al- 
 leged to have been caused 
 bj' master's negligence, to 
 prove such negligence, vol. 
 12, p. 735. 
 Burden of proof as to negli- 
 gence where servant is in- 
 jured through defective ap- 
 pliance, vol. 11, p. 868. 
 Cars. 
 Duty of master as to inspec- 
 tion of cars, vol. 19, p. 427. 
 Inspection of cars, vol. 17, p. 
 480. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Inspectors at termini only not 
 sufficient, vol. 19, p. 428. 
 
 Concurring negligence of mas- 
 ter and fellow servant, vol. 
 16, p. 570. 
 
 Constitutionality of employer's 
 liability acts, vol. 21, p. 925. 
 
 Contract for Employment of In- 
 jured Employee. 
 
 Vol. 8, p. 751. 
 Examples, vol. 8, p. 752. 
 Uncertainty, vol. 8, p. 751. 
 Validity, vol. 8, pp. 751, 752. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Although step to engine cab 
 is defective, if employee is 
 guilty of contributory neg- 
 ligence in attempting to get 
 upon it while engine is in 
 motion there can be no re- 
 covery for his injuries 
 caused by such attempt, vol. 
 20, p. 305. 
 
 As bar to recovery under em- 
 ployer's liability acts, vol. 
 18, p. 696. 
 
 Attempting to board moving 
 engine by stepping on front 
 footboard in violation of 
 rule as gross contributory 
 negligence, vol. 20, p. 305. 
 
 Attempting to board moving 
 freight car while acting 
 under orders in emergencies 
 is not, vol. 20, p. 303. 
 
 Boarding moving car to pre- 
 vent collision may not be, 
 as matter of law, vol. 20, p. 
 304. 
 
 Boarding moving engine with 
 knowledge of defective step 
 in nighttime as contribu- 
 tory negligence, vol. 20, p. 
 304. 
 
 Boarding moving switch en- 
 gine with knowledge of de- 
 fective hand rail is gross 
 contributory negligence, 
 vol. 20, p. 304. 
 
 Boarding moving train may be 
 such as to prevent recovery 
 for master's negligence in 
 regard to appliances, vol. 
 20, p. 304. 
 
 Boarding train of flat cars in 
 obedience to orders is not 
 negligence per se, vol. 20, 
 p. 303. 
 
 Brakeman cannot recover for 
 injuries received in at- 
 tempting to board pilot 
 
160 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— MASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. Continued, 
 
 of moving' engine under 
 orders, although company 
 was negligent in not re- 
 pairing track, vol. 20, p. 
 30S. 
 
 Carelessly getting on moving 
 engine in front is such as 
 to prevent recovery al- 
 though footboard was 
 slanting, vol. 20, p. 306. 
 
 Choosing more hazardous 
 way of performing duty, 
 vol. 12, p. 585; vol. 18, p. 
 
 sss. 
 
 Conductor's violation of law 
 in failing to stop train at 
 intersection, vol. 19, p. 16. 
 
 Disregard of rules by em- 
 ployees, vol. 20, p. 277. 
 
 Due care on part of employee, 
 vol. 14, p. 742. 
 
 Duty of employee working 
 on track to be on lookout 
 for trains, vol. 14, p. 807. 
 
 Employee's knowledge of 
 rules, vol. 21, p. 621. 
 
 Emplo3'ee riding on top of 
 car in violation of rule, 
 vol. 19, p. 778. 
 
 Employee walking without 
 light, vol. 11, p. 538. 
 
 Engineer's failure to stop 
 train at intersection, ques- 
 tion for jury, vol. 19, p. 16. 
 
 Evidence to show custom of 
 servants to disregard rules 
 inadmissible, vol. 17, p. 
 431. 
 
 Failure to obey rules as af- 
 fecting right to recover, 
 vol. 12, p. 668. 
 
 Going between cars in motion 
 to couple or uncouple them 
 is contributory negligence, 
 vol. 22, p. 582. 
 
 Going between cars in motion 
 to couple or uncouple them 
 is not per se, vol. 22, p. 582. 
 
 Injury to employee walking 
 without light, vol. 11, p. 
 538. 
 
 Liability for injuries to em- 
 ployees riding on engines 
 in violation of rule, vol. 19, 
 p. 777. 
 
 Mounting tender of moving 
 engine in obedience to or- 
 der, at wrong place, is, vol. 
 20, p. 305. 
 Negligence of master causing 
 danger whereby servant 
 acts erroneously through 
 
 fright in avoiding such 
 
 , danger, vol. 12, p. 790. 
 
 Negligent master not liable 
 where contributory negli- 
 gence of injured employee 
 was proximate cause of in- 
 jury, vol. 11, p. 869. 
 
 Noncompliance with imprac- 
 ticable rules is not, vol. 20, 
 p. 278. 
 
 Obedience by servant of mas- 
 ter's order exposing him to 
 unusual dangers, when con- 
 tributory negligence, vol. 
 12, p. 672. 
 
 Obedience by servant of order 
 exposing him to unusual 
 danger, whether contribu- 
 tory negligence, vol. 12, p. 
 672. 
 
 Obedience to orders incon- 
 sistent with rules not con- 
 tributory negligence, vol. 
 20, p. 278. 
 
 Reliance on fellow servant to 
 give warning of danger is 
 not, vol. 19, p. 6. 
 
 Riding on engine in violation 
 of rule, vol. 19, p. 777. 
 
 Riding on top of car in vio- 
 lation of rule, vol. 19, p. 778.' 
 
 Rules, disregard of as con- 
 tributory negligence, vol. 
 20, p. 277. 
 
 Rules must be known to em- 
 ployees to be binding, vol. 
 20, p. 278. 
 
 Rules, noncompliance with 
 impracticable ones not con- 
 tributory negligence, vol. 
 20, p. 278. 
 
 Rules, obedience to orders 
 inconsistent not contribu- 
 tory negligence, vol. 20, p. 
 278. 
 
 Rules, servant's knowledge- 
 of, vol. 17, p. 430. 
 
 Rules, standing on car in 
 violation of as contributory 
 negligence, vol. 20, p. 304. 
 
 Rules, violation of as con- 
 tributory negligence, vol. 
 20, p. 299. 
 
 Rules, violation of will not 
 prevent recovery for injury 
 to employee unless proxi- 
 mate cause, vol. 20, p. 279^ 
 
 Servant going into danger 
 relying on master's promise 
 of protection, vol. 12, o.. 
 789. ^ 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 161 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 Continued. ' Continued. 
 
 Servant injured by jumping 
 to avoid danger, vol. 16, 
 p. 461. 
 
 Stepping upon footboard of 
 slowly moving engine is 
 not, as matter of law, vol. 
 20, p. 304, 
 
 Voluntary attempt to board 
 moving engine at unsafe 
 place, vol. 20, p. 305. 
 
 Whether going between cars 
 in motion to couple or un- 
 couple in violation of rules 
 is, vol. 22, p. S82. 
 Damages, exemplary damages 
 
 for negligence of servant, 
 
 vol. 10, p. 534. 
 
 Degree of Care. 
 
 Care of prudent persons re- 
 quired of master, vol. 14, 
 p. 769. 
 
 Care required of master, gen- 
 eral rule, vol. 14, p. 767. 
 
 Care required of master not 
 same as required for pas- 
 sengers, vol. 14, p. 769. 
 
 Duty of master as to safe 
 place to work, vol. 16, p. 
 570. 
 
 Duty of master to warn serv- 
 ant of approaching danger, 
 vol. 19, p. 6. 
 
 Ordinary care required of 
 master, vol. 14, p. 768. 
 
 Reasonable care required of 
 master, vol. 14, p. 768. 
 
 Duty of Railroads to Make and 
 Promulgate Rules for the Pro- 
 tection of its Employees. 
 
 General rule, vol. 21, p. 621. 
 Not for protection against or- 
 dinary risk, vol. 21, p. 622. 
 
 Duty to ballast yard tracks, 
 vol. 12, p. 632. 
 
 Duty to give warning of over- 
 head structures, vol. 14, p. 
 381. 
 
 Duty to instruct and warn in- 
 experienced servant, vol. 19, 
 p. 506. 
 
 Effect of violation of ordinance 
 regulating speed when em- 
 ployee is • injured, vol. 9, p. 
 444. 
 
 Employees as passengers, vol. 
 8, p. 689. 
 
 Employees going to work, as 
 passengers, vol. 9, p. 238. 
 
 Employees on track, vol. 4, p. 
 542. 
 
 ID— 11 
 
 Employees, who are, vol. 16, 
 
 p. 550. 
 Employer's liability acts, vol. 
 
 9, p. 481. 
 Evidence of customary care or 
 
 negligence of employees, vol. 
 
 12, p. 828. 
 Expert evidence as to proper 
 
 position of brakeman on 
 
 train, vol. 17, p. 481. 
 
 Foreign Cars. 
 
 Duty of master to inspect for- 
 eign cars, vol. 19, p. 430. 
 
 Inability for negligent in- 
 spection of other company, 
 vol. 19, p. 430. 
 
 L(iability of company trans- 
 ferring cars for negligent 
 inspection, vol. 19, p. 430. 
 
 Incompetency of Fellow Serv- 
 ants. 
 
 Vol. 4, p. 447 ; vol. , 10, p. 
 617. 
 General reputation for incom- 
 petency enough to charge 
 master with knowledge, 
 vol. 4, p. 449. 
 Gfeneral rule, vol. 4, p. 447. 
 Knowledge of employee of 
 co-employee's incompetency 
 as notice to master, vol. 14, 
 p. 624. 
 Injuries to , emploj'ees from 
 structures near track, vol. 9, 
 p. 832. 
 Injury to servant from speed, in 
 excess of ordinance proxi- 
 mate cause, vol. 11, p. 24. 
 Joinder of master and servant 
 in action for tort of servant, 
 vol. 14, p. 828. 
 Ivaboror in excavation injured 
 by falling embankment, vol. 
 8, p. 741. 
 Liability for injury sustained 
 after working hours, vol. 
 20, p. 117. 
 Liability for injury to serv- 
 ant by negligence of an- 
 other company, vol. 17, p. 
 480. 
 Liability for malicious acts of 
 
 employees, vol. 22, p. 440. 
 Liability for torts of servant 
 committed outside scope of 
 employment, vol. 20, p. 442. 
 Liability of company for mali- 
 cious injuries by servant to 
 passengers, vol. 2, p. 448. 
 
162 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued, 
 
 Liability of master for injury 
 to employee caused by de- 
 fective track owned by an- 
 other company, vol. 20, p. 107. 
 
 Xfiability of master for injury 
 to one employed in an emer- 
 gency by conductor, vol. 11, 
 p. 447. 
 
 Liability of railroad for mali- 
 cious act of servant, fright- 
 ening- horses, vol. S, p. 291. 
 
 Mail crane near track, negli- 
 gence of master, vol. 14, p. 
 748. 
 
 Making flying switch not neg- 
 ligence per se, vol. 18, p. 7S0. 
 
 Master not liable for injurj- to 
 employee voluntarily per- 
 forming act beyond scope of 
 employment, vol. 14, p. 779. 
 
 Notice of defects, vol. 5, p. S42; 
 vol. 9, p. 69. 
 
 Notice to servant as notice to 
 master, vol. 11, p. 6. 
 
 Presumption as to scope of em- 
 ployment, vol. 14, p. 88. 
 
 Release. 
 
 Effect of misrepresentations 
 of company's agents, vol. 
 19, p. 421. 
 
 Validity of release of claim 
 for damages for personal in- 
 juries given in considera- 
 tion of employment, vol. 22, 
 p. 294. 
 Rules, duty of master to make, 
 
 vol. 12, p. 823. 
 Rules abrogated by custom, vol. 
 
 20, p. 278. 
 Rules, "Evidence inadmissible to 
 
 show custom to disregard, 
 
 vol. 17, p. 431. 
 Rules, light on cars stored upon 
 
 siding, question of law, as to 
 
 sufficiency of rules, vol. 21, p. 
 
 623. 
 Rules, sufficiency of for move- 
 ment of trains, vol. 21, p. 622. 
 Rules, waiver of rules by com- 
 pany, vol. 17, p. 430; vol. 20, 
 
 p. 277. 
 Rules, sufficiency of standard, 
 
 vol. 21, p. 622. 
 Safe place to work, duty of 
 
 master, vol. 12, p. 537. 
 Structures near track, vol. 11, 
 
 p. S31 ; vol. 14, p. 748. 
 Sufficiency of a question for 
 
 jury, vol. 21, p. 624. 
 Sufficiency of a question of 
 
 law, vol. 21, p. 624. 
 Sufficiency of for making fly- 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 ing switches and shunting 
 cars, vol. 21, p. 623. 
 
 Sufficiency of for protection of 
 car repairer, a question for 
 the jurj', vol. 21, p. 623. 
 
 Sufficiency of rules for regula- 
 tion of movements of trains 
 in yard a question for jury, 
 vol. 21, p. 623. 
 
 Sufficiency of rules governing 
 the opening of switches, vol. 
 21, p. 623. 
 
 Sufficiency of rules requiring 
 signals for entrance of train 
 on switch, vol. 21, p. 623. 
 
 Tender of rescission of claim 
 for personal injuries, vol. S, 
 p. 386. 
 
 Volunteers, liability for injury 
 to, vol. 17, p. 442. 
 
 Volunteers, liability for injury 
 to servant voluntarily acting 
 outside of scope of employ- 
 ment, vol. 17, p. 445. 
 
 Whether action against master 
 and servant may be removed 
 to federal court on ground of 
 existence of separable contro- 
 versy, vol. 21, p. 87. 
 
 Whether Declarations Made af- 
 ter Transaction Bind Princi- 
 pal. 
 
 Admissions of delivery clerk 
 as to his failure to deliver 
 goods, vol. 21, p. 597. 
 
 Admissions of engineer as to 
 his intoxication, vol. 2], p. 
 596. 
 
 Admissions of engineer as to 
 reckless running of train 
 held admissible as showing 
 unfitness, vol. 21, p. 597. 
 
 Declarations of employers 
 while acting within the 
 scope of their authoritv, 
 vol. 10, p. 373. 
 
 General rule, vol. 21, p. 596. 
 
 Statements of engine driver 
 as to cause of accident, vol. 
 21, p. 596. 
 
 Statements of engineer as to 
 his conduct made after leav- 
 ing company's service, vol. 
 21, p. 597. 
 
 Statements of fellow servant 
 as to company's knowledge 
 of incompetency, vol. 21, 
 p. 597. 
 
 Statements of night inspector 
 as to cause of delay in car- 
 riage of live stock, vol. 21, 
 p. 597. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 163 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Statements of road master 
 with respect to offer to ar- 
 bitrate claim against com- 
 pany, vol. 21, p. 597. 
 
 Statements of section fore- 
 man as to dangerous condi- 
 tion of track, vol. 21, p. 
 597. 
 
 Statements of street car 
 driver as to defect in brake, 
 vol. 21, p. 596. 
 
 Train behind time and ex- 
 cessive speed, statements 
 of person not fully identified 
 as conductor, vol. 21, p. 596. 
 
 MATERIALS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 MEASURE OF DAMAGES. 
 See Damages. 
 Expense of caring for injured 
 animals, vol. 9, p. 872. 
 
 MECHANIC'S LIENS. 
 See Liens. 
 
 MEDICAL EXPENSES. 
 See Damages. 
 
 MEDICAL EXPERTS. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 MEDICAL SERVICES. 
 See Damages. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Authority of oflBcers and serv- 
 ants to bind company by con- 
 tracts for, vol. 16, p. 378. 
 
 Ratification of unauthorized 
 contract for by servant, vol. 
 16, p. 378. 
 
 MENTAL SUFFERING. 
 See Damages. 
 
 MISTAKE. 
 
 Sge Carriers of Passengers. 
 Release, vol. 9, p. 307. 
 
 MONEY. 
 Counterfeit money, vol. 5, p. 
 309. 
 
 MORTALITY TABLES. 
 See Evidence. 
 As evidence, vol. 5, p. 361 ; vol. 
 7, p. 166; vol. 9, p. 846. 
 
 MORTGAGES. 
 See Receivers. 
 
 After-acquired property, vol. 12, 
 p. 870; vol. IS, p. 294; vol. 
 17, p. 560. 
 
 Mortgagee necessary party to 
 action to foreclose, vol. 13, 
 p. 416. 
 
 Power of railroads to mortgage 
 corporate property, vol. 10, 
 p. 455; vol. 17, p. 560. 
 
 Priority, vol. 15, p. 294. 
 
 Priority between railroad mort- 
 gage and judgment for tort 
 committed after execution of 
 mortgage, vol. 4, p. 173. 
 
 Priority of equities arising sub- 
 sequently, vol. 12, p. 872. 
 
 Priority of mortgage over claim 
 for car rental, vol. 12, p. 866. 
 
 Priority of note for supplies 
 secured by collateral, vol. 18, 
 p. 398. 
 
 Purchasers at foreclosure sale 
 not liable for debts of old 
 company, vol. 17, p. 650. 
 
 MUNICIPAL AID. 
 
 Effect of consolidation on sub- 
 scription, vol. 17, p. 748. 
 
 Estoppel to deny recital in 
 bonds, vol. 12, p. 868. 
 
 Validity, vol. 9, p. 326. 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORA- 
 TIONS. 
 
 Vol. 1, p. 349. 
 See Railroads in Streets. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Additional servitude, street rail- 
 way as additional servitude 
 to street, vol. 1, p. 103. 
 
 Addi tional servitude, trans- 
 porting freight over street 
 railways, vol. 1, p. 103. 
 
 Authority of municipal corpo- 
 ration to grant exclusive 
 privileges to street railway, 
 vol. 7, p. 698. 
 
 Change of grade in city streets, 
 vol. 7, p. 638. 
 
 Conditions imposed by munici- 
 pality upon use of street, vol. 
 7, p. 72. 
 
 Control of streets by municipal- 
 ity, vol. 1, pp. 29, 101. 
 
 Exclusive and perpetual grant 
 of use of streets, vol. 1, p. 48. 
 
 Municipal power to grant use 
 of streets beyond term of life 
 of grantee, vol. 1, p. 101. 
 
164 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 MXTNIOIPAL CORFORA.- 
 
 'tlO'NS— Continued. 
 Power of city to remove tracks 
 
 of street railway, vol. 7, p. 
 
 590. 
 Power of municipality to regu- 
 late use of streets, vol. 7, p. 
 
 637. 
 Powers, vol. 1, p. 100. 
 Proper corporate authority must 
 
 act to authorize use of streets, 
 
 vol. 1, p. 30. 
 Regulation of street railways, 
 
 vol. 6, pp. SIO, 518; vol. 11, 
 
 p. 806. 
 Regulation of use of streets, 
 
 vol. 9, p. 198. 
 Rights of ordinary railroads in 
 
 streets, vol. 1, p. 30. 
 Stock killed in cities or villages, 
 
 vol. S, p. 186. 
 When railroad in street is a 
 
 nuisance, vol. 1, p. 34. 
 
 NAVIGABLE "WATERS. 
 Vol. 5, p. 647. 
 See Water and Watercourses. 
 
 NEGLIGBNOE. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Children. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Fellow Servants. 
 
 Fires. 
 
 Frightening Horses. 
 
 Imputable Negligence. 
 
 Independent Contractors. 
 
 fudicial Notice. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Ordinances. 
 
 Pleading. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Turntables. 
 
 Accidents giving rise to pre- 
 sumption of, vol. 17, p. 240. 
 
 Burden of proof, vol. 12, p. 543. 
 
 Burden of proof w;here person 
 is killed by running train, 
 vol. 10, p. 584. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Cases where presumption of 
 negligence from injury to 
 passenger does not arise, 
 vol. 16, p. 128. 
 
 Derailment merely prima 
 facie proof of negligence, 
 vol. 16, p. 129. 
 
 NEGLIGBNOE — Continued. 
 
 Illustrations of what_ may- 
 give rise to presumption of 
 negligence, vol. 16, p. 126. 
 
 Injuries caused by things 
 thrown from car, vol. 6, p. 
 486. 
 
 Limitation of liability, vol. 
 5, p. 257. 
 
 Person injured by removal of 
 trunk, vol. 6, p. 487. 
 
 Person struck by mail bag, 
 vol. 6, p. 487. 
 
 Presumption of negligence 
 from injury to passenger, 
 derailment as giving rise 
 to, vol. 16, p. 126. 
 
 Presumption of negligence 
 where injury caused by 
 stranger, vol. 12, p. 179. 
 
 Riding on platform of car is 
 prima facie negligence, 
 vol. 14, p. 335. 
 Collisions between intersecting 
 
 railroads, vol. 9, p. 512. 
 Concurrent negligence, vol. 12, 
 
 p. 336. 
 Definition of "reckless" when 
 
 applied to negligence, vol. 11, 
 
 p. 665. 
 Eating houses, vol. 6, p. 488. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Admissibility of company's 
 rules, vol. 11, p. 735. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 compromise with persons 
 having similar claims, vol. 
 . 20, p. 575. 
 
 Evidence of similar discon- 
 nected acts, vol. 14, p. 321. 
 
 In action for damage caused 
 by fire, that claim for other 
 goods burned at same time 
 was paid, vol. 12, p. 848. 
 
 Of customary care or negli- 
 gence of emoloyee, vol. 12, 
 p. 828. 
 
 Of offers to arbitrate or settle, 
 vol. 20, p. 575. 
 
 Payment by company for 
 other property destroyed by 
 fire as admission of negli- 
 gence, vol. 15, p. 518. 
 
 Similar acts of negligence, 
 vol. 14, p. 16. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 negligence, vol. 11, p. 876. 
 
 Failure to obey statutory re- 
 quirements as affecting 
 company's liability, vol. 
 13, p. 701. 
 Intoxication, vol. 9, p. 264. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 16S 
 
 NBGLIGENOB— Co«^j«ai?Qr. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Exemption of railroad com- 
 pany from liability for in- 
 jury to express messenger, 
 vol. 5, p. 38. 
 
 •Obstructions near track, vol. 
 6, p. 588. 
 
 Pleading and proof, vol. 12, 
 p. 653. 
 
 Pleading negligence, vol. 11, 
 p. 413. 
 
 Proximate cause where con- 
 curring negligence of mas- 
 ter and fellow servant, vol. 
 12, p. 791. 
 
 Proximate cause where serv- 
 ant acts erroneously through 
 fright at danger caused by 
 master's negligence, vol. 
 12, p. 790. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence, vol. 
 11, p. 876. 
 
 Negligence and Contributory 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 Doctrine enunciated in Davies 
 V. Mann, vol. 12, p. 366. 
 
 Doctrine enunciated in Tuff 
 V. Warman, vol. 12, p. 332. 
 
 Doctrine stated by Maryland 
 court, vol. 12, p. 333. 
 
 Doctrine stated by Massachu- 
 setts court, vol. 12, p. 333. 
 
 JDoctrine stated by Missouri 
 court, vol. 12, p. 333. 
 
 Doctrine with regard to tres- 
 passers, vol. 12, p. 334. 
 
 Where negligence of other 
 party might have been dis- 
 covered, application of rule, 
 vol. 12, p. 335. 
 
 'Proxinnate Cause. 
 
 Person struck by a body 
 thrown by an engine from 
 the track of a railroad com- 
 pany, vol. 5, p. 678. 
 'Question for jury, vol. 13, p. 
 
 858. 
 Question of law and fact, vol. 
 
 5, p. 399; vol. 9, p. 180. 
 Refusal of judgment where in- 
 structions are conflicting, 
 vol. 10, p. 559. 
 Scope of instructions in action 
 for negligence, vol. 12, p. 21. 
 
 -Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 Presumption of negligence 
 arising from mere proof of 
 injury to stock, vol. 5, p. 
 326. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— Continued. 
 
 Rebutting presumption of, in 
 action for injury to stock, 
 vol. 14, p. 31. 
 Speed, vol. 14, p. 23. 
 Tennessee statute renders com- 
 pany failing to comply with, 
 absolutely liable, vol. 13, 
 p. 701. 
 
 NEW LINE. 
 
 See Railroads. 
 
 NOISES. 
 
 See Frightening Horses. 
 
 NONSUIT. 
 
 See Contributory Negligence . 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 See Ejectment. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Stoppage in Transitu. 
 
 NUISANCES. 
 See Railroads. 
 Railroads in streets, vol. 1, 
 p. 34. 
 
 NURSING. 
 
 See Damages. 
 
 OBSTRUCTIONS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers, 
 Frightening Horses. 
 Obstruction near track, vol. 5, 
 pp. 547, 548. 
 
 OPINION EVIDENCE. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 ORDERS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 ORDINANCES. 
 See Children. 
 
 Municipal Corporations. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Contributory negligence will 
 prevent recovery for personal 
 injuries in action based on 
 violation of ordinance limit- 
 ing speed and requiring sig- 
 nals to be given, vol. 20, p. 
 224. 
 
 Must be reasonable, vol. 1, p. 
 221. 
 
 Regulating speed, vol. 9, p. 444. 
 
 Signals contrary to ordinances, 
 frightening horses, vol. 5, 
 p. 287. 
 
166 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 ORTtlNANCES—Coniinued. 
 Speed in violation of, whether 
 
 negligence per se, vol. 19, p. 
 
 119. 
 Speed of train, killing stock 
 
 in cities or villages, vol. S, 
 
 p. 186. 
 V'iolation of provisions limiting 
 
 speed and requiring signals 
 
 as gross negligence, vol. 20, 
 
 p. 225. 
 
 OVERHEAD STRUCTURES. 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 PARCELS. 
 
 See Baggage. 
 
 PAROL EVIDENCE. 
 See Evidence. 
 Bills of lading, vol. 2, p. 610; 
 vol. 10, p. 341. 
 
 PARTIES. 
 
 See Actions. 
 Joinder of master and servant 
 
 in action for tort of servant, 
 
 vol. 14, p. 828. 
 Mortgagee necessary party to 
 
 action to foreclose, vol. 13, 
 
 p. 416. 
 Parties to action to forfeit 
 
 charter for ultra vires acts of 
 
 foreign railroad company 
 
 controlling stock, vol. 17, p. 
 
 627. 
 
 PARTNERSHIPS. 
 
 See Connecting Carriers. 
 
 PASSENGERS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 PENAL STATUTE. 
 Construction of, vol. 8, p. 638. 
 
 PERSONAL INJURIES. 
 See Damages. 
 Fires. 
 Master and Servant, 
 
 PERSON ASSISTING PAS- 
 SENGER. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 Admissibility in evidence, of 
 
 photographs of locus in quo, 
 
 vol. 7, p. 519. 
 Admissibility of photographs 
 
 of injured person, in action 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHS— Continued. 
 for personal injuries, vol. 16, 
 p. 507. 
 Admissibility of X-ray photo- 
 graphs, vol. 16, p. 508. 
 
 PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. 
 
 Enforcing order for, vol. 14, 
 p. 458. 
 
 Refusal of court to order, vol. 
 14, p. 456. 
 
 Surgical examination of plain- 
 tiff's person, vol. 14, p. 454. 
 
 PHYSICIANS AND S U R- 
 GEONS. 
 Doctor's bill as part of dam- 
 ages, vol. 6, p. 751. 
 
 PLATFORMS. 
 
 See Stations and Depots. 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 See Exemplary Damages. 
 
 Allegation of corporate exist- 
 ence, vol. 10, p. 884. 
 
 Assumption of risk is a defense 
 to be pleaded, vol. 12, p. 512. 
 
 Averments of complaint in 
 action of ejectment, vol. 15, 
 p. 410. 
 
 Contributory negligence, neces- 
 sity of negativing, vol. 9, p. 
 100. 
 
 Definition of "reckless" when 
 applied to negligence, vol. 
 11, p. 665. 
 
 Fences, lack of reasonable time 
 to repair fence must be 
 pleaded, vol. 19, p. 153. 
 
 Frightening teams, vol. 5, p. 
 303. 
 
 Negligence, vol. 11, p. 412; vol. 
 14, p. 49. 
 
 Pleading and proof in action 
 for negligence, vol. 12, p. 653. 
 
 Special damages must be ex- 
 pressly pleaded, vol. IS, p. 
 803. 
 
 Whether the declaration need 
 negative contributory negli- 
 gence, vol. 6, p. 353. 
 
 Willful negligence, vol. 14, p. 
 802. 
 
 POSTAL CLERKS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Postal clerks, vol. 5, p. 406. 
 
 PRE-EMPTION. 
 See Public Lands. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 167 
 
 PREPBRENTrAL CLAIMS. 
 See Receivers. 
 
 PRESCRIPTION. 
 
 See Adverse Possession. 
 Title by, vcl. 1, p. 14. 
 
 PRESUMPTION OF NEGLI- 
 GENCE. 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Fires. 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 Negligence. 
 Statutes. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 PRIVATE RAILROADS. 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 PROCESS. 
 
 See Foreign Corporations. 
 Service of Process. 
 
 PROFITS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 PROXIMATE CAUSE. 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 Turntables. 
 Vol. 1, pp. xix, xxvii; vol. 
 5, pp. 7, 349. 
 Concurring' negligence, vol. 10, 
 
 p. 572. 
 Definition of, vol. 12, p. 168. 
 Frightening teams, vol. S, p. 
 
 296. 
 Person struck by a body thrown 
 by an engine from track of 
 railroad company, vol. S, p. 
 678. 
 
 PUBLIC LANDS. 
 Adjacent to right of way, vol. 
 
 9, p. 879. 
 Forfeiture of land grants, vol. 
 
 I, p. 658; vol. 19, p. 214. 
 Grants to railroads, nature and 
 
 scope, vol. 1, p. 597. 
 Indemnity lands, vol. 1, p. 601. 
 Pre-emption, use of lands for 
 
 railroads a public one, vol. 
 
 II, p. 879. 
 
 Pre-emption, when pre-emptor's 
 right attaches, vol. 11, p. 833. 
 
 Pre-emption, when railroad 
 grant attaches, vol. 11, p. 883. 
 
 Titles under land grants, how 
 acquired, vol. 1, p. 618. 
 
 PUNITIVE DAMAGES. 
 See Damages. 
 
 PURCHASERS. 
 
 See Receivers. 
 
 Taxation. 
 
 QUANTUM MERUIT. 
 See Ultra Vires. 
 
 RAILROAD COMMISSION- 
 ERS. 
 Action against commissioners 
 
 is not action against state, 
 
 vol. 15, p. 390. 
 Action to enjoin commissioners, 
 
 vol. 8, p. 615. 
 Authority and jurisdiction of 
 
 state railroad commissioners, 
 
 vol. 8. p. 614. 
 Authority as to crossings, vol. 
 
 8, p. 614. 
 Authority to fix rates, vol. 8, p. 
 
 614. 
 Conclusiveness of decision" of 
 
 commissioners, vol. 8, p. 615. 
 Constitutionality of statutes, 
 
 vol. 8, p. 613. 
 Construction of Iowa statute, 
 
 vol. 8, p. 615. 
 Delegation of legislative power, 
 
 vol. 8, p. 614. 
 Enforcement of order by court, 
 
 vol. 8, p. 615. 
 Interstate traffic, vol. 8, p.[614. 
 Powers, vol. 12, p. 84. 
 Suits against commissioners, 
 
 vol. 8, p. 615. 
 
 RAILROAD CROSSINGS. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 RAILROADS. 
 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 
 Foreign Corporations. 
 
 Franchises. 
 
 Independent Contractors. 
 
 Judicial Notice. 
 
 Leases and Running Pow- 
 ers. 
 
 Local Assessments. 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 Receivers. 
 
 Right of Way. 
 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 Statutes. 
 
 Stock and Stockholders. 
 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Taxation. 
 
 Ultra Vires. 
 Branch railroad, right to con- 
 struct, vol. 13, p. 855. 
 
168 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 E AILRO ADS— Continued. 
 
 Citizenship, vol. IS, p. 373. 
 
 Common carriers, vol. 2, p. £66. 
 
 Competing lines, incorporation 
 in another state as affecting 
 federal jurisdiction, vol. IS, 
 p. 374. 
 
 Competing lines, liability for 
 injury to land from spread of 
 embankment beyond right of 
 way, vol. IS, p. 674. 
 
 Competing lines, lines need not 
 be parallel, vol. IS, p. 476. 
 
 Corporate existence, vol. 19, p. 
 180. 
 
 Failure to obey statutory re- 
 quirements only creates lia- 
 bilit3' when injury is caused 
 thereby, vol. 13, p. 701. 
 
 Formation of "new line," vol. 
 
 . 17, p. 379. 
 
 Implied powers of corporations 
 as to contracts of suretyship 
 and guaranty, vol. IS, p. 374. 
 
 Liability of corporations for 
 malicious prosecution, vol. 12, 
 p. 58. 
 
 Power to hold stock in other 
 corporations, vol. 14, p. 82S. 
 
 Power to run hotel, vol. 17, p. 
 257. 
 
 Purchaser of railroad liable for 
 claims arising during receiv- 
 ership, vol. 13, p. 666. 
 
 Purposes for Which Land Could 
 
 Not Be Acquired. 
 
 Branch road, in absence of 
 charter provisions, vol. 17, 
 p. 259. 
 
 Bridges and approaches, vol. 
 17, p. 261. 
 
 Collateral enterprises and fa- 
 cilitation of prospective 
 business, vol. 17, p. 259. 
 
 Dwellings of employees, vol. 
 17, p. 260. 
 
 Gravel pits, vol. 17, p. 260. 
 
 Kailroad for carriage of sight- 
 seers, vol. 17, p. 260. 
 
 Shops for manufacture of 
 rolling stock, .vol. 17, p. 
 260. 
 
 Storage of boats for patrons, 
 vol. 17, p. 260. 
 
 Temporary right of way dur- 
 ing construction of main 
 line, vol. 17, p. 259. 
 
 Wharves at terminus, vol.' 17, 
 p. 260. 
 
 Purposes for Which Land May 
 Be Acquired. 
 
 Additional tracks on whole 
 line, vol. 17, p. 258. 
 
 "RAXlSROAJiS— Continued. 
 
 Channel to change course of 
 
 steam, vol. 17, p. 259. 
 Depots, stations and station 
 
 grounds, vol. 17, p. 2S8. 
 Dumping ground for waste 
 
 earth, vol. 17, p. 258. 
 Erection of telegraph lines 
 
 along right of way, vol. 17, 
 
 p. 258. 
 General rule, vol. 17, p. 257. 
 Repair shops, vol. 17, p. 258. 
 Springs to supply tanks, vol. 
 
 17, p. 2S8. 
 Spur track, vol. 17, p, 258. 
 Stock yards, vol. 17, p. 258. 
 Turnouts and extra tracks, 
 
 vol. 17, p. 258. 
 Viaducts and approaches, vol. 
 
 17, p. 258. 
 Residence of railroad corpora- 
 tion, vol. 11, p. 693. 
 Right to cross track of another 
 company, vol. 6, p. 157. 
 
 Right to Enjoin Construction of 
 Railroads. 
 
 Abutter suffering no present 
 
 injury, vol. 21, p. 770. 
 Bona fide purchaser entitled 
 
 to order enjoining laying 
 
 of an additional track, vol. 
 
 21, p. 771. 
 Conflicting rights of rival 
 
 companies, vol. 21, p. 773. 
 Construction of tunnel 
 
 through city, vol. 21, p. 
 
 770. 
 Damages must be special and 
 
 serious, vol. 21, p. 768. 
 Delay until completion, vol. 
 
 21, p. 770. 
 
 Effect of existing right to 
 forcibly remove, vol. 21, p. 
 773. 
 
 Failure to make compensation 
 to abutting owner, vol. 21, 
 p. 772. 
 
 Prom laying track across in- 
 closed public square, vol. 
 21, p. 773. 
 
 General rule, vol. 21, p. 767. 
 
 Injunction to restrain con- 
 struction and operation of 
 street railway on the ground 
 that the track should have 
 been located in center of 
 highway, vol. 21, p. 770. 
 
 Irreparable damage, vol. 21, 
 
 p. 772. 
 
 Mere anticipation of negli- 
 gence in restoring highway, 
 vol. 21, p. 769. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 169 
 
 RAILROADS— Cow^jwM^rf. 
 
 Mere inconvenience and an- 
 noyance to abutting owner, 
 vol. 21, p. 769. 
 
 Nonabutting owners, vol. 21, 
 p. 770. 
 
 Not as private nuisance at 
 instance of owner of prop- 
 erty facing public square, 
 vol. 21, p. 769. 
 
 Not unless necessity is ur- 
 gent, vol. 21, p. 769. 
 
 Obstruction of access, vol. 21, 
 p. 772. 
 
 On application of city, vol. 
 21, p. 773. 
 
 Passage of authorizing ordi- 
 nance without petition, vol. 
 21, p. 771. 
 
 Power of rival to enjoin ultra 
 vires construction of rail- 
 road, vol. 21, p. 770. 
 
 Privilege to construct and 
 operate granted without 
 consideration, vol. 21, p. 
 773. 
 
 Public use of street destroyed, 
 vol. 21, p. 771. 
 
 Kemedy at law, vol. 21, p. 
 770. 
 
 Kight of abutter to enjoin 
 construction and operation 
 of elevated railroad where 
 no physical taking, vol. 21, 
 p. 770. 
 
 Right to enjoin completion 
 of road as a nuisance, vol. 
 21, p. 769. 
 
 Right to enjoin unauthorized 
 construction as nuisance, 
 vol. 21, p. 771. 
 
 Special injury to abutting 
 property, vol. 21, p. 772. 
 
 Unauthorized use of street, 
 - vol. 21, p. 771. 
 
 "Violation of condition requir- 
 ing payment of damages as 
 condition precedent, vol. 
 21, p. 773. 
 
 When construction is author- 
 ized by law, vol. 21, p. 767. 
 Test of liability of corporation 
 
 for malicious prosecution, 
 
 vol. 12, p. 60. 
 Whether "railroad" 'includes 
 
 street railway, vol. 11, p. 666. 
 Whether the term includes street 
 
 railroads, vol. 7, p. 552. 
 
 BAILROADS IN STREETS. 
 See Street Railways. 
 Abutting owners, rights of, 
 vol. 13, p. 444. 
 
 RAILROADS IN STREETS— 
 Continued. 
 
 Abutting owner's right to com- 
 pensation, vol. 13, p. 444. 
 
 Care due persons on track, vol. 
 13, p. 800. 
 
 Defective construction, vol. 10, 
 p. 726. 
 
 Mutual rights of companies and 
 citizens, vol. 13, p. 729. 
 
 Wrongful occupation, continu- 
 ing trespass, vol. 9, p. 451. 
 
 RAILROAD TRACKS. 
 See Taxation. 
 
 RAILS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 RATES. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Recovery of overcharges, vol. 
 10, p. 363. 
 
 RATIFICATION. 
 
 See Medical Services. 
 
 REAL ESTATE. 
 See Railroads. 
 Right of Way. 
 
 REBATES. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 
 RECEIVERS. 
 See Insolvency. 
 
 Preferential Claims. 
 
 Appointment of, to preserve 
 
 rents and profits, vol. 17, p. 
 
 560. 
 Compensation, how determined, 
 
 vol. 11, p. 703. 
 Conditional order to retain 
 
 jurisdiction of claims arising 
 
 during receivership, vol. 13, 
 
 p. 666. 
 Diversion of current earnings, 
 
 vol. 14, p. 819. 
 Foreign receivers, comity, vol. 
 
 12, p. 873. 
 Leave to sue unnecessary under 
 
 federal statute, vol. 12, p. 812. 
 Liability of company for torts 
 
 and contracts where road is 
 
 in the hands of receivers, vol. 
 
 _S, p. 155. 
 Liability of company for torts 
 
 which were committed during 
 
 receivership, vol. 9, p. 851. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 
 for personal injuries arising 
 
 during receivership, vol. 11, 
 
 p. 707. 
 
170 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 RECEIVERS— Co«^zm«i?rf. 
 
 Liability of receiver for rental 
 upon assumption of lease of 
 rolling stock, vol. 10, p. 175. 
 
 Lfiability of receiver on prior 
 contracts of company, -vol. 7, 
 p. 601. 
 
 Power of court to appoint in 
 adjudging forfeiture of cor- 
 porate franchises, vol. 17, p. 
 628. 
 
 Priority of claims incurred be- 
 fore receivership, vol. IS, p. 
 336. 
 
 Purchaser's liability for claim 
 arising during receivership, 
 vol. 13, p. 666. 
 
 Rule of priority of claims ac- 
 cording to Fosdick V. Schall, 
 vol. 14, p. 819. 
 
 Whether statutes a.pplicable to 
 railroads apply also to re- 
 ceivers of railroads, vol. S, 
 p. 218. 
 
 RECKLESSNESS. 
 See Fleading. 
 
 RELEASE. 
 
 Vol. S, p. 386. 
 
 See Master qi,nd Servant. 
 Effect of misrepresentations of 
 
 company's agents, vol. 19, p. 
 
 421. 
 Effect of release of damages, 
 
 vol. 6, p. 94. 
 Extent of injury unknown, vol. 
 
 6, p. 95. 
 Intended to apply only to inju- 
 ries to property, vol. 6, p. 96. 
 Mental incompetency, vol. 9, p. 
 
 527. 
 Mistake as to injuries, vol. 9, 
 
 p._ 307. 
 Relief association, vol. 9, p. 
 
 307. 
 Representation that injuries are 
 
 slight, vol. 6, p. 95. 
 
 RELIEF ASSOCIATIONS. 
 Vol. 9, p. 307. 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 REMOVAL OP CAUSES. 
 
 Removal of cause against fed- 
 eral corporation to federal 
 court, vol. 14, p. 827. 
 
 Right of foreign corporation to 
 remove to federal court as 
 affected by state legislation 
 creating corporation with 
 same name and membership, 
 vol. 19, p. 175. 
 
 REMOVAL OP CAUSES— 
 Continued. 
 Whether action against master 
 and servant for servant's neg- 
 ligence may be removed to 
 federal court on ground of 
 separable controversy, vol. 21, 
 p. 87. 
 
 REPAIRS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 REPAIR SHOPS. 
 See Railroads. 
 
 RES GEST^. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 Complaints as part of, vol. IS, 
 p. 588. 
 
 Declarations of injured person, 
 vol. 15_, p. 58S. 
 
 Declarations of servants ad- 
 missible as part of, vol. 11, 
 p. 725; vol. 14, p. 57. 
 
 RESIDENCE. 
 See Railroads. 
 
 RES JUDICATA. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Whether recovery under statute 
 bars a common-law action, 
 vol. 3, p. 314. 
 
 RESTITUTION, WRIT OP. 
 Eminent domain, vol. 3, p. 34. 
 
 RETROSPECTIVE LAWS. 
 See Interstate Commerce. 
 
 REVERSAL. 
 
 See Argum.ent of Counsel. 
 
 REVERSION. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 RIDING ON PLATFORM. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 RIGHT OF WAY. 
 
 See Adverse Possession. 
 Dedication. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Local Assesstnents. 
 Railroads. 
 Taxation. 
 
 Telegraph Companies. 
 Abandonment. 
 Effect, vol. 15, p. 815. 
 What constitutes, vol. 15, p. 
 813. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 171 
 
 RIGHT OP -WATS:— Continued. 
 
 Grant of, vol. 13, p. 8S3. 
 
 Power to condemn right of way 
 for railroad branches, spurs 
 or private railroads to or from 
 private property to be spe- 
 cially benefited, vol. 20, p. 
 614. 
 
 Presumption as to width, vol. 
 9. p. 419. 
 
 Right of company, vol. 10, p. 
 764. 
 , Right to enjoin use of right of 
 way by telegraph company, 
 vol. 13, p. 422. 
 
 Use of railroad right of way by 
 telegraph company, vol. 13, 
 p. 422. 
 
 Whether Contracts to Locate 
 Stations or Depots at Desig- 
 nated Places Are Void as 
 against Public Policy. 
 General rule, vol. 21, p. 835. 
 Invalid contracts, illustra- 
 tions, vol. 21, p. 836. 
 Valid contracts, illustrations, 
 vol. 21, p. 836. 
 
 Who may grant, vol. 13, p. 83S. 
 
 ROADBED. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 ROADW^AY. 
 
 See Taxation. 
 
 RULES. 
 
 See Contributory Negligence. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 Admissibility of rules as evi- 
 dence of negligence, vol. 11, 
 p. 735. 
 Dutyof master as to, vol. 16, 
 
 p. 570. 
 Sufficiency, vol. 10, p. 672. 
 Sufficiency of, a question of 
 fact, vol. 11, p. 468. 
 
 SALES. 
 Purchase of competing road, 
 vol. 7, p. 346. 
 
 SECTION BOSS. 
 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 
 SECTION HANDS. 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 Injuries to section hands, vol. 
 4, p. S4S. 
 
 SEPARATE COACHES. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 SERVANTS. 
 Knowledge of master of incom- 
 petency of fellow servant, 
 vol. 10, p. 619. 
 
 SERVICE OF PROCESS. 
 Agents of foreign corporations, 
 vol. IS, p. 42S. 
 • Locality, in action against cor- 
 poration, vol. 11, p. 737. 
 Upon common agent, vol. 12, 
 p. 865. 
 
 SIDE TRACKS. 
 
 Duty of master as to ballasting, 
 vol. 16, p. 839. 
 
 Right of railroad company to 
 construct side tracks, turn- 
 outs, and branch lines, vol. 3, 
 p. 71. 
 
 Verbal contract by railroad to 
 maintain switch for benefit 
 of shipper, vol. 6, p. 714. 
 
 SIGNALS. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Frightening Horses. 
 
 Licensees. 
 
 Ordinances. 
 
 SLEEPING OAR COMPA- 
 NIES. 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 Employees of as employees of 
 railway company, vol. 11, p. 
 184. 
 
 Liability as common carriers, 
 vol. 8, p. 78. 
 
 Liability for loss of property, 
 vol. 10, p. 78. 
 
 Liability of sleeping car com- 
 panies for assaults by em- 
 ployees, vol. 8, p. 79. 
 
 SLEEPING CAR PORTERS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 SPEED. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 Evidence. 
 Judicial Notice. 
 Negligence. 
 Ordinances. 
 Crossings, vol. 10, p. 106. 
 Evidence as to, vol. 13, p. 799. 
 Excessive speed does not excuse 
 contributory negligence, vol. 
 10, p. 717. ■ " 
 
 Injur^'to servant from speed in 
 excess of ordinance, vol. 11, 
 p. 24. 
 Killing of stock in cities and 
 villages, vol. 5, p. 188. 
 
172 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 S'P'EiED—Coniinued. 
 
 Ordinance regulating' speed, 
 
 vol. 6, p. 510. 
 Violation of ordinance limiting 
 
 speed, vol. 2, p. 585; vol. 8, 
 
 p. 428. 
 
 SPUR TRACKS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Railroads. 
 
 STATION AGENTS. 
 
 Authority of agent to contract 
 to furnish cars, vol. 2, p. 585. 
 
 STATIONS AND DEPOTS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Licensees. 
 Right of Way. 
 
 Duty of company to provide 
 safe means of ingress and 
 egress, vol. 6, p. 290. 
 ' Duty of railroad to keep ticket 
 office open for sale of tickets, 
 vol. 2, p. 111. 
 
 Duty of railway companies as 
 to maintenance of ways lead- 
 ing to its stations and yards, 
 vol. 5, p. 418. 
 
 Exclusive privileges to hack- 
 men, vol. 8, p. 661 ; vol. 19, 
 p. 307. 
 
 Failure of passenger to use safe 
 means of ingress and egress 
 to the cars, vol. 6, p. 290. 
 
 Hack stands, vol. 7, p. 733. 
 
 Injuries while loading or un- 
 loading cars, vol. 6, p. 488. 
 
 Insufficient platforms between 
 tracks, vol. 7, p. 729. 
 
 Liability for injuries to persons 
 who are neither passengers 
 nor railwa5' employees, re- 
 sulting from unsafe stations 
 and depots, vol. 21, p. 309. 
 
 Liability of company for in- 
 juries caused by defective 
 platforms, vol. 10, p. 738; 
 vol. 19, p. 498. 
 
 Liability of company where 
 there are two exits, one safe 
 and the other unsafe, vol. 7, 
 p. 729. 
 
 Lights. 
 Before and after arrival of 
 
 trains, vol. 19, p. 497. 
 Concurring negligence of two 
 companies, vol. 19, p. 500. 
 Concurring negligence of two 
 companies, liability of pas- 
 senger's company, vol. 19, 
 p. 500. 
 Failure of passenger to leave 
 by safest way, vol. 19, p. 
 499. 
 
 STATIONS AND DEPOTS— 
 
 Continued. 
 
 General rule as to company's 
 duty, vol. 19, p. 495. 
 
 Liability for failure to pro- 
 vide, vol. 19, p. 498. 
 
 Passenger leaving depot in 
 unusual direction, vol. 19, 
 p. 499. 
 
 Stepping in hole in unlighted 
 platform not contributory 
 negligence, vol. 19, p. 499. 
 
 To whom duty is owed, vol. 
 19, p. 496. 
 Mandamus to compel erection 
 
 of depots, vol. 14, p. 472. 
 Platforms, liability for failure 
 
 to provide, vol. 19, p. 498. 
 Rights of Hackmen and Other 
 
 Local Carriers at Stations. 
 
 Cannot exclude from street, 
 vol. 22, p. 515. 
 
 Exclusion from inner plat- 
 form, vol. 22, p. 515. 
 
 Exclusion of innkeepers, vol. 
 22, p. 515. 
 
 Exclusive privileges could be 
 granted, vol. 22, p. 515. 
 
 Exclusive privileges could not 
 be granted, vol. 22, p. 515. 
 
 Hackman with check may 
 enter baggage room, vol. 
 22, p. 515. 
 
 Municipal regulations, vol. 
 22, p. 515. 
 
 Passengers cannot be com- 
 pelled to take certain vehi- 
 cles, vol. 22, p. 515. 
 
 Right to drive upon wharf for 
 passenger who has con- 
 tracted for hackman's serv- 
 ices, vol. 22, p. 515. 
 
 Right to exclude persons from 
 station, vol. 8, p. 660. 
 
 Right to exclude vehicle from 
 station yard, vol. 22, p. 515. 
 
 Right to solicit business in 
 depot, vol. 22, p. 515. 
 
 Stoppage at stations, vol. 5, 
 p. 309; vol. 6, p. 192. 
 
 Verbal agreement as to loca- 
 tion of stations, vol. 6, p. 
 715. 
 
 Whether carrier ma3' discrim- 
 inate in favor of its own 
 competing business, vol. 
 22, p. 515. 
 
 Whether persons selling 
 lunches can be excluded, 
 vol. 22, p. 517. 
 
 Whether statutes requiring 
 trains to stop at is an in- 
 terference with interstate 
 commerce, vol. 7, p. 558. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 173 
 
 STATUTES. 
 See Children. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 
 Employer's Liability Acts. 
 
 Fires. 
 
 Franchises. 
 
 Judicial Notice. 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 Stock. 
 
 Extraterritorial effect, vol. 12, 
 
 p. 711. 
 Presumption as to existence of 
 
 similar statutes in two states, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 869. 
 Tennessee statute to prevent 
 
 accidents on railroads renders 
 
 company failing to comply 
 
 absolutely liable, vol. 13, p. 
 
 701. 
 
 STEP OF OAR. 
 
 See Carriers of Passenger s . 
 Street Railways. 
 
 STOCK AND STOCKHOLD- 
 ERS. 
 
 See Taxation. 
 
 Effect of consent to amendment 
 of charter, vol. IS, p. 345. 
 
 Failure to pay subscription as 
 ground for forfeiture of fran- 
 chise of railroad, vol. 17, p. 
 625. 
 
 Kailroad companies as stock- 
 holders, vol. 14, p. 825. 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES TO. 
 See Crossings. 
 Fences. 
 Gates. 
 Judicial Notice. 
 
 Actual contact necessary where 
 railroad has failed to fence, 
 vol. 14, p. 18; vol. 18, p. 380. 
 
 Actual contact not necessary 
 where railroad has failed to 
 fence, vol. 18, p. 382. 
 
 Care due to avoid injuring stock 
 on track, vol. 14, p. 30. 
 
 Care required to avoid injuring 
 animals seen near track, vol. 
 19, p. 240. 
 
 Company liable where stock in- 
 jured is at large in violation 
 of statute, vol. IS, p. 563. 
 
 Company not liable where stock 
 injured is at large in viola- 
 tion of statute, vol. IS, p. 563. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Contributory negligence af- 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES 'S^O— Cont'd. 
 fects company's liability for 
 injury to, vol. 15, p. 562. 
 Contributory negligence does 
 not affect company's liabil- 
 ity for injury to, vol. IS, 
 p. 561. 
 Gate left open by landowner, 
 vol. 6, p. 617. 
 
 Damages, when interest recov- 
 erable as part of damages for 
 killing stock, vol. 10, p. 111. 
 
 Duty of engineer to keep a 
 lookout for stock, vol. 9, p. 
 276. 
 
 Duty to keep lookout for stock 
 on track, vol. 11, p. 331. 
 
 Effect of contributory negli- 
 gence in action for injury to 
 stock caused by failure to 
 fence, vol. 17, p. 750. 
 
 Failure to give signals, vol. 5, 
 p. 188. 
 
 Liability for injury to animals 
 unlawfully at large where 
 failure to fence track, vol. 19, 
 p. 726. 
 
 Liability of company where 
 stock strays on inclosed track, 
 vol. 15, p. 569. 
 
 Liability where owner failed to 
 comply with fence law, vol. 
 19, p. 728. 
 
 Notice in action for injuries to, 
 vol. 14, p. 3. 
 
 Place of entry fixes liability for 
 injury to, vol. 14, p. 44. 
 
 Pleading negligence in action 
 for injury to stock, vol. 14, 
 p. 49. 
 
 Presumption as to place of en- 
 try, where company has failed 
 to fence, vol. 14, p. 44. 
 
 Presumption from failure to 
 produce employees as wit- 
 nesses, vol. 14, p. 57. 
 
 Presumption of negligence aris- 
 ing from mere proof of injury 
 to stock, vol. 5, p. 326; vol. 
 11, pp. 333, 851; vol. 14, pp. 
 30, 46. 
 
 Rate of speed as negligence, in 
 action for killing stock, vol. 
 14, p. 23. 
 
 Rebutting presumption of neg- 
 ligence, vol. 14, p. 31. 
 
 Speed of train in cities and 
 villages, vol. 5, p. 188. 
 
 Statutory presumption of neg- 
 ligence where stock is killed 
 on track, burden of proof, 
 vol. 11, p. 849. 
 
 Stock killed in cities or vil- 
 lages, vol. 5, p. 186. 
 
174 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES TO— Cont'd. 
 
 Whether statutes applicable to 
 railroads apply also to re- 
 ceivers of railroads, vol. S, 
 p. 218. 
 
 Whether statutes authorizing 
 recovery for animals run over 
 by train applies to frighten- 
 ing horses, vol. S, p. 284. 
 
 STOCKMEN. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 STOCKS. 
 
 See Taxation. 
 
 STOCK YARDS. 
 Power of railroad to acquire 
 land for, vol. 17, p. 2S8. 
 
 STOP, LOOK, AND LISTEN. 
 See Crossings. 
 Frightening horses, vol. S, p. 
 299. 
 
 STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU. 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Beginning of Transit. 
 
 Goods in carrier's warehouse, 
 vol. 16, p. 257. 
 
 In hands of carrier, vol. 16, 
 p. 257. 
 
 In hands of middleman, vol. 
 16, p. 257. 
 
 In hands of packer, vol. 16, 
 p. 258. 
 Circumstances Affecting Right. 
 
 Failure to transfer bill of lad- 
 ing not ground for exercis- 
 ing right, vol. 16, p. 255. 
 
 Indorsement of bill of lading 
 to bona fide purchaser for 
 value, vol. 16, p. 252. 
 
 Payment of freight charges 
 by consignee, vol. 16, p. 
 250. 
 
 Relanding, vol. 16, p. 251. 
 
 Reshipping, vol. 16, p. 251. 
 
 Transfer of bill of lading as 
 security for antecedent 
 debt, vol. 16, p. 255. 
 
 Transfer of bill of lading by 
 insolvent consignee, vol. 16, 
 p. 253. 
 Circumstances Not Affecting 
 
 Right. 
 
 Absolute transfer of bill of 
 
 lading for antecedent debt, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 255. 
 Acceptance of bill or note, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 250. 
 Assignment by vendee, vol. 
 
 16, p. 256. 
 
 STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU— 
 Continued. 
 
 Attachment by creditor of 
 vendee, vol.. 16, p. 256. 
 
 Carrier's lien for freight, vol. 
 16, p. 257. 
 
 Consignee's refusal to re- 
 ceive, vol. 16, p. 252. 
 
 Effect of transfer of unin- 
 dorsed bill of lading, vol. 
 16, p. 254. 
 
 Execution or other lien 
 against vendee, vol. 16, p. 
 256. 
 
 Indorsement of bill as security 
 for present advances, vol. 
 16, p. 255. 
 
 Part payment by vendee, vol. 
 16, p. 250. 
 
 Reshipment of goods to con- 
 signee which he has once 
 declined to receive and 
 which consignor refused to 
 take back, vol. 16, p. 252. 
 
 Right of action against se- 
 curity in case of default, 
 vol. 16, p. 250. 
 
 Taking samples, marking, 
 etc., merely evidence of 
 vendee's possession, but do 
 not change possession, vol. 
 16, p. 252. 
 
 Transfer of duplicate of bill 
 of lading by consignee, 
 vol. 16, p. 253. 
 
 Vendee obtaining possession 
 
 by fraud, vol. 16, p. 252. 
 Vendee's laches, vol. 16, p. 
 250. 
 Definition, vol. 16, p. 247. 
 
 Insolvency Essential. 
 
 Surety's insolvency, vol. 16, 
 
 p. 248. 
 Vendee's insolvency, vol. 16, 
 
 p. 247. 
 Whether insolvency must have 
 
 arisen after the sale, vol. 
 
 16, p. 248. 
 
 Liability of carrier for failure 
 to hold goods, vol. 16, p. 263. 
 
 Notice to Carrier. 
 
 Cabled notice, vol. 16, p. 262. 
 
 Description of goods, vol. 16, 
 p. 262. 
 
 Generally, vol. 16, p. 262. 
 
 Notice need not contain ex- 
 press demand for goods, 
 vol. 16, p. 262. 
 
 Notice to consignee not suffi- 
 cient, vol. 16, p. 263. 
 
 To whom given, generally, 
 vol. 16, p. 262. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 175 
 
 STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU— 
 Continued. 
 
 To whom given when goods 
 
 are in customs warehouse, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 263. 
 
 Verbal notice, vol. 16, p. 262. 
 
 Eight extends over goods only, 
 
 vol. 16, p. 247. 
 Eight of carrier to retain goods 
 until freight is paid, vol. 16, 
 p. 263. 
 
 Termination of Transit. 
 
 Effect of interception at in- 
 termediate point by vend- 
 ee's agent, vol. 16, p. 260. 
 
 Effect of mere demand by 
 vendee at intermediate 
 point, vol. 16, p. 261. 
 
 Effect of payment of through 
 freight charges on right to 
 take possession of goods at 
 intermediate point, vol. 16, 
 p. 261. 
 
 Exercise of right as to goods 
 in hands of warehouseman 
 at intermediate point, vol. 
 16, p. 261. 
 
 Generally, vol. 16, p. 258. 
 
 Goods in hands of local car- 
 rier, vol. 16, p. 2S9. 
 
 InsufiScient delivery, illustra- 
 tions, vol. 16, p. 259. 
 
 Intercepting at intermediate 
 point, vol. 16, p. 260. 
 
 Mere arrival at destination, 
 vol. 16, p. 258. 
 
 Must be actual or constructive 
 delivery, vol. 16, p. 258. 
 
 Partial delivery, vol. 16, p. 
 259. 
 
 Sufficiency of delivery, a 
 question for jury, vol. 16, 
 p. 260. 
 
 Taking forcible possession 
 by vendee at intermediate 
 point, vol. 16, p. 261. 
 Waiver of right by vendor, vol. 
 
 16, p. 264. 
 
 Who May Exercise Right. 
 
 Agent acting without author- 
 ity, but his act being rati- 
 fied, vol. 16, p. 249. 
 
 Exercise of right through 
 agent, vol. 1, p. 246. 
 
 Factor shipping to principal, 
 vol. 16, p. 248. 
 
 Holder of lien, vol. 16, p. 249. 
 
 Must be privity of contract 
 between debtor and creditor, 
 vol. 16, p. 248. 
 
 One interested in portion of 
 goods, vol. 16, p. 248. 
 
 STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU— 
 Continued. 
 
 Principal, where factor has 
 joint interest, vol. 16, p. 
 248. 
 
 Principal who has shipped 
 to factor, though indebted 
 to latter, vol. 16, p. 248. 
 
 Surety, vol. 16, p. 249. 
 
 Transferee of bill of lading, 
 vol. 16, p. 249. 
 
 Vendor or quasi vendor, vol. 
 16, p. 248. 
 
 STORMS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Inspection of tracks, vol. 9, p. 
 610. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Local Assessments. 
 Railroads. 
 Railways. 
 
 Additional servitude, vol. 10, 
 pp. 222, 230. 
 
 Authority of municipal corpo- 
 ration to grant exclusive 
 privileges to street railways, 
 vol. 7, p. 698. 
 
 Bridges as part of highways, 
 vol. 1, p. 213. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Alighting from car and cross- 
 ing street without looking, 
 vol. 5, p. 506. 
 
 Alighting from moving street 
 car, vol. 9, p. 843. 
 
 Boarding or alighting from 
 moving car, vol. 4, p. 254. 
 
 Change where tender of fare, 
 vol. 6, p. 689. 
 
 Company not insurer of safety 
 of place where passenger 
 alights, vol. 12, p. 125. 
 
 Degree of care required of 
 passengers, vol. 9, p. 259. 
 
 Person alighting from street 
 car, passing behind it and 
 starting across parallel 
 track without looking to 
 see if another car was ap- 
 proaching was guilty of 
 contributory negli g e n c e, 
 vol. 6, p. 651. 
 
 Power of municipality to re- 
 quire conductors ou street 
 cars, vol. 9, p. 51. 
 
 Protrusion of arm from win- 
 dow of street car, vol. 8, p. 
 364. 
 
 Riding on platform or step of 
 street car, vol. 7, p. 305. 
 
176 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 STREET BAIIj"WAYS— Co«/!'at. 
 Stopping car at dangerous 
 
 place, vol. 9, p. 80. 
 Tender of fare, vol. 6, p. 689. 
 Tender of large sum to con- 
 ductor to pay fare, vol. 6, 
 
 p. 689. 
 Who are passengers, vol. 9, 
 
 p. 375. 
 Change of grade in city streets, 
 
 vol. 7, p. 638. 
 Children. 
 Children running in front of 
 
 moving street car, vol. 10, 
 
 p. 818. 
 Injury by street car to child 
 
 playing in street, vol. 6, p. 
 
 692. 
 Liability for injuries to, vol. 
 
 9, p. S32. 
 Collisions. 
 
 Vol. 9, p. ISl. 
 
 Collisions between intersect- 
 ing roads, vol. 9, p. 512. 
 
 Collisions of cars, vol. 9, p. 
 
 lis. 
 
 Collisions with vehicles, vol. 
 
 10, p. 834. 
 
 Crossing steam railroad, vol. 
 
 1, p. 189. 
 Duty of employee in charge 
 of moving car towards other 
 travelers, vol. 1, p. 281. 
 Duty of street railway com- 
 pany to avoid collision, vol. 
 1, p. 279. 
 Joint liability for collision, 
 
 vol. 9, p. 683. 
 Liability of two companies 
 for collisions, vol. 9, p. 512. 
 Duty of corporation to con- 
 struct and operate its road, 
 vol. 6, p. 667. 
 Eminent domain, whether a 
 street railway is an addi- 
 tional servitude, proximity 
 ' of tracks, vol. 10, pp. 222, 
 
 230. 
 Error of judgment of driver 
 or motorraan, vol. 9, p. 1S7. 
 Grant of exclusive privileges, 
 
 vol. S, p. 26. 
 Legal tender of fare, vol. 5, p. 
 
 308. 
 Mandamus to compel a railroad 
 company to relay a portion of 
 its road, vol. 6, p. 668. 
 Mandamus to compel the con- 
 struction or operation, vol. 6, 
 pp. 667, 669. 
 Municipal, authority to impose 
 restrictions and conditions 
 upon company, vol. 1, p. 349. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cowif'ar. 
 
 Municipal regulations and con- 
 trol of street railways, vol. 6, 
 p. 510; vol. 11, p. 806. 
 
 Occupancy of Another's Tracks. 
 
 Authority of the legislature, 
 
 vol. 4, p. 411. 
 Compensation, vol. 4, p. 414. 
 Joint use of motive power, 
 fixtures, etc., vol. 4, p. 413. 
 Proceedings to appropriate 
 the use of the track of an- 
 other company, vol. 4, p. 
 417. 
 Right to cross track of an- 
 other company, vol. 4, p. 
 418. 
 Statute prohibiting lease, vol. 
 4, p. 419. 
 Ordinance regulating rate of 
 . speed of car, vol. 6, p. 510. 
 Overhead crossings, vol. 7, p. 
 
 537. 
 Paving streets, vol. 5, p. 663. 
 Power of city to remove tracks, 
 of street railway, vol. 7, p. 
 590. 
 Power of municipality to regu- 
 late use of streets, vol. 7, p. 
 637. 
 Power of street railway, to take 
 franchise to exist beyond cor- 
 porate existence, vol. 1, p. 
 102. 
 Proceedings to appropriate use 
 of track of another company, 
 vol. 1, p. 238. 
 Right of one company to use 
 tracks of another, vol. 1, v. 
 236. 
 Right of way, vol. 6, p. 519. 
 Right of way as between street 
 car and vehicle at street 
 crossing, vol. 12, p. 424. 
 Rights in highways, vol. 6, pp. 
 110, 113. ^ 
 
 Right to cross track of another 
 
 company, vol. 6, p. 157. 
 Rule as to right of passage at 
 
 crossing, vol. 1, p. 281. 
 Superior right of passage in 
 streets, vol. 1, p. 279. 
 ^ T-rails, vol. 1, p. 177. 
 ' Turnpikes, right to construct: 
 street railways upon, vol. 1. 
 p. 208. ' 
 
 Whether pedestrian injured by 
 street car has used due care 
 was a question for the iurv. 
 vol. 5, p. 458. ^ 
 
 Whether the term railroad in- 
 cludes street railroad, vol. 7, 
 p. 552; vol. 11, p. 666. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 177 
 
 STREETS. 
 Abutters, rights of, vol. 1, p. 
 
 65. 
 Abutters' right of reasonable 
 
 passage, vol. 1, p. 65. 
 
 Additional Servitude. 
 Bxtra tracks on original 
 
 grade, vol. 1, p. S3. 
 Measure and elements of dam- 
 age, vol. 1, p. 52. 
 Modern judicial tendency, 
 
 vol. 1, p. 46. 
 Noise, stenches, etc., vol. 1, 
 
 p. 48. 
 Ordinary railroads, vol. 1 
 
 p. 46. 
 Private railroads, vol. 1, p. 
 
 47. 
 Railroad in street, coal house 
 and appurtenances, vol. 1, 
 p. 52. 
 Steam motors, vol. 1, p. 47. 
 Street railways, vol. 1, p. 72. 
 Street railway as additional 
 servitude to street, vol. 1, p. 
 103. 
 Transporting freight over 
 street railway, vol. 1, p. 103. 
 Authority of municipal corpo- 
 rations to grant exclusive 
 privileges to street railway, 
 vol. 7, p. 698. 
 Change of grade in city streets, 
 
 vol. 7, p. 638. 
 Conditions imposed by munici- 
 pality upon use of street, vol. 
 7, p. 72. 
 Control of streets by munici- 
 pality, vol. 1, p. 29. 
 Defective construction of rail- 
 road in streets, vol. 10, p. 
 726. 
 Duty of railway companies as 
 to maintenance of roads lead- 
 ing to its stations and yards, 
 vol. 5, p. 418. 
 Exclusive and perpetual grant 
 of use of streets, vol. 1, p. 
 48; vol. 5, p. 26. 
 Extension of streets over rail- 
 road, vol. 8, p. 710. 
 Grant of exclusive privilege, 
 
 vol. 1, p. 48; vol. 5, p. 26. 
 Injunction against the occupa- 
 tion of a street by an ordinary^ 
 railroad, vol. 4, p. 271. 
 Injunction, right of abutting 
 owners to enjoin railroads in 
 streets, vol. 10, p. 126. 
 Municipal authority, vol. 1, p. 
 
 349. 
 Municipal control over, vol. 1, 
 pp. 101, 220. 
 
 I D— 12 
 
 STREETS— Co»ft««^af. 
 
 Municipal grants, vol. 1, p. 29. 
 
 Municipal power to grant use 
 of streets beyond corporate 
 life of grantee, vol. 1, p. 101. 
 
 Mutual rights of company and 
 citizens, vol. 10, p. 726. 
 
 Obligation of railroad in street 
 to use reasonable care, vol. 
 1, p. 68. 
 
 Obligation of street railways to 
 keep track and street in re- 
 pair, vol. 1, p. 292. 
 
 Obstruction by trolley wires, 
 vol. 1, p. 340. 
 
 Obstruction of travel by rail- 
 road, vol. 1, p. 70. 
 
 Ordinary railroads in streets, 
 vol. 1, p. 30. 
 
 Paving streets, vol. 5, p. 663. 
 
 Power of city to remove tracks 
 of street railway, vol. 7, p. 
 590. 
 
 Power of municipality to regu- 
 late use of streets, vol. 7, p. 
 637. 
 
 Kailroads in streets, wrongful 
 occupancy as a continuing 
 trespass, vol. 9, p. 451. 
 
 Ratification by legislature of 
 invalid grants by municipal 
 corporation, vol. 1, p. 131. 
 
 Right of commercial railroads 
 
 ■ in streets, vol. 1, p. 30. 
 
 Right of company to use rail- 
 road track as footpath when 
 it is in the highway, vol. 10, 
 p. 504. 
 
 Right of railroad to use streets, 
 vol. 1, p. 28. 
 
 Rights of abutters, vol. 1, p. 65. 
 
 Title of abutting owners to va- 
 cated streets, vol. 10, p. 715. 
 
 When railroad in street is a 
 nuisance, vol. 1, p. 34. 
 
 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS. 
 See Crossings. 
 Dedication of land for highway, 
 vol. 11, p. 286. 
 
 STRUCTURES NEAR TRACK 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Injuries to employees, vol. 9, 
 p. 832. 
 
 SUBROGATION. 
 
 See Fires. 
 
 SUCCESSORS. 
 L/iability of purchasing railroad 
 for tort committed prior to 
 transfer of purchased rail- 
 road, vol. 4, p. 575. , 
 
in 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 SUNDAY. 
 
 Effect of violation of Sunday 
 laws in cases of negligent in- 
 jury, vol. 10, p. S26. 
 Sunday laws interfering with 
 interstate commerce, vol. 4, 
 p. 505. 
 
 SURETYSHIP. 
 
 See Corporations. 
 
 SURFACE WATERS. 
 
 See Water and Watercourses. 
 Obstruction of. 
 
 Civil law rule, vol. 14, p. 842 
 Common-law rule, vol. 14, p 
 
 840. 
 Conflicting decisions, vol. 14 
 
 p. 843. 
 Modified doctrine, vol. 14, p 
 
 843. 
 New Jersey rule, vol. 14, p 
 
 843. 
 Statutory provisions, vol. 14 
 
 p. 844. 
 
 SURVIVAL. 
 
 Actions for personal injuries, 
 vol. 7, p. 579. 
 
 SWITCHES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Negligence. 
 Verbal contract by railroad to 
 maintain switch for benefit 
 of shipper, vol. 6, p. 714. 
 
 SWITCH YARDS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 TAXATION. 
 
 See Consolidation. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Judicial Notice. 
 Licenses. 
 
 Local Assessments. 
 Stock and Stockholders. 
 
 Cars of foreign corporations, 
 
 vol. 13, p. 874. 
 Constitutional provisions, vol. 
 
 12, p. 876. 
 
 Exemptions. 
 
 Actual use required, vol. 14, 
 p. 192. ' 
 
 Cause of loss of right to ex- 
 emption from taxation, vol. 
 20, p. 21. 
 
 Charter exemption from taxa- 
 tion not passing to company 
 formed by consolidation of 
 domestic and foreign com- 
 pany, vol. 20, p. 22. 
 
 TAXATION— Co«/i«««'rf. 
 
 Charter exemption not pass- 
 ing to company formed by 
 consolidation of domestic 
 and foreign company, vol. 
 20, p. 22. 
 
 Decree for foreclosure sale 
 may pass, vol. 14, p. 200. 
 
 Efl'ect of consolidation, vol. 
 20, p. 20. 
 
 Effect of reserved power of 
 amendment on charter ex- 
 empting clauses, vol. 19, 
 p. 2'76. 
 
 Exemption from taxation not 
 extending to property of 
 other constituent company 
 in case of consolidation, 
 vol. 20, p. 24. 
 
 Extent of, vol. 14, p. 191. 
 
 Extent of statutory exemp- 
 tions of railroad property 
 from taxation, vol. 23, p. 
 282. 
 
 Not I lost by consolidation 
 where all rights and privi- 
 leges granted to successor, 
 vol. 20, p. 23. 
 
 Purchaser at foreclosure sale 
 cannot claim, vol. 14, p. 
 199, 
 
 Right does not extend to ab- 
 sorbed road of another com- 
 pany, vol. 20, p. 22. 
 
 Right governed by statute 
 allowing consolidation, vol. 
 20, p. 21. 
 
 Right lost by consolidation, 
 vol. 20, p. 21. 
 
 Right not lost by consolida- 
 tion, vol. 20, p. 23. 
 
 Right not lost by consolida- 
 tion where all rights and 
 privileges granted to suc- 
 cessor, vol. 20, p. 23. 
 
 Right not lost by consolida- 
 tion where statute creates 
 community of interest, vol. 
 20, p. 23. 
 
 Right of purchaser at fore- 
 closure sale, general rule, 
 vol. 20, p. 24. 
 
 Right passing into stock 
 of consolidated company 
 where shares of constituent 
 companies were exempt, 
 vol. 20, p. 24. 
 
 Right passing to purchaser 
 of road under statute pro- 
 viding that "all rights" 
 shall pass, vol. 20, p. 24. 
 . Rights of purchaser at fore- 
 closure sale to exemption of 
 predecessor, when implied 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 179 
 
 TAXATION— Con tinued. 
 
 from statute conferring; lat- 
 ter's rights and powers upon 
 successor, vol. 20, p. 25. 
 Eights of purchaser at fore- 
 closure sale to exemption of 
 predecessor, when not im- 
 plied from statute confer- 
 ring latter's rights and 
 powers upon successors, vol. 
 20, p. 25. 
 Kights of purchaser at fore- 
 closure to exemption of 
 predecessor, when conferred 
 by decree vesting rights of 
 latter in successor, vol. 20, 
 p. 25. 
 Kights of purchaser of rail- 
 road at foreclosure sale, 
 general rule, vol. 20, p. 24. 
 Right vesting in company 
 formed by consolidation of 
 corporations of different 
 states, vol. 20, p. 23. 
 Status of corporation formed 
 by consolidation as to con- 
 stitutional provisions re- 
 specting taxation, vol. 20, 
 p. 21. 
 When implied, vol. 14, p. 199. 
 When not implied, vol. 14, p. 
 199. 
 Grants of public lands, vol. 10, 
 
 p. 212. 
 Gross receipts, whether inter- 
 ference with interstate com- 
 merce, vol. 20, p. 768. 
 Ivicense tax imposed on corpo- 
 ration engaged in interstate 
 commerce, vol. 14, p. 208. 
 Of cars of foreign corporations, 
 
 vol. 13, p. 874. 
 "Roadway," 'right of way, 
 "railroad track," vol. 11, p. 
 821. 
 
 Shops, vol. 10, p. 190. 
 
 Uniformity and equality, vol. 
 12, p. 875. 
 
 Valuation of capital stock, in- 
 debtedness considered, vol. 
 14, p. 173. 
 
 TAX LIST. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 TELEGRAPHS AND TELE- 
 PHONES. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Right of Way. 
 
 Electrical interference of elec- 
 tric railways, vol. 1, p. 326. 
 
 TICKETS AND B'ARES. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Street Railways. 
 Ticket Scalpers. 
 
 Agent's mistake in refusing 
 to sell ticket, vol. 5, p. 223. 
 
 Assent of passenger to limita- 
 tion of liability for baggage, 
 vol. 5, pp. 66, 67. 
 
 Assent to printed conditions on 
 passenger tickets, vol. 21, p. 
 148. 
 
 Burden of proof, as to assent 
 where passengers had knowl- 
 edge of condition, rule in fed- 
 eral courts, vol. 21, p. 152. 
 
 Change, vol. 6, p. 689. 
 
 Conditions as to Stamping and 
 Identification. 
 
 Absence of agient, vol. 17, p. 
 658. 
 
 Effect as to purchaser, vol. 
 17, p. 655. 
 
 Effect of failure to comply, 
 vol. 17, p. 658. 
 
 Reasonableness, vol. 17, p. 
 654. 
 
 Refusal of agent to stamp, 
 vol. 17, p. 659. 
 
 Validity, vol. 17, p. 655. 
 
 Waiver of condition, vol. 17, 
 p. 657. 
 Conditions on tickets, vol. 2, 
 
 p. 112. 
 Constitutionality of anti-ticket 
 
 scalper laws, vol. 20, p. 478. 
 Construction of stipulation that 
 
 ticket is good for this trip 
 
 only, vol. 20, p. 439. 
 Contract of carriage, vol. 2, p. 
 
 110. 
 Discrimination in issuing free 
 
 passes, vol. 11, p. 246. 
 Drover's passes, vol. 5, p. 262. 
 Duty of railroads to keep ticket 
 
 office open for sale of tickets, 
 
 vol. 2, p. 111. 
 Effect of delay on intermediate 
 
 line on limited ticket for pas- 
 sage over connecting line, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 439. 
 Effect of delay which would 
 
 have prevented the taking of 
 
 an earlier train on line of 
 
 ticket, vol. 20, p. 439. 
 Effect of foreign statute njak- 
 
 ing ticket good for a certain 
 
 number of years, vol. 20, p. 
 
 439. 
 Effect of time limit where 
 
 ticket expires on Sunday, 
 
 when no trains are running, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 439. 
 
180 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES— Co«- 
 iinued. 
 Ejection of Passenger. 
 
 Expulsion of passenger where 
 
 ticket is lost, vol. 3, p. 287. 
 
 Mistake of ticket agents and 
 
 conductors, vol. 10, p. 272. 
 
 Ticket defective on its face, 
 
 vol. 4, p. 518. 
 View that conductor may ex- 
 pel passenger, vol. 4, p. 
 SIS. 
 View that conductor may not 
 expel passenger, vol. 4, p. 
 517. 
 Where ticket is defective, vol. 
 4, p. SIS; vol. 10, p. 49. 
 I'raudulent evasion of payment 
 
 of fare, vol. 2, p. 16. 
 Free pass, validity of exemp- 
 tion from liability, vol. 12, 
 p. 68. 
 Invalid ticket or token, negli- 
 gence of carrier's agent, vol. 
 10, p. 273. 
 Journey must be completed be- 
 fore expiration of ticket, vol. 
 20, p. 438. 
 Legal tender, vol. S, p. 308. 
 Liability of carrier selling 
 tickets for injury to passenger 
 while being carried by an- 
 other company, vol. 20, p. 
 428. 
 Liability of connecting carrier 
 where sale of through ticket, 
 vol. S, p. 229. 
 
 Limited Tickets. 
 Ticket as evidence of passen- 
 ger's 'ights, vol. 11, p. 216. 
 Ticket as notice to passenger, 
 
 vol. 11, p. 252. 
 Ticket held binding on pas- 
 senger, vol. 11, p. 252. 
 Whether tickets are contracts, 
 vol. 11, p. 250. 
 
 Limiting liability for negli- 
 gence, vol. 5, p. 257. 
 
 Mail agent, vol. 2, p. 17. 
 
 Merely reaching station on day 
 of expiration of ticket not 
 sufBcient, vol. 20, p. 438. 
 
 Nontransferable ticket, vol. 5, 
 p. 692. 
 
 Nontransferable ticket, forfei- 
 ture, vol. 12, p. 140. 
 
 Only necessary that journey 
 should be commenced within 
 time limit, vol. 20, p. 437. 
 
 Overcharges in freights and 
 fares, vol. 8, p. 639. 
 
 Power of legislature to fix 
 maximum fares, vol. 8, p. 511. 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES— Co«- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Redemption of unused portion 
 
 of excursion ticket, vol. 14, p. 
 
 263. 
 
 Rights of purchaser, vol. 2, p. 
 
 110. 
 Right to charge extra fare for 
 failure to secure ticket, vol. 
 20, p. 533. 
 Stop-over privileges under 
 agreement with agent, vol. 
 17, p. 157; vol. 20, p. 440. 
 Tender of fare, vol. 6, p. 689. 
 Ticket as evidence of passen- 
 ger's rights, vol. 11, p. 216. 
 Ticket good if presented before 
 midnight of last day, vol. 20, 
 p. 438. 
 Ticket scalpers, vol. 14, p. 508. 
 Validity of act compelling issu- 
 ance of thousand mile tickets, 
 vol. 8, p. 511. 
 Validity of printed conditions, 
 
 vol. 20, p. 428. 
 Validity of stipulation fixing 
 time for expiration, vol. 20, 
 p. 436. 
 Validity of stipulation fixing 
 time for expiration of ticket 
 for carriage over connecting 
 lines, vol. 20, p. 438. 
 Validity of stipulation provid- 
 ing for continuous trip, vol. 
 20, p. 438. 
 Waiver of condition as to ex- 
 piration of time, vol. 20, p. 
 440. 
 Whether Passenger's Assent to 
 Limitation of Carrier's Liabil- 
 ity for Baggage Is Conclu- 
 sively Presumed from His 
 Acceptance of Ticket, Baggage 
 Check, or Receipt Containing 
 Stipulation. 
 
 Assent presumed from use of 
 commutation ticket, vol. 21, 
 p. 154. 
 
 As to whether passenger as- 
 sented to limitation on 
 ticket, check or receipt ac- 
 cepted by him held to be 
 a question for the jury, vol. 
 21, p. 153. 
 
 Baggage checked, vol. 21, p. 
 148. 
 
 Baggage check received in 
 dimly-lighted car and not 
 read, vol. 21, p. 148. 
 
 Burden of proof as to assent 
 where passenger has knowl- 
 edge of condition, rule in 
 federal court, vol. 21, o. 
 152. ^ 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 181 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES— Cow- 
 tinued. 
 
 Burden of proof on carrier 
 to show assent even where 
 passenger had knowledge 
 of condition, vol. 21, p. 1S2. 
 
 Check for baggage to be sent 
 over connecting lines, vol. 
 21, p. 149. 
 
 General rule, vol. 21, p. 148. 
 
 Ivimitation printed in small 
 type on receipt for baggage, 
 receipt distinguished from 
 bill of lading, vol. 21, p. 
 ISO. 
 
 Notice of limitation must be 
 received before cars are 
 started, vol. 21, p. ISO. 
 
 Notices in fine type, vol. 21, 
 p. ISO. 
 
 Passenger bound by his 
 knowledge of limitation, 
 vol. 21, p. 153. 
 
 Passenger bound by printed 
 condition on expressman's 
 check, vol. 21, p. 154. 
 
 Passenger chargeable with 
 notice of conditions in bills 
 referred to on his excursion 
 ticket, vol. 21, p. 148. 
 
 Passenger chargeable with 
 notice of conditions on 
 ticket in form of coupon 
 book, vol. 21, p. 154. 
 
 Passengers on steamship 
 bound to examine tickets, 
 vol. 21, p. 155. 
 
 Printed condition on back of 
 ticket, vol. 21, p. 149. 
 
 Seduced rate of fare, passen- 
 gers chargeable with notice 
 of printed condition, vol. 
 21, p. 148. 
 
 Reduced rate of fare render- 
 ing printed conditions 
 valid, vol. 21, p. 148. 
 
 ■Sleeping car company tickets, 
 vol. 21, p. 150. 
 
 Statement of general rule, 
 vol. 21, p. 148. 
 
 Unread receipt for baggage 
 check, vol. 21, p. 148. 
 
 Unsigned ticket, vol. 21, p. 
 149. 
 
 Validity of notice on ticket 
 
 purchased after delivery of 
 
 baggage to carrier, vol. 21, 
 
 p. ISO. 
 
 Whether passenger tickets are 
 
 contracts, vol. 21, p. 148. 
 
 TICKET SCALPERS. 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 TIES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 TORTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Consolidation. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Ultra Vires. 
 
 Assignment of right of action 
 for, vol. 11, p. 848. 
 
 Liability of purchasing railroad 
 for tort committed prior to 
 transfer of purchased rail- 
 road, vol. 4, p. 575. 
 
 Liability of railroads for torts 
 of independent contractors, 
 vol. 13, p. 91. 
 
 Liability of railroads for ultra 
 vires torts, vol. 17, p. 876. 
 
 Priority between railroad mort- 
 gage and judgment for tort 
 committed after execution of 
 mortgage, vol. 4, p. 173. 
 
 Whether action of contract or 
 tort should be brought for in- 
 jury to passenger, vol. 8, p. 
 375. 
 
 TRACK CONNECTIONS. 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 TRACKS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Taxation. 
 
 Care due employees on tracks, 
 
 vol. 4, p. 542. 
 Children trespassing upon, vol. 
 
 6, p. 318. 
 Injury to licensee on track, vol. 
 
 9, p. 210. 
 Inspection of, vol. 9, p. 610. 
 Right to cross track of another 
 
 company, vol. 6, p. 157. 
 
 TRAIN DISPATCHERS. 
 See Fellow Servwnts. 
 
 TRAINS. 
 
 See Mandamus. 
 
 TRESPASSERS. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Assaults. 
 Children. 
 Licensees. 
 Authority of servants to eject 
 
 trespassers, vol. 6, p. 59. 
 Care due trespassers on track, 
 
 vol. 5, p. 483. 
 Children, duty to look out for, 
 vol. 6, p. 318. 
 
182 
 
 INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Co«^?««^rf. 
 Duty of company as to drunken 
 
 trespassers on track, vol. 7, 
 
 p. 121. 
 Duty of railroad employee to 
 
 trespasser on track in perilous 
 
 place, vol. 8, p. 677. 
 Duty to trespassers on track, 
 
 vol. 11, p. 831; vol. 19, p. 
 
 120; vol. 20, p. 322. 
 Failure to give signals at cross- 
 ings, vol. 8, p. 671. 
 Injunction for wrongful use of 
 
 street, vol. 1, p. SO. 
 
 Liability for Injuries to Tres- 
 passers on Train. 
 
 Boys trespassing on moving 
 car, excessive speed not 
 proximate cause of injury, 
 vol. 22, p. 170. 
 
 Duty and liability of company 
 to trespasser upon its cars, 
 vol. 6, p. 59. 
 
 Ejection from moving train as 
 tending to show willfulness, 
 vol. 19, p. 7S4. 
 
 Ejection from moving train is 
 not negligence per se, vol. 
 19, p. 754. 
 
 Gross negligence under Iowa 
 statute giving riglit of ac- 
 tion for injury to persons 
 on train other than passen- 
 ger, vol. 22, p. 171. 
 
 Improper manner of ejection, 
 vol. 22, p. 171. 
 
 L/iability for assault upon 
 trespasser after ejection 
 from train, whether con- 
 tinuous transaction, vol. 2, 
 p. 446. 
 
 Liability for ejection of tres- 
 passers from railroad trains, 
 vol. 21, p. 242. 
 
 Liability for forcible ejection 
 of trespasser from train, 
 vol. 20, p. 445. 
 
 Liability for injuries to tres- 
 passer kicked off moving 
 engine, vol. 20, p. 445. 
 
 Liability for injury to boy 
 trespasser ordered from 
 moving car, vol. 19, p. 754. 
 
 Liability for 'violent ejection 
 of trespasser from moving 
 train after his being re- 
 peatedly ordered off, vol. 19, 
 p. 754; vol. 20, p. 445. 
 
 Ordered off while stealing ride 
 between freight cars, vol. 
 22, p. 170. 
 
 Riding on brake under car, 
 vol. 22, p. 170. 
 
 TRBSP ASSB RS— Continued. 
 
 Riding on cars by sufferance 
 
 of engineer, vol,. 22, p. 170. 
 Riding on freight train by 
 
 sufferance of trainmen, vol. 
 
 22, p. 170. 
 Riding with consent of brake- 
 man, vol. 22, p. 170. 
 Riding with train master's 
 
 consent, vol. 22, p. 170. 
 Statements of general rule, 
 
 vol. 22, p. 169. 
 Stealing ride on freight train, 
 
 vol. 22, p. 170. 
 Trespasser suffered to remain 
 
 on freight train, vol. 22, 
 
 p. 170. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 
 negligence, vol. 12, p. 334. 
 Wanton negligence to trespasser 
 
 on track, vol. 13, p. 824. 
 Where there is mere use of the 
 track without objection on 
 part of the company, persons, 
 so using are trespassers, vol. 
 11, p. 831. 
 Whether brakemen have implied 
 authority to eject trespassers, 
 from train, vol. 21, p. 241. 
 
 TRESTLES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 TURNPIKE COMPANIES. 
 Street railways, vol. 1, p. 208.. 
 Their character and uses, voU 
 1, p. 208. 
 
 TURNTABLES. 
 See Children. 
 
 ULTRA VIRES. 
 Estoppel to set up ultra vires as. 
 defense to executed contract, 
 vol. 17, p. 348. 
 
 Liability for ultra vires torts, 
 vol. 17, p. 676. 
 
 Ultra vires as defense to ex- 
 ecuted contract, vol. 17, p. 
 348. 
 
 UNION DEPOT COMPANIES. 
 
 Vol. 7, p. 685. 
 
 VENDOR AND PURCHASER. 
 Liability of purchasing railroad 
 for tort Committed prior to- 
 transfer of purchased rail- 
 road, vol. 4, p. 575. 
 
 VICE PRINCIPALS. 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 
INDEX TO NOTES 
 
 183 
 
 VIB^W BY JURY. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 VOLUNTEERS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 "WAGES. 
 
 See Damages. 
 
 WAIVER. 
 
 See Ejectment. 
 Franchises. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Stoppage in Transitu. 
 
 WAREHOUSEMEN. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Warehouseman's liability for 
 damages from fire, vol. 13, p. 
 2S8. 
 
 WATCHMEN. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 WATER AND WATER- 
 COURSES. 
 
 See Surface Waters. 
 
 WILFULNESS. 
 See Negligence, 
 Pleading. 
 
 WITNESSES. 
 Employees as witnesses, vol. 12, 
 
 p. 804; vol. 14, p. 46. 
 Presumption from failure to 
 
 call employee, vol. 14, p. SB. 
 Presumption from failure to 
 
 produce employee, vol. 14, 
 
 p. 57. 
 
 YARDS.- 
 
 Duty of railway companies as 
 to maintenance of ways lead- 
 ing to its stations and yards, 
 vol. S, p. 418. 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 ABANDONMENT. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Right of Way. 
 
 Jones V. Van Bochove 
 
 (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 664. 
 Mathews v. Lake Shore, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 791. 
 St. Louis, S. W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hargrove (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 667. 
 Abandonment of right of way, 
 occupied under parol li- 
 cense, right of company to 
 reoccupy land afterwards 
 purchased by third party 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. 
 
 Hargrove (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 667. 
 Conveyance by railroad com- 
 pany of abandoned right of 
 way to third party. 
 Chamberlain v. Northeast- 
 ern Railroad Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 694. 
 
 ABATEMENT. 
 See Appeal. 
 
 Consolidation of Railroads. 
 
 ABUTTERS. 
 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 Elevated Railroads. 
 Eminent Dotnain. 
 ■ Injunctions. 
 Ordinary Railroads in 
 
 Streets. 
 Public Lands. 
 Railroads. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Street Railways. 
 Streets and Highways. 
 Abutter's right to compensation 
 where tracks are laid in streets. 
 Lewis V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 3, p. 413. 
 Action by abutter for damages 
 from construction of railroad. 
 Adler v. Metropolitan El. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 371. 
 Bischoff V. New York El. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 372. 
 Doyle V. Metropolitan El. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 372. 
 Shepard v. Manhattan R. Co, 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 371. 
 
 ABUTTERS— Continued. 
 
 Taylor v. Bay City St. Rail- 
 road Co. (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 
 165. 
 Agreement of street railway 
 company, in consideration of 
 consent of an abutting owner, 
 that it would not thereafter 
 lay a second track. 
 Doane v. Chicago City Ry. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 6, p. 792. 
 A street railway company could 
 not urge as a defense to an 
 action to compel operation of 
 its line that it occupies such 
 street merely as the abutters' 
 licensee, where it had been 
 in undisturbed possession for 
 over five years. 
 State ex rel. Grinsfetder v. 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 
 vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Bona fide purchaser entitled to 
 enjoin laying of additional 
 track. 
 
 Varwig v. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. L. R. Co. (Ohio), Vol. 4, 
 p. 265. 
 Change of grade. 
 
 Limburger v. San Antonio R. 
 
 T. Co. (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 171. 
 
 Change of motive power does 
 
 not per se create additional 
 
 easement. 
 
 State (Roebling, Prosecutrix) 
 V. Trenton Passenger Rail- 
 way Co., Consolidated (N. 
 X), vol. 4, p. 392. 
 Damages may be recovered for 
 personal annoyance from rail- 
 road in street. 
 
 Louisville Southern R. Co. v. 
 Hooe (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 808. 
 Duly authorized construction 
 and operation of side track in 
 street will not be enjoined at 
 instance of private citizen. 
 Burrus v. City of Columbus 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 869. 
 Easements of in highway not 
 affected by order discontinu- 
 ing highway. 
 
 Central Trust Co. of New York 
 V. Hennen (C. C. A.), vol. 
 13, p. 409. 
 
186 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 ABUTTERS— Co«^f««erf. 
 Electric Railroads. 
 
 Hunter v. Manhattan Rail- 
 way Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 
 366. 
 Lake Roland Elevated R. Co. 
 V. Webster (Md.), vol. 1, p. 
 360. 
 White V. Manhattan Rail- 
 way Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, 
 p. 351. 
 Erection of poles in streets. 
 State (Roebling-, Prosecu- 
 trix) V. Trenton Passen- 
 ger Railway Co. , Consoli- 
 dated (N. J.), vol. 4, p. 
 392. 
 Trolley poles not an additional 
 servitude. 
 
 Snyder v. Ft. Madison St. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa) , vol. 11, p. 
 S3. 
 Whether conversion of horse 
 railway into electric road is 
 an additional servitude. 
 Reid V. Norfolk St. City R. 
 Co. (Va.), vol. 6, p. 792. 
 Elements of damage for in- 
 jury from railroad in street. 
 Bischoff V. New York El. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 372. 
 Bookman v. New York El. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.),vol. 1, p. 373. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 641. 
 Sixth Avenue R. Co. v. 
 Metropolitan El. R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 373. 
 Sperb V. Metropolitan El. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 372. 
 Sutro V. Manhattan R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 373. 
 Elements of damages where 
 street railway is built in 
 front of abutter's property. 
 Taylor v. Bay City St. Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 16S. 
 Enjoining laying of additional 
 track. 
 
 Varwig v. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. Iv. R. Co. (Ohio), vol. 4, 
 p. 26S. 
 Enjoining use of street. 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. City of 
 Chicago (111. ) , vol. IS, p. 618. 
 Enjoining use of streets for car 
 tracks. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Thomas 
 (Miss. ) , vol. 10, p. 846. 
 Injury to property from railroad 
 in street. 
 
 Guinn v. Ohio River R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 437. 
 
 A.'BXJTU'EB.S— Continued. 
 
 Interference with abutting prop- 
 erty by railroad located in 
 street. ^ 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hooe 
 (Ky.), vol. 4, p. 264. 
 Necessity of consent to regular 
 tions as to use of street and 
 construction, maintenance and 
 operation of road. 
 State V. Commissioners of 
 Streets (N. Y.), vol. 10, p. 323. 
 Obstruction of reasonable right 
 of passage. 
 
 Taylor v. Bay City Street Rail- 
 way Co. (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 
 16S. 
 Right of action for injuries to 
 property caused by operation 
 of train not confined to abut- 
 ters. 
 
 Willis V. Kentucky & I. Bridge 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 324. 
 Right to damages where city 
 owns fee in street. 
 Kaufman v, Tacoma, O. & G. 
 H. R. Co. (Wash.), vol. 1, p. 
 169. 
 Right to maintain action to com- 
 pel operation of street railway. 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 -Spokane St. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 
 vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Right to prevent unauthorized 
 cpnstruction. 
 
 Thomas v. Inter-County St. R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 169. 
 Right to recover for dangerous 
 condition of street under alle- 
 gations of deterioration of 
 property. 
 
 Limburger v. San Antonio R. 
 T. Co. (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 169. 
 Right to test legality of munici- 
 pal consent to construction. 
 State V. Mayor, etc., of Jersey 
 City (N. J.), vol. 1, p. 169. 
 Sufficiency of petition for in- 
 junction to compel removal of 
 trolley pole. 
 
 Snyder v. Ft. Madison St. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, p. 53. 
 Title to vacated street. 
 Olin V. Denver & R. G. R, Co. 
 (Colo. ) , vol. 10, p. 708. 
 Track raised above pavement, 
 evidence of authority for such 
 construction. 
 
 Taylor V. Bay City St. Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 165. 
 Validity of purchase of consent 
 of abutting owners to con- 
 struction of street railway. 
 Doane v. Chicago City Ry. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 6, p. 792. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 187 
 
 ACCIDENT. 
 Definition. 
 Conner v. Citizens' St. R. Co. 
 (Ind.), vol. 7, p. 287. 
 
 ACCIDENTS ON TRACK. 
 See Children. 
 Licensees. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Street Railways. 
 Trespassers. 
 Absolute liability for failure to 
 observe statutory precautions 
 to prevent accidents on rail- 
 roads. 
 
 Walton V. Chattanoog-a Rapid- 
 Transit Co. (Tenn.), vol. 19, 
 p. 436. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 ownership of locus in quo. 
 Cedefson v. Oregon R. & Nav. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, p. 6SS. 
 Admissibility of evidence to 
 show failure to give statutory 
 crossing signals, where child 
 was killed beyond crossing. 
 Mason v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 83. 
 Admissibility of evidence to 
 show that engineer was com- 
 petent, in accident for injury 
 to person on track. 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. Ry. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, p. SSI. 
 Care required in managing 
 trains to avoid injuring per- 
 sons on track. 
 
 TuUy V. Philadelphia, etc. , R. 
 Co. (Del.), vol. 23, p. 209. 
 Collisions between train backing 
 throug'h city and another train, 
 negligence and contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Lampkin v. McCormick (La.), 
 vol. 21, p. 714. 
 Conductor's testimony as to dec- 
 laration of driver of vehicle in 
 action for injury to latter on 
 street railway track. 
 Edwards v. Foote (Mich. ) , vol. 
 23, p. 812. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Catching foot in switch. 
 International & G. N. R. Co. 
 
 V. Lee (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 441. 
 Contributory negligence a de- 
 fense to negligence in fail- 
 ing to maintain lookout 
 required by statute. 
 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Smith (Ark.) , vol. 13, p. 
 
 699. 
 
 ACCIDENTS ON TRACK— 
 Continued. 
 
 Contributory negligence no de- 
 fense under statute creating 
 absolute liability for failure 
 to observe precautions to 
 prevent accidents on rail- 
 roads. 
 
 Walton V. Chattanooga 
 Rapid-Transit Co. (Tenn.), 
 vol. 19, p. 436. 
 Deaf persons walking on track. 
 Mclver v. Georgia S. &' F. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. IS,' p. 
 703. 
 Death on street railway tracks. 
 Blanev v. Electric Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol.. 10, p. 560. 
 Driving parallel with electric 
 railway track. 
 
 Rouse Ji. Detroit Electric Ry. 
 (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 6S0. 
 Effect of failing to avoid in- 
 jury. 
 
 Schneider v. Market St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 692. 
 Eact that person, accustomed 
 to pass through defendant's 
 yard, and who was familiar ■ 
 with its switches, etc., 
 caught his foot in an un- 
 blocked frog on dark night, 
 was held not to warrant the 
 holding as a matter of law 
 that he was negligent. 
 Lee V. International, etc., R. 
 Co. (Tex.), vol. 5, p. 376. 
 Failure to jump from vehicle. 
 Edwards v. Eoote (Mich.), 
 vol. 23, p. 812. 
 Failure to look and listen by 
 person standing near track. 
 Tanner v. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 809. 
 Going on track before moving- 
 train is contributory negli- 
 gence as a matter of law. 
 Ring V. Chicago, St. P. & K. 
 C. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 12, 
 p. 452. 
 In being on track in street as 
 affected by speed in viola- 
 tion of ordinance. 
 Lea V. Durham & N. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 765. 
 Injury to person on track. 
 Evans v. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 10, p. 837. 
 Instruction as to care to be 
 exercised by pedestrian on 
 railway track in street. 
 Mcllhaney v. Southern R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 11, p. 
 100. 
 
188 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 ACCIDENTS ON TRACK— 
 Continued. 
 
 Killing person on track. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Staggs (Tex.), vol. 8, p. 
 197. 
 Killing persons sleeping on 
 track. 
 
 Parish v. Western & A. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 574. 
 Negligence after discovery of 
 decedent's peril, liable not- 
 withstanding his contribu- 
 tory negligence. 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Townsend (Ark. ) , vol. 22, 
 p. 123. 
 Obstruction of street railway 
 track. 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 Haight (N. J.), vol. 8, p. 90. 
 Obstruction of track by car- 
 riage. 
 
 Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Pres- 
 ton (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 616. 
 Of children. 
 
 Trudell v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 316. 
 Of licensee on depot grounds, 
 in stepping on track in 
 front of approaching train. 
 Chattanooga, R. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Downs (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 21, p. 493. 
 Pedestrian failing to look for 
 trains in his rear. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Barfield 
 (Ga.), vol. 19, p. 702. 
 Persons walking on a railroad 
 track in a street, saw an 
 engine approaching and 
 stepped off that track upon 
 another, not stopping in the 
 space intervening between 
 the two tracks. It was held 
 he was guilty of contribu- 
 tory negligence if he would 
 have been safe in the inter- 
 vening space. 
 
 Mcllhaney v. Southern R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 6, p. 693. 
 Question for jury. 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 Isley (N. J.), vol. S, p. 457. 
 Taking seat upon track be- 
 hind a curve after being 
 warned of danger. 
 Roseberry v. Newport News 
 & M. V. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 10, p. 844. 
 Trestle. 
 Little V. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 7, p. 
 769. 
 
 ACCIDENTS ON TRACK— 
 Continued. 
 
 Violation of statute regulating 
 speed as affecting. 
 Schug V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 15, 
 p. 70S. 
 Whether contributory negli- 
 gence for indigent wife to 
 leave afflicted husband un- 
 attended. 
 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 Declaration of motorman as to 
 his failure to apply brakes 
 after discovering plaintiff's 
 peril as res gestae. 
 Floyd V. Paducah Railway & 
 Light Co. (Kv.),vol. 23, p. 
 167. 
 Defective street railway track. 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Sutton 
 (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 771. 
 Duty of engineer to keep careful 
 lookout on track. 
 Gunu V. Ohio River R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 275. 
 Duty of engineer when he sees 
 person on track. 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (Fla.), vol. 5, p. 709. 
 Duty of pedestrian to look out 
 for trolley cars. 
 McGrath v. North Jersey St. 
 Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 
 790. 
 Duty of railroad to keep lookout 
 on rear of train. 
 Green v. Chicago & W. M. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, p. 317. 
 Duty of railroad to trespassers 
 on track. 
 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 Duty of trainmen in country 
 neighborhoods. 
 Haley v. Kansas City, M. & B. 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 771. 
 Duty to give warnings within 
 city where track used as a 
 footpath by licensees. 
 Connell v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 236. 
 Effect of failure to give signals 
 where trespasser heard train 
 in time to avoid injury. 
 Glenn v. Norfolk & W. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 585. 
 Effect of failure to signal on 
 liability for killing person sit- 
 ting at end of cross-tie, be- 
 tween crossings. 
 McArver v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 772. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 189 
 
 ACCIDENTS ON TRACK- 
 Continued. 
 
 Eng'ineer not chargeable with 
 knowledge as to when train 
 was due at intersection. 
 Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. Pey- 
 ton (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 343. 
 Evidence of defect in brake ad- 
 missible under general allega- 
 tion of negligence in running 
 train over plaintiff. 
 Walton V. Chattanooga Rapid- 
 Transit Co. (Tenn.), vol. 19, 
 p. 436. 
 Evidence of ownership of locus 
 in quo admissible under alle- 
 gation of general ownership. 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & Nav. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, p. 655. ■ 
 Evidence of speed of cars at 
 other times, in action for in- 
 juries to person driving paral- 
 lel to street railway track. 
 Rouse V. Detroit Electric Ry. 
 (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 650. 
 Evidence of use of track as path- 
 way. 
 
 McCall V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 760. 
 Evidence that track was used as 
 footpath. 
 
 Hord V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 756. 
 Expert evidence as to distance 
 within which car may be 
 stopped. 
 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 759. 
 Failure of employee on engine 
 to keep lookout. 
 Middle Ga., etc., R. Co. v. Rey- 
 nolds (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 763. 
 Failure of servant to keep look- 
 out not negligence, where it 
 was not one of his duties. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Creighton (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 
 713. 
 Imputable negligence a question 
 for jury. 
 
 Hoimark v. Consolidated Trac- 
 tion Co. (N. J.), vol. 9, p. 
 380. 
 Killing of dog on track was not 
 negligence. 
 
 Richardson v. Florida Cent. & 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 15, 
 p. 575. 
 Killing of licensee, negligence 
 and contributory negligence 
 questions for jury. 
 Washington v. Missouri, K. & 
 T. Ry. Co. of Texas (Tex.), 
 vol. 11, p. 829. 
 
 ACCIDENTS ON TRACK— 
 Continued. 
 
 Lack of assistants no excuse for 
 engineer's failure to exercise 
 care. 
 Jeffries v. Seaboard A. L,. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 339. 
 
 Liability for defect in right of 
 
 way permitted to be used as 
 
 street. 
 
 Neal V. Southern Ry Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 941. 
 Liability for failure to maintain 
 lookout where it was prox- 
 imate cause of death of tres- 
 passing child sixteen months 
 of age. 
 Mason v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 83. 
 Negligence after discovery of a 
 person's peril. 
 Bogan V. Carolina Cent. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 322. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence. 
 Lea V. Durham & N. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 765. 
 Thompson v. Northern Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 651. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence, questions for jury 
 in action for injury on street 
 railway track. 
 Floyd V. Paducah Railway & 
 
 Light Co. (Ky.),vol. 23, p. 
 
 167. 
 Negligence as to signals and 
 lookouts as affected by con- 
 tributory negligence. 
 Neal V. Carolina Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 18, p. 51. 
 Negligence in failing to see per- 
 son on track, sufficiency of 
 evidence. 
 Whitesides v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 537. 
 
 Negligence in failing to stop to 
 
 look after person struck by 
 
 train. 
 
 Whitesides v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 537. 
 Negligence per se in operating 
 train. 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Bryant (Ga. ) , vol. IS, p. 817. 
 
 Negligence, question for jury 
 
 where body was found near 
 
 track. 
 
 Hord V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 756. 
 No duty to look out for tres- 
 passer on track. 
 Egan V. Montana Cent. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mont.), vol. 20, p. 72. 
 
190 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 ACCIDENTS ON TRAOK- 
 
 Coniinued. 
 Nonsuit in action for wrongful 
 
 death. 
 
 Whitesid.es v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 537. 
 
 Ordinance limiting- speed, duty 
 
 to comply with. 
 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 
 Plaintiff relieved by defendant's 
 
 default of burden of proving 
 
 intestate was lawfully on 
 
 Sullivan v. New York, N. H. & 
 
 H.- R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 108. 
 Pleading negligence. 
 
 Walton V. Chattanooga Rapid- 
 Transit Co. (Tenn.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 436. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 where trespasser is found dead 
 near track. 
 Ivouisville, St. L. & T. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Terry (Ky.), vol. 13, p. 770. 
 Presumption that boy seven 
 years and four months old 
 seen on track would avoid 
 train. 
 Trudell v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 316. 
 Presumption that deaf pedes- 
 trian seen near track will 
 avoid danger. 
 Piskorowski v. Detroit, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 120. 
 Presumption that person seen 
 near track will keep out of 
 danger. 
 Galveston, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Kieff (Tex.), vol. 20, pi 238. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 Presumption that person seen 
 on track has ordinary facul- 
 ties. 
 Hebert v. Louisiana W. R. R. 
 
 (L,a.), vol. 20, p. 87. 
 Teel V. Ohio River R. Co. (W. 
 
 Va.), vol. 21, p. 20. 
 Presumption that person seen 
 on track will avoid train. 
 Hebert v. Louisiana W. R. R. 
 
 (La.), vol. 20, p. 87. 
 McArver v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 772. 
 Public could acquire no right to 
 use track not in highway for 
 footpath. 
 Floyd V. Paducah Railway & 
 
 Light Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 167. 
 
 ACCIDENTS ON TRACK— 
 Continued. 
 Question for jury where any 
 evidence of negligence. 
 Conn ell v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (Ky. ) , vol. 19, p. 236. 
 Question for jury whether de- 
 ceased was struck by train. 
 Whitesides v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Car.)., vol. 21, p. 537. 
 Recovery allowed for negligence 
 after discovery of decedentjs 
 peril notwithstanding his con- 
 tributory negligence. 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Townsend (Ark.), vol. 22, p. 
 123. 
 Refusal to permit plaintiff to 
 testify as to whether he was 
 on the railroad track. 
 Floyd v. Paducah Railway & 
 Light Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 167. 
 Right of motorman to assume 
 that person will leave track. 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Shep- 
 herd (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 163. 
 Speed in violation of ordinance 
 as negligence per se. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 Speed prohibited by ordinance 
 must be shown to have been 
 proximate cause of accident. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 SuflBciency of complaint in ac- 
 tion for injuring person on 
 track. 
 
 Crowley v. Cincinnati, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 545. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 
 whether collision was caused 
 
 by negligence. 
 
 Julius V. Pittsburg, A. & M. 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 9, p. 
 523. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of negli- 
 gence in action for killing 
 person near track, where cars 
 were derailed because of im- 
 proper width of trucks. 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & Nav. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, p. 655. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of negli- 
 gence in killing person sitting 
 at end of cross-tie. 
 McArver v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 772. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of negli- 
 gence, question for jury. 
 Edwards v. Foote (Mich.), vol. 
 23, p. 812. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 191 
 
 AOOIDBNTS ON TBAOK- 
 Continued. 
 SufBciency of evidence of speed 
 of street car. 
 
 Schneider v. Market St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 692. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to show 
 that defendant's negligence 
 was proximate cause of death 
 of person found near track. 
 Puckhaber v. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 21, p. S81. 
 Testimony of engineer as to 
 whether injury to child could 
 have been prevented. 
 Jeffries v. Seaboard A. L,. R. 
 Co. (N. Car), vol. 23, p. 339. 
 
 ACCOMMODATION TRAINS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 ACTIONS. 
 
 See Abutters. 
 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Limitation of Actions. 
 Pleading. 
 Receivers. 
 Stock. 
 Torts. 
 Abatement and revival. 
 Curry v. Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 763. 
 Action against federal receivers. 
 Stoltz V. Milwaukee & L. W. 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 15, p. 820. 
 Action by railroad company to 
 require removal of trees near 
 its right of way. 
 l/ouisville & N. R. Co. v. John- 
 son (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 729. 
 Action ex delicto governed by 
 lex loci. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Brown (Ark.), vol. 16, p. 
 440. 
 Action ex delicto or ex contractu 
 for injury to passenger, 
 l/ouisville & N. R. Co. v. Hine 
 (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 382. 
 Action ex delicto will nof lie for 
 breach of executory contract 
 to furnish free transportation 
 voluntarily made. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Spinks (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 48. 
 Action for loss of cattle, placed 
 by carrier's authority in its 
 
 ACTIONS— Co«/i«Mecf. 
 
 receiving pen, though defect 
 in such pen is ex delicto. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Byrne (Ind. Ter.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 17. 
 Action for negligence may be 
 based on statute prescribing 
 penalty on carrier for failure 
 to care for live stock in transit. 
 Burns v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 290. 
 Action for personal injury to 
 passenger transitory. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Roller 
 
 (C. C. A.),vol. 18, p. 59S. 
 Action in state court against 
 receiver of federal court. 
 Malott V. Shimer (Ind.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 774. 
 Action on contract. 
 Stewart v. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 
 St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind. ) , vol. 13, 
 
 p. 28. 
 Act of widow without consent of 
 child cannot prevent its recov- 
 ery for injuries and death of 
 father. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Hosea (Ind.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 692. 
 Pittsburg, C. , C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Moore (Ind.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 678. 
 Case proper remedy for loss of 
 goods in freight house by fire. 
 Welch V. Concord R. R. (N. 
 
 H.), vol. 16, p. 830. 
 Change of cause of action. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 861. 
 Collisions, action against both 
 companies. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Martin (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 4. 
 Consent of court to action 
 against receiver. 
 Smith V. St. Louis & S. 1*. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 609. 
 Consignor's right of action for 
 damages to freight. 
 Savannah, S*. & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Commercial Guano Co. (Ga.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 848". 
 Consolidation of railroads, ac- 
 tions for death of wife, proper 
 plaintiff. 
 Chattanooga Electric Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Johnson (Tenn.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 758. 
 
192 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 A.CTIO'NS—Coniinued. 
 Defense eliminated from case by 
 chang'ing' its theory» in action 
 for injury to trespasser on 
 train. 
 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mc), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Dismissal of. 
 Brunswick Grocery Co. v. 
 Brunswick & W. R. Co. (Ga.), 
 vol. 13, p. 85. 
 Dismissal of action against joint 
 tort feasors as to part of de- 
 fendants. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Foulks 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 664. 
 Effect of assignment of action 
 for personal injuries. 
 McCafferty v. Pennsylvania 
 E. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, p. 122. 
 Effect of assumption of risk in 
 action under penal statute. 
 Narra:more v. Cleveland, C, C. 
 & St. Iv. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 17, p. 502. 
 Effect of previous action against 
 another party for failure to 
 deliver goods. 
 
 L(Ouisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bern- 
 heim (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 754. 
 Enforcement of foreign statute, 
 in action for death by wrong- 
 ful act. 
 
 Nicholas v. Burlington, C. R. 
 
 & N. Ry; Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 341. 
 
 Garnishment in foreign state as 
 
 bar to action for same debt in 
 
 Kansas. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Baker 
 (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 764. 
 Jurisdiction of proceeding for 
 forfeiture of franchise. 
 Eel River R. Co. v. State ex 
 rel. Kistler, Pros. Atty. 
 (Ind.), vol. 17, p. 595. 
 I<aw controlling in action for 
 wrongful death where injury 
 and death occur in different 
 states. 
 
 Van Doren v. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 577. 
 
 I/Cx loci controls in action by 
 
 employee for personal injuries, 
 
 not lex fori. 
 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. v. 
 Thurman (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 
 727. 
 Limitation of action for injury 
 to live stock by carrier. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Brown 
 (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 827. 
 
 AGTHOTSB— Continued. 
 
 Ivimitation of carrier's liability 
 in pass on which deceased was 
 traveling, as affecting stat- 
 utory action by widow and son 
 for his wrongful deaths 
 Adams v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 15, p. 784. 
 Limitation of for injury to prop- 
 erty by railroad in street. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Lersch (Ohio), vol. 14, p. 
 
 835. 
 Nature of action by servant for 
 injury caused by master's fail- 
 ure to repair engine. 
 Kansas City, Et. S. & M. R. 
 
 Co. V. Becker (Ark.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 348. 
 No joinder of causes warranting 
 that plaintiff be required to 
 elect, in action for killing 
 horses on track. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kice 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 44. 
 No survival of action for death 
 by wrongful act under Illinois 
 statute. 
 Malott V. Shimer (Ind.), vol. 
 
 15, p. 774. 
 Parties as affected by change of 
 venue of action to forfeit rail- 
 road franchises. 
 Eel River R. Co. v. State ex rel. 
 
 Kistler, Pros. Atty. (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 595. 
 Parties necessary in condemna- 
 tion proceedings. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Town 
 
 of Normal (111.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 367. 
 Recovery in action for personal 
 injury will not be defeated by 
 reason that another action for 
 same injury has been insti- 
 tuted without plaintiff's au- 
 thority. 
 Wolf V. Great Northern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 12, p. 619. 
 Removal of causes, local preju- 
 dice. 
 Herndon v. Southern R. Co. 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 8, p. 765. 
 Representative's right of action 
 far death by wrongful act. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Young (Neb,), vol. 14, p. 343. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Hosea (Ind.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 692. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Moore (Ind.), vol. 14^ 
 
 p. 678. '^ 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 193 
 
 AG'nOl!iB— Continued. 
 
 Revival to recover compensation 
 for using- part of homestead as 
 right of way. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Cowan 
 (Ala.), vol. 22, p. ISO. 
 Right of action for death by 
 wrongful act. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Oyster (Neb.) , vol. 12, p. 655. 
 Right of action for personal in- 
 juries survives to administra- 
 tor. 
 
 Brown v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 13, p. 603. 
 Right of one not an abutter to 
 bring action to recover for in- 
 juries to property occasioned 
 by operation of trains. 
 Willis V. Kentucky & I. Bridge 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 324. 
 Right to sue in forma pauperis. 
 Allison V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol 23, p. 714. 
 Service of process in action 
 against railroad company. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Groves (Okla. ), vol. 16, p. 
 850. 
 Shipper whose stock has escaped 
 from cattle pen and been killed 
 on track may bring one action 
 for negligence of carrier in 
 furnishing defective pens and 
 for negligence in killing stock. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Byrne (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p. 
 573. 
 Statute of limitations as affected 
 by amendment to petition. 
 Box V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 527. 
 Stipulation in shipping contract 
 limiting time of bringing un- 
 constitutional. 
 
 Richardson v. Chicago & A. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, p. 170. 
 
 Substitution of new next friend. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mof- 
 
 fatt (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 397. 
 
 Survival of action for wrongful 
 
 death. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Elliott (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p. 
 715. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Dawson (Ark.), vol. 18, 
 p. 30. 
 Tort or contract for injury to 
 passenger. 
 
 Atlantic & P. Ry. Co. v. I^aird 
 (U. a.), vol. 8, p. 365. _ 
 Venue of action against railroad 
 
 ID— 13 
 
 ACTIONS— Co«i?j««erf. 
 for personal injuries is 
 tory. tran^- 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Rv. Cn. 
 V. Brown (Ark.), vol. 16 p 
 440. 
 Waiver of theory of case in ac- 
 tion for injury to trespasser 
 ejected from train. 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Waiving objection to revival of 
 action by entering appearance. 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Glover 
 (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 708. 
 When consignor may sue carrier. 
 Spence v. Norfolk & W. R. Co. 
 (Va.), vol. 2, p. 708. 
 
 ACTION FOR DAMAGES TO 
 LAND. 
 Presumption as to time of dam- 
 age. 
 
 Beach v. Wilmington & W. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 9, p. 158. 
 
 ACT OP GOD. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 
 New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. 
 McEwen & Murray, Limited 
 (La.), vol. 7, p. 742. 
 Carriers of passengers, liability 
 
 for. 
 
 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Mar- 
 shall (Va.), vol. 2, pp. 220, 
 221. 
 Heavy dew not. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Truskett (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 17, p. 273. , 
 
 ADDITIONAL SERVITUDE. - 
 
 See Abutters. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 
 ADMISSIONS. 
 See Evidence. 
 Res Gestce. 
 Admissions of husband, in ac- 
 tion by husband and wife, 
 where husband only a formal 
 party, not admissible. 
 Strother v. Aberdeen & A. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 121. 
 Assessment list made by one 
 joint owner of land sought to 
 be condemned. 
 
 St. Louis O. H. & C. Ry. Co. 
 V. Fowler (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 
 405. 
 Instructions as to admissions of 
 counsel. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. John- 
 ston (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 286. 
 
194 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 ADVERSE POSSESSION. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Fences. 
 
 Right of Way. 
 Right of Way. 
 
 Abandonment of railroad right 
 of way. 
 Hantou v. Union Pac. R. Co. 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 1, p. 701. 
 Matthews v. Lake Shore, 
 
 etc., E. Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 791. 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Holton (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 336. 
 Nashville, C. & S. L. R. Co. 
 
 V. Hammond (Ala. ) , vol. 1, 
 
 p. 716. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Ely (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 90. 
 St. Louis & T. H. R. Co. v. 
 
 Nugent (111.), vol. 1, p. 716. 
 Acquisition of legal title by. 
 Pollock V. Maysville & B. 
 
 S. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 821. 
 Ballinger's Ann. Code and St. 
 sec. 4795, requiring actions 
 to recover real estate to be 
 brought within ten years, 
 applies to action by railroad 
 to recover right of way from 
 person in adverse posses- 
 sion. 
 Kansas City, P. & G. R. Co. 
 
 V. Ba'rnett (Ark.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 81. 
 Forfeiture of right of way by. 
 Pollock V. Maysville & B. S. 
 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 821. 
 Presumption of grant from 
 twenty years' adverse pos- 
 session of railroad lands. 
 Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Strickley (Ind.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 148. 
 
 Right to acquire valid title to 
 
 railroad right of way not 
 
 prevented by public policy. 
 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Ely (Wash,), vol. 22, p. 90. 
 Title could not be defeated on 
 the ground that occupation 
 was not inconsistent with 
 use for railroad purposes. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Ely (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 90. 
 Title to railroad company's 
 rig,ht of way cannot be ac- 
 quired by adverse posses- 
 sion. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Hyatt 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 20, p. 576. 
 
 ADVERSE POSSESSION— 
 Continued. 
 
 Valid title may be acquired 
 though possession was under 
 void grant. 
 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Ely (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 90. 
 Verbal contract for right of 
 way. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Scott 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 8, p. 309. 
 Whether grantor's possession 
 of right of way for farming 
 purposes was adverse or per- 
 missive. 
 
 Northern Counties Inv. 
 Trust, Limited, v. Enyard 
 (Wash.), vol. 20, p. 830. 
 Title could not be defeated on 
 ground that occupation was 
 not inconsistent with use for 
 railroad purposes. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ely 
 (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 90. 
 
 ADVERSE USE. 
 See Right of Way. 
 
 AFFIDAVITS. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 AGENCY. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Officers and Agents. 
 Station Agents. 
 
 AGENTS. 
 
 See News Agents. 
 
 Officers and Agents. 
 
 AMENDMENTS. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 ANIMALS. 
 
 See Stock, Injuries to. 
 Liability for killing dog on 
 track. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Holiday 
 (Miss.), vol. 23, p. 955. 
 
 ANNEXATION. 
 Right of railroad owning land 
 near city to appeal from an- 
 nexation proceedings. 
 Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. City of Indianapolis 
 (Ind.), vol. 11, p. 689. 
 
 ANNUITY TABLES. 
 See Evidence. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 195 
 
 "ANTI SCALPERS ACT." 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 APPEAL. 
 
 See Corporations. 
 Damages. 
 
 Federal Jurisdiction. 
 ■ Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co. v. 
 Douglas County (Wis.), vol. 
 14, p. 178. 
 An appeal was taken from a 
 final order, made by a court 
 ■which had appointed receivers 
 for an insolvent railway com- 
 pany in a foreclosure suit 
 directing- the receivers to give 
 priority over the mortgages to 
 judgments obtained against 
 the company on liabilities in- 
 curred before that commence- 
 ment of the foreclosure suit : 
 Jield, that the railway com- 
 pany was a necessary party to 
 such appeal. 
 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. 
 Longworth (C. C. A.), vol. 
 9, p. 201. 
 Appealable orders. 
 
 State, Cass County v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. IS, p. 175. 
 Assignments of error. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. Ebaugh 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 701. 
 Rhode Island Locomotive 
 Works V. Continental Trust 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 
 48r. 
 Bill of exceptions, time for set- 
 tling. 
 
 Tullis V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 20, p. 335. 
 Construction by trial court of 
 reservation in deed making 
 grant to railroad not binding 
 on appellate court. 
 Knowlton v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 16, 
 p. 573. 
 Correction of record. 
 
 Sullivan v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, 
 p. 108. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Lawrence v, Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 777. 
 Damages. 
 Parker v. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 844. 
 Damages on affirmance. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Elliott (C. C. A.), vol. 18, 
 p. 715. 
 Effect on supreme court of de- 
 
 AVPEAI.— Continued. 
 
 cision by city court of appeals. 
 Paddock v. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 17, p. 310. 
 Evidence, the admission of' 
 which is ground for asking new 
 trial, must be set forth. 
 Petty V. Brunswick & W. Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 840. 
 Former appeal not cause for 
 abatement in proceedings for 
 location of street railway. 
 Appeal of Cherryfield & M. 
 Electric R. Co. (Me.), vol. 
 22, p. 906. 
 Garnishee's right to appeal. 
 Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. Bos- 
 sut (N. Mex.), vol. 19, p. 683. 
 Harmless error. 
 Pittsburg, C. , C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Moore (Ind. ) , vol. 14, 
 p. 678. 
 Judicial discretion to render 
 judgment or remand. 
 Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Yost (Neb.), vol. 21, p. 92. 
 Motion for new trial not always 
 a prerequisite. 
 
 Barr v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 19, p. 261. 
 Motion for new trial pending at 
 beginning of new term as jus- 
 tifying appeal taken after expi- 
 ration of new term, under 
 Tenn. Acts 1899, p. 55, ch. 40. 
 Jackson & S. St. R. Co. v. 
 Simmons (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 
 236. 
 Motion to amend record not 
 necessary to consider. 
 Sullivan v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, 
 p. 108. 
 Penalty for vexatious appeal. 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Truskett (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 618. 
 Presumption that paper copied 
 into record by clerk is what it 
 purports to be. 
 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. 
 Houlihan (Ind.), vol. 21, p. 
 915. 
 Receiver's right of appeal from 
 order fixing wages of em- 
 ployees. 
 
 Guarantee Trust & Safe-De- 
 posit Co. V. Philadelphia R. 
 & N. E. R. Co. (Conn.), -vol. 
 12, p. 872. 
 Record. 
 Seldomridge v. Chesapeake & 
 O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 14, 
 p. 639. 
 
196 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 APPEAL— Continued. 
 Refusal to direct verdict as 
 ground for reversal. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Price (C. C. A.), vol. 16, p. 
 324. 
 Rehearing. 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 , Co. (Iowa), vol. 17, p. 363. 
 Res judicata. 
 Johnson v. Charleston & S. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 
 556. 
 Reversal. 
 Creswell v. Wilmington & N. 
 R. Co. (Del.), vol. 14, p. 625. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 0'L,eary (C.C. A.), vol. 14, 
 p. 718. 
 Van Dorea v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, p. 
 577. . 
 Reversal, harmless error. 
 
 Galesburg & G. E. R. Co. v. 
 Milroy (111.), vol. 19, p. 277. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 
 Review. 
 
 Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. 
 V. Commissioners of Wico- 
 mico County (Md.), vol. 
 21, p. 284. 
 
 Boweu V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 331. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Bond (Ga.),vol. 17, p. 
 757. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Joseph (Ala.), vol. 18, 
 p. 659. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. 
 O'Neill (Neb.), vol. 13, p. 
 371. 
 
 Commissioners of Wicomico 
 County V. Baltimore, C. & 
 A. Ry. Co. (Md.), vol. 21, 
 p. 284. 
 
 Hertert, Treasurer v. Chi- 
 cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 672. 
 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 
 Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. 
 Rutherford (Tex.), vol. 21, 
 p. 710. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 'Grif- 
 fin (111.), vol. 17, p. 767. 
 
 Judson V. Central Vermont 
 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 15, p. 7. 
 
 Actions for personal injuries 
 
 occurring during receiver- 
 ship, whether reviewable 
 
 by writ of error. 
 
 A.'P'P'EA'Li— Continued. 
 
 Thompson v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 651. 
 Assignments of error. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Abernathey (Tenn.), vol. 
 22, p. 206. 
 Nashville St. R. R. v. 
 O'Bryan (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 p. 902. 
 Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Martin (Ind.), 
 vol. 23, p. 485. 
 Stacker v. Ivouisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Tenn. ) , vol. 20, p. 
 704. 
 Assignments of error not in- 
 sisted on treated as waived. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 York (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 470. 
 Bill of exceptions. 
 O'Neill V, Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 578. 
 Bill of exceptions not neces- 
 sary to review of demurrer 
 to evidence. 
 
 Barr v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 19, p. 261. 
 Bill of exceptions, sufficiency 
 of. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Woolsey (Ga.), vol. 19, 
 p. 573. 
 Change in theory of case. 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Conflict in evidence in action 
 for injury to trespasser on 
 train. 
 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Conflicting evidence. 
 
 Chitty V. St. Louis, I. M. & 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 23, 
 p. 829. 
 Directed verdict. 
 Scott V. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, p. 63. 
 Directing verdict, defendant's 
 right to support. 
 Whitney v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 184. 
 Discretion of court to allow 
 cross-examination. 
 N^w York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528. 
 Discretion of court to grant 
 change of venue. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 197 
 
 ^V'P'EAlj— Continued. 
 
 Effect of former opinion. 
 Sweeney v. Montana Cent. 
 Ry. Co. (Mont.), vol. 22, 
 p. 540. 
 Effect of recital of clerk con- 
 tradicting bill of exceptions. 
 Indiana, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Hendrian (111.), vol. 22, p. 
 392. 
 Effect of successive verdicts 
 for plaintiff. 
 
 Central of Georgia R. Co. v. 
 Woolsey (Ga.), vol. 19, p. 
 S73. 
 'Effect of unsound reason for 
 correct ruling. 
 Stuckey v. Atlantic Coast 
 I/ine R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 20, p. 771. 
 Evidence. 
 Atchison, T. & S. E. Ry. Co. 
 1). Conlon (Kan. App.), 
 vol. IS, p. 195. 
 Exceptions. 
 
 Stacker v. L,ouisville & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 704. 
 
 Wheeler v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 23, p. 84. 
 
 Excessive damages. 
 
 Budd V. Salt Lake City R. 
 Co. (Utah), vol.22, p. 6. 
 I*ederal questions. 
 
 Yazoo & M. V. Ry. Co. v. 
 West Adams (U. S.), vol. 
 20, p. 350. 
 !Eindtngs of fact. 
 
 Chesapeake & O.Ry. Co. v. 
 Moats (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 645. 
 Cutler V. Concord & M. R. 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 18. p. 760. 
 Kansas City, M. & B. R. 
 Co. V. Southern Ry. News 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 528. 
 Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 14, p. 374. 
 Eindings of fact by trial court. 
 State, Grinsfelder v. Spo- 
 kane St. Rj. Co. (Wash.), 
 vol. 11, p. 62. 
 ■General exceptions. 
 
 Dixon V. New England R. 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 10. 
 Harmless error. 
 Procter v. Southern Cali- 
 fornia Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 
 19, p. 77. 
 In eminent domain proceed- 
 ings. 
 . Galesburg & G. E. R. Co. v. 
 Milroy (111.), vol. 19; p. 277. 
 
 A.'B'P'BAX,— Continued. 
 Instructions. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Bond (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 757. 
 McGraw v. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Neb.), vol. 18, 
 p. 764. 
 Instruction not a part of the 
 record will not be reviewed. 
 Bias V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 
 616, 
 Judgment on demurrer. 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Martin (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 683. 
 Motion copied into transcript 
 without authority. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. I/. 
 Ry. Co. V. Martin (Ind.), 
 vol. 23, p. 485. 
 Nonsuit. 
 
 Bodie V. Charleston, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, 
 p. 818. 
 Burns v. Southern/ Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 624. 
 Objections to evidence. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Eoxworth (Fla.), vol. 13, 
 p. 469. 
 Objection to form waived by 
 submitting to default. 
 Brockett v. Fair Haven & 
 W. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, 
 p. 406. 
 Objection to instructions. 
 Mickelson v. New East Tin- 
 tic Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 20, 
 p. 8SS. 
 Objection to jurisdiction raised 
 for the first time on appeal. 
 Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Munsell (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 579. 
 Of findings of master. 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. 
 Appeals (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 p. 209. 
 Petition for change of venue. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 Presentations o f questions 
 under Iowa Acts, 2S Gen. 
 Assem., ch. 96. 
 Enix V. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. 
 (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 54. 
 Presumption that corporate 
 books were properly received 
 in evidence in action against 
 
198 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 APPEAL— Continued. 
 
 officers to recover 'misap- 
 propriated assets. 
 Saranac & L. P. R. Co. v. 
 Arnold (N. Y.), vol. 22, p. 
 480. 
 Presumption that word erased 
 from instruction was read to 
 
 Indiana, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Hendrian (111.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 392. 
 Questions of fact. 
 Elgin, etc., Ry. Co. v. Duffy 
 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 361. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Behlmer (U. S.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 167. 
 People, Loughran v. Board 
 
 of Railroad Commissioners 
 
 of State of New York (N. 
 
 Y.), vol. IS, p. 441. 
 Recital of judgment on de- 
 murrer. 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 Martin (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 683. 
 Record where appeal from 
 order g'ranting new trial. 
 Schneider v. Market St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 692. 
 Remarks of counsel for new 
 trial. 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 McElroy (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 397. 
 Special verdict. 
 Pittsburgh, C. , C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Beck (Ind.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 3S3. 
 Statement of ground of objec- 
 tion, 
 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Stipulation of facts made 
 subsequent to decree. 
 Stelk V. McNulta (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 778. 
 Sufficiency of bill of excep- 
 tions. 
 Dixon V. New England R. 
 
 R. (Mass. ) , vol. 22, p. 10. 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Aber- 
 
 nathey (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 206. 
 Sufficiency of exceptions. 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern R, 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 241. 
 
 APPEAL — Continued. 
 Sufficiency of record. 
 Scott V. St. Louis, etc.. R. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, p. 63. 
 Variance, objection not made 
 to evidence in trial court. 
 Jarvis v. Flint & P. M. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 312. 
 Waiver of assignments of 
 error. 
 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Mar- 
 tin (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 683. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Martin (Ind.), 
 vol. 23, p. 48S. . 
 Waiver of objection to refusal 
 to direct verdict. 
 Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. 
 Peyton (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 343. 
 Waiver of right. 
 Rinard v. Omaha, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Mo. ) , vol. 22, p. 34. 
 Weight of evidence. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Davis (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 710. 
 What constitutes a judgment 
 sustaining or overruling a 
 demurrer, upon which error 
 can be based. 
 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. 
 Western Ry. of Alabama 
 (Ala. ) , vol, 20, p. 4SS. 
 Whether passenger wa,s inca- 
 pacitated by intoxication. 
 Wheeler v. Grand Trunk 
 (N. H.), vol. 23, p. 84. 
 Right of one of several defend- 
 ants against whom judgment 
 has been obtained to appeal. 
 Brockett v. Fair Haven & W. 
 R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, p. 
 406. 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 McGeary v. Old Colony R. R. 
 (R. I.), vol. 14, p. 764. 
 Sufficiency of record. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. ». 
 Young (Neb.), vol. 14, p. 343. 
 Sufficiency of record of case 
 originating in justice court ta 
 confer jurisdiction upon cir- 
 cuit court. 
 
 Gardner v. New Orleans & N. 
 E. R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 
 86S. 
 
 Supreme court of United States, 
 will abide by decision of state 
 court as to questions of fact 
 where case is appealed from 
 state court. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 
 Matthews (U. S.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 89. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 199 
 
 A-VVRAJj— Continued. 
 Supreme court of United States 
 will not review decision of state 
 court as to constitutionality 
 under state constitution of 
 state statute. 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Smith (U. S.), vol. 14, p. 
 Sll. 
 Time of signing- and recording 
 bill of exceptions. 
 Ketterman v. Dry Fork R. Co. 
 (W. "V a.), vol.19, p. 445. 
 Waiver of issue on. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Hosea (Ind.), vol. 14, 
 p. 692. 
 Waiver of objection to brief of 
 evidence. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Dorsey (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 212. 
 
 Waiver of right to appeal under 
 
 motion for nonsuit. 
 
 Parlier v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 559. 
 
 APPEARANCE. 
 See Parties. 
 
 APPLIANCES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers, 
 Licensees. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Care required of master in fur- 
 nishing machinery. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Mauzy 
 (Va.), vol. 20, p. 647. 
 
 APPORTIONMENT OF DAM- 
 AGES. 
 See Damages. 
 
 APPROPRIATION. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Fries v. Wheeling & L. E. Ry. 
 Co. (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 489. 
 
 ARGUMENTS OP COUNSEL. 
 See Trial. 
 
 ARREST. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Illegal Arrest. 
 
 Assumption of risk by employee 
 acting outside scope of em- 
 ployment. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Kiunare (111.), vol. 21, p. 328. 
 
 ASSAULTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 ASSAULTS— Continued. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 A conductor cannot lawfully 
 use more force in repelling 
 an assault upon him by a 
 passenger than is necessary 
 for his defense. 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Berger (Ark.), vol. 10, p. 
 235. 
 Assault by employees. 
 Krautz V. Rio Grande West- 
 ern R. Co. (Utah), vol. 2, 
 p. 432. 
 'Assault on passenger by con- 
 ductor. 
 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Berger (Ark.), vol. 10, p. 
 235. 
 Smith V. Norfolk & W. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 17, p. 
 108. 
 Duty of company to prevent 
 injury to passengers by other 
 passengers. 
 
 Louisville & Nashville R. 
 Co. V. McEwan (Ky.), vol. 
 2, p. 438. 
 Liability of company for as- 
 sault by anothet passenger. 
 Louisville & Nashville R. 
 Co. V. McEwan (Ky.), vol. 
 2, p. 438. 
 Liability of company for as- 
 sault on passenger by em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Atchison, Topeka, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. Henry (Kan.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 418. 
 
 Lampkiu v. Louisville, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 2, p. 425. 
 
 Engineer throwing hot water on 
 
 trespasser. 
 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. 
 V. Zantzinger (Tex.), vol. 
 13, p. 840. 
 
 Injuries. 
 
 Trespasser. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bernard (Ky. ), vol. 6, p. 55. 
 Liability for assault by station 
 agent, growing out of a per- 
 sonal quarrel. 
 
 Lynch V. Florida Cent. & P. 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 477. 
 
 Liability of railroad company 
 
 in Illinois for assault by porter 
 
 on passenger. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 Lawrence (Miss.), vol. 8, p. 
 59. 
 
200 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 A.SSATJIjTS— Continued. 
 
 Liability of sleeping- car com- 
 panies for assault by em- 
 ployees. 
 
 Felton V. Horner (Tenn.), vol. 
 8, p. 79. 
 Motorman of street railroad. 
 Rudgeair v. Reading- Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 112. 
 
 ASSESSMENT. 
 See Taxation. 
 
 ASSIGNABLE DUTIES. 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 
 ASSIGNMENTS. 
 Franchise. 
 Santa Rosa City Railroad Co. 
 V. Central Street Railway 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 1, p. 105. 
 Right of action for personal 
 injury. 
 
 Lehraann v. Deuster (Wis.), 
 vol. 10, p. 857. 
 
 ASSIGNMENT OP ERROR. 
 See Appeals^ 
 
 ASSISTING PASSENGER. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 ASSUMPTION OF RISK. 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 ATTACHMENT. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Witnesses. 
 Carriers of goods. 
 
 Hamilton v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) , vol. 8, 
 p. 526. 
 Goods in transit subject to at- 
 tachment. 
 
 Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. Bos- 
 sut (N. Mex.), vol. 19, p. 683. 
 
 ATTORNEYS. 
 
 See Remarks of Counsel. 
 
 ATTORNEYS' FEES. 
 
 See Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Damages. 
 Missouri statute requiring rail- 
 roads to pay attorney's fee in 
 addition to damages recovered 
 for injuries to live stock in 
 transit is unconstitutional. 
 Paddock v. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 17, p. 310. 
 
 ATTORNEYS' PEES— CoM^'rf. 
 Statute imposing against, rail- 
 roads where recovery is had 
 for fire is constitutional. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Matthews (U. S.), vol. 14, 
 p. 89. 
 Validity of statute providing 
 for an attorney's fees where 
 claims against railroad com- 
 panies are not promptly paid. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. El- 
 lis (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 752, 
 
 AUTOMATIC VALVE. 
 See Frightening Horses. 
 
 BAGGAGE. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Common Carriers. 
 Sleeping Car Companies. 
 Warehouseman. 
 
 Act of God, liability of carrier 
 
 for previous negligence. 
 
 Wald v. Pittsburg, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (111.), vol. 5, pp. 70, 79. 
 
 Allegations in action for loss 
 
 of. 
 
 Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 14, p. 416. 
 Authority of baggage master. 
 Coffee v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 14, p. 423. 
 Bicycles. 
 State of Missouri ex rel. 
 Bettis V. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 7, p. 66. 
 Carrier not bound by knowledge 
 of ticket agent as to character 
 of not acquired officially. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Joseph (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 
 659. 
 
 Carrier not liable as warehouse- 
 man for sample cases know- 
 ingly shipped as baggage in 
 violation of carrier's rules. 
 Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 
 
 464. 
 
 Delivering baggage earlier than 
 necessary. 
 Goldberg v. Ahnapee & W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 65. 
 
 Estoppel of company by receiv- 
 ing property as baggage to 
 deny that it is baggage. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McGahey (Ark.), vol. 7, p. 
 767. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 201 
 
 BAGGAGE — Continued. 
 • Evidence as to rule requiring 
 baggage master to exact re- 
 lease of liability from drum- 
 mers as condition precedent 
 to checking trunks. 
 Trimble z/. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 17, p. 176. 
 Failure to deliver, prima facie 
 case of negligence. 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. Live- 
 right (Ind. App. ),vol. 3, p. 
 427. 
 ■fruit in trunk is not. 
 Georgia R. Co. v. Johnson 
 (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 840. 
 How liability arises. 
 
 State V. Knight (N. J.), vol. 
 3, p. 374. 
 Injury to passenger's baggage 
 . checked over wrong road. 
 Beers v. Boston, etc., R. Co. 
 (Conn.), vol. 4, p. 263. 
 Judicial notice as to custom of 
 drummers not owning trunks 
 which they carry. 
 McKibbin v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 16, p. 
 ISS. 
 Knowingly shipping sample 
 cases as baggage in violation 
 of rule requiring bond releas- 
 ing from liability. 
 Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 
 464. 
 Larceny. 
 
 Ringwalt v. Wabash R. Co. 
 ■ (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 4S0. 
 Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. 
 Clark (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 460. 
 Liability as warehouseman. 
 . Blackmore 'v. Mo. Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 360. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McGahey (Ark.), vol. 7, p. 
 767. 
 Liability for baggage stored for 
 transportation. 
 Bader v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 17, p. 60. 
 Liability for loss on connecting 
 lines. 
 
 Lessard v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 17, p. 211. 
 Liability for loss while in cus- 
 tody and control of passenger. 
 Whicher v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 18, p. 325. 
 Liability of carrier to employer 
 of drummer whose trunks 
 have been lost. 
 McKibbin v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 16, p. 
 ISS. 
 
 BAGGAGE— Co«ifj««srf. 
 
 Liability of company for loss 
 of money received for trans- 
 portation as baggage. 
 St. Louis Southwestern R. 
 Co. V. Berry (Ark.), vol. 2, 
 _ p. 457. 
 Liability of company for money 
 accepted as baggage by agent 
 with notice that passenger 
 was ignorant of rule forbid- 
 ding acceptance. 
 St. Louis Southwestern R. 
 Co. V. Berry (Ark.), vol. 2, 
 p. 457. 
 Limiting Liability. 
 A provision limiting respon- 
 sibility for baggage is in- 
 effectual in the absence of 
 evidence, that plaintiff's 
 attention was specially 
 called to it. 
 
 WJegand v. Central R. Co. 
 of New Jersey (Pa.), vol. 
 S, p. 61. 
 New Jersey statute limiting 
 liability of common carrier 
 was not intended to relieve 
 warehouse keepers. 
 Wiegand v. Central R. Co. 
 of New Jersey (Pa.), vol. 
 5, p. 61. 
 Obligation to read receipt for 
 trunk limiting liability. 
 Merrill v. Pacific Transfer 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 21, p. 143. 
 Recovery of entire loss maj' 
 be had where carrier is sub- 
 ject to common-law liabil- 
 ity. 
 
 Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 14, p. 416. 
 Whether statute to prevent 
 carriers from contracting 
 for exemption from liability 
 prohibits them from refus- 
 ing tb receive jeweler's case 
 as ordinary baggage. 
 Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, 
 p. 464. 
 Master and servant, liability of 
 company for loss of servant's 
 luggage containing master's 
 property. 
 
 Meux V. Great Eastern Rail- 
 way Co. (Eng.), vol. 2, p. 
 464. 
 Merchandise. 
 
 Toledo & O. C. R. Co. v. 
 Bowler & Burdick Co. 
 (Ohio), vol. 8, p. 533. 
 Toledo & O. C. R. Co. v. 
 Dages (Ohio), vol. 8, p. 
 533. 
 
202 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 BAGGAGE— Continued. 
 
 I/iability for merchandise 
 shipped as bagg'age depends 
 upon existence of g-ross 
 negligence. 
 Toledo & O. C. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bowler & Burdick Co. 
 
 (Ohio), vol. 19, p. 574. 
 I^iability for merchandise 
 shipped as baggage with 
 knowledge of connecting 
 carrier's baggage master. 
 Toledo & O. C. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bowler & Burdick Co. 
 
 (Ohio), vol. 19, p. 574. 
 Liability of company for theft 
 from sample case in bag- 
 gage room. 
 Southern Kansas Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Clark (Kan.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 460. 
 Necessity of claiming loss 
 while baggage is in posses- 
 sion of company. 
 Ringwalt v. Wabash R. Co. 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 450. 
 Necessity of possession by 
 company of baggage in 
 order to create liability. 
 Ringwalt v. Wabash R. Co. 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 450. 
 Notice of nature of baggage. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 McGahey (Ark.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 767. 
 Waiver of rule prohibiting the 
 receiving of merchandise as 
 ordinary baggage. 
 Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc. , 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 464. 
 
 Notice to carrier as to contents 
 of trunk. 
 
 Trimble v. New York Cent. 
 &H. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 17, p. 176. 
 Partnership goods. 
 State V. Knight (N. J.), vol. 
 3, p. 374. 
 
 Passenger injured by trunk 
 falling on him while he was 
 passing to the eating house 
 from a train. 
 
 Duvernet v. Morgan's Louis- 
 iana & T.R. R. & S. S. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 6, p. 483. 
 Passenger's right to carry par- 
 cels, sufficiency of evidence 
 of usage to show adopting of 
 rule by carrier. 
 Runyan v. Central R. Co. of 
 New Jersey (N. J.), vol. 19, 
 p. 290. 
 
 BAGGAGE — Continued. 
 
 Presumption that damage to 
 occurred on last road. 
 Moore v. New York, N. H. & 
 H. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 14, 
 p. 210. 
 Presumption where jewelry is 
 stolen from trunk. 
 Ringwalt v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 450. 
 Reasonableness of rule as to 
 checking. 
 
 Coffee V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 14, p. 423. 
 Reasonable time for delivering 
 baggage. 
 
 Goldberg v. Ahnapee & W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, 
 p. 65. 
 Reasonable time for removal of 
 baggage. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 McGahey (Ark.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 767. 
 
 Right of drummer's employer to 
 
 recover for loss of sample 
 
 trunk. 
 
 Trimble v. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 17, p. 176. 
 Scope of authority of baggage 
 master accepting as baggage 
 money in excess of that pre- 
 scribed by rule. 
 St. Louis Southwestern R. 
 Co. V. Berry (Ark.), vol. 2, 
 p. 457. 
 Sleeping Car Companies. 
 Baggage in sleeping car. 
 Dawley v. Wagner Pal., 
 etc., Co. (Mass.), vol. 8, 
 p. 766. 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. 
 V. Martin (Ga.), vol. 2, 
 p. 475. 
 Delivery of baggage between 
 cars and stations. 
 Voss V. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. L. R. Co. (Ind. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 427. 
 Liability for delivery of bag- 
 gage between cars and sta- 
 tion. 
 
 Voss V. Cleveland, C, C. 
 & St. L. R. Co. (Ind. 
 App.), vol. 3, p. 427. 
 Termination of liability as car- 
 rier. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Live- 
 right (Ind.), vol. 2, p. 455. 
 Unreasonable delay in calling 
 for baggage. 
 
 Wiegand v. Central R. Co. of 
 New Jersey (Pa.), vol. 5, 
 p. 61. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 203 
 
 'BAGtOtA.Q:!^— Continued. 
 Warehousemen . 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Jjiv- 
 
 eright (Ind.), vol. 2, p. 4SS. 
 Where evidence is" conflicting' 
 question whether baggage 
 ■was delivered to carrier is for 
 jury. 
 McKibbin v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 ISS. 
 Where ticket was puichased for 
 sole purpose of checking 
 trunk, the railroad was not 
 liable for the loss of trunk in 
 baggage room at destination 
 in absence of gross negli- 
 gence. 
 Marshall v. Pontiac, O. & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 341. 
 Whether statute making rail- 
 road an insurer against fire 
 applicable where baggage de- 
 stroyed in depot. 
 Blackmore v. Mo. Pac. Ry. 
 
 Go. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 360. 
 
 BAGGAGE CARS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 BAILOB. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 BANANA SKINS. 
 
 See Stations and Depots. 
 
 BELL. 
 Weight of engine bell, statute. 
 Central Texas & N. W. Ry. 
 Co. V. Bush (C. C. A.), vol. 
 3, p. 264. 
 
 BENEFICIAL A S S O O I A- 
 TIONS. 
 See Relief Associations. 
 
 BENEFITS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 BETTERMENTS. 
 
 See Railroad Commissioners. 
 
 BICYCLES. 
 
 See Baggage. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Baggage. 
 State of Missouri, Bettis v. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. 
 (Mo. App. ), vol. 7, p. 66. 
 Care required of bicyclist at 
 crossings. 
 
 Robertson v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 7, p. 60S. 
 
 -SlO'^C1JS&— Continued. 
 Duty to dismount before cross- 
 ing track, where view is ob- 
 structed. 
 
 Law V. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. IS, p. 
 9S. 
 
 BILLS AND NOTES. 
 See Payments. 
 
 BILLS IN EQUITY. 
 Bill for specific performance'of 
 a verbal agreement to sell and 
 convey in fee a certain strip 
 of land for a railroad track. 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Garry (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 
 787. 
 Ultra vires act of plaintiff. 
 City of Chicago v. Union 
 Stock Yard & Transit Co. 
 (111.), vol.7, p. 490. 
 
 BILLS OF EXCEPTION. 
 See Appeal. 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 "Actual custody" of goods. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Clay- 
 ton (U. S.), vol. 13, p. 236. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 custom to vary stipulation as 
 to time for removal of goods. 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. 
 Western Ry. of Alabama 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 455. 
 Admissibility of evidence to 
 explain or contradict. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 
 V. National Live-Stock 
 Bank (111.), vol. 13, p. 1. 
 Admissibility of testimony of 
 railroad agent to explain 
 technical words. 
 Moutou V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 673. 
 Bill not signed by shipper. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Kavanaugh (C. C. A.), vol. 
 13, p. 119. 
 Carrier must afiBx revenue 
 stamp to. 
 
 Atty. Gen., Moore w. America 
 Exp. Co. (Mich.), vol. 13, 
 p. 95. 
 Consignee's right to recovery 
 not dependent on. 
 Alabama Mid. Ry. Co. v. 
 Darby (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 105. 
 
204 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 BILLS OF LADING— Continued, BILLS OF LADING— Continued, 
 
 Construction of. 
 Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Jones 
 
 (Ind.), vol. S, p. 693. 
 Construction of bill of lading 
 vhere cotton is destroyed by 
 fire before delivery to rail- 
 road. 
 Amory Mfgf. Co. v. Gulf, C. 
 
 & S. F. Ry. Co. (Tex.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 472. 
 Construction of particular bill 
 of lading. 
 Union Pacific Railway Co. v. 
 
 Johnston (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 601. 
 Delivery. 
 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. Lowe 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 10,. p. 398. 
 Union Pacific Railway Co. v. 
 
 Johnston (Neb.), Vol. 2, 
 
 p. 601. 
 Delivery of goods to endorsee, 
 partnership as endorsee, de- 
 livery upon a written order 
 by one of the partners. 
 Chicago, Packing & Provi- 
 sion Co. Vi Savannah, F. & 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Ga. ), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 391. 
 Delivery of goods to holder of 
 bill of lading. 
 Commercial Bank v. Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co. (111.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 263. 
 Delivery of goods where con- 
 signee did not surrender bill 
 of lading made at the peril of 
 the carrier. 
 Union Pacific Railway Co. v. 
 
 Johnston (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 601. 
 Delivery to carrier, bill of lad- 
 ing as conclusive evidence of, 
 under Mississippi Code in ac- 
 tion by carrier to recover over 
 an indemnity policy. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Lan- 
 cashire Ins. Co. (Miss.), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 840. 
 Delivery without requiring sur- 
 render of bill of lading. 
 Witt V. East Tennessee & W. 
 
 N. C. R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 380. 
 Effect of transfer. 
 
 Cox V. Vermont Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 591. 
 How far transfer of bill of lad- 
 ing operates as delivery of 
 property. 
 Union Pacific Railway Co. v. 
 
 Johnston (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 601. 
 
 Larceny. 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. Lowe 
 (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 398. 
 Liability of carrier for failure 
 to deliver goods upon demand 
 of holder of bill. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Ohio ' 
 Valley Bkg. & Trust Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. IS, p. 839. 
 Liability of carrier of goods 
 where he delivers to con- 
 signee without the production 
 of the bill of lading. 
 Nebraska Meal Mills ». St. 
 Louis S. W. Ry. Co. 
 (Ark.), vol. 7, p. 591. 
 Liability on original bill where 
 property has been delivered 
 upon duplicate. 
 Midland National Bank v. 
 Missouri Pacific Railway 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. '2, p. 586. 
 Limiting Liability. 
 Burden of proof. 
 
 Hinton v. Eastern Ry. Co. 
 of Minnesota (Minn.j, 
 vol. 11, p. 125. 
 Restriction in bill of lading 
 limiting liability. 
 Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. 
 V. Simon (111.), vol. 5, 
 p. 80. 
 Restriction in bill of lading 
 limiting liability of com- 
 mon carrier for goods to be 
 forwarded beyond- its lines. 
 Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. 
 V. Simon (111.), vol. 5, 
 p. 80. 
 Stipulation, exempting car- 
 rier where shipper fails to 
 give notice of loss is valid. 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Hurst (Ark.), vol. 17, 
 p. 324. 
 Validity. 
 Berry v. West Virginia & 
 P. R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 11, p. 103. 
 Markings on bill of lading as 
 evidence. 
 
 Miller Grain & Elevator Co. 
 V. Union Pac. Ry. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 8, p. 1. 
 Negotiability. 
 Cox V. Vermont Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 591. 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. Lowe 
 (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 398. 
 Ownership of goods consigned 
 to shipper, is question for 
 jury. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Lau (Neb.), vol. 13, p. 108. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 20S 
 
 BILLS OF LADING— Continued. BILLS OF LADING— Continued. 
 
 Parol evidence. 
 McElveen v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 15, p. 842. 
 Stewart v. Cleveland, C. C. 
 
 & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 28. 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Western Ry. of Alabama 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 10, p. 339. 
 Presumption of ownership of 
 goods consigned to shipper. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Lau 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 13, p. 108. 
 Refusal to furnish bill of lad- 
 ing. 
 Couly V. Sherman, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Tex.), vol. 6, p. 772. 
 Retention of bill of lading, 
 title to goods. 
 Bakeir v. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 6, p. 772. 
 Right of bona fide holder where 
 carrier changes destination of 
 shipment. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Ohio 
 
 Valley Bkg. & Trust Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. IS, p. 839. 
 Surrender of pledge of an orig- 
 inal set of bills of lading 
 priven as security for loans, 
 for other bills. 
 Midland National Bank v. 
 
 Missouri Pacific Railway 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 586. 
 
 Theft of Bill of Lading. 
 Delivery of goods to thief. 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. 
 Lowe (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 
 398. 
 Through bill governed by lex 
 loci. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Kavanaugh (C. C. A.), vol. 
 13, p. 119. 
 Through bill issued by initial 
 carrier rendefrs connecting 
 carriers liable severally. 
 Cincinntai, N. O. & T. P. 
 Ry. Co. V. N. K. Fairbanks 
 & Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. ,179. 
 
 Usages and Customs. 
 
 Custom at place of delivery 
 as affecting rights under 
 the original bill of lading. 
 Midland National Bank v. 
 Missouri Pacific Railway 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 586. 
 Liability of carrier on origi- 
 nal bill of lading irre- 
 
 spective of local custom as 
 
 to honoring duplicate bills. 
 
 Midland National Bank v. 
 
 Missouri Pacific Railway 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 586. 
 
 Validity of cause requiring 
 
 notice of loss. 
 
 Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 429. 
 Validity where accepted by con- 
 signor but not signed. 
 Mouton V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 673. 
 Verbal contract with terminal 
 carrier not superseded by 
 bill of lading of initial car- 
 rier. 
 
 St. Louis & S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Elgin Con. Milk Co. (111.), 
 vol. 13, p. 112. 
 
 BLACKBOARDS. 
 
 Liability with respect to black- 
 boards for schedules, under 
 Ind. Acts 1889, p. 279. 
 State V. Cleveland, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 336. 
 
 BLACKLISTING. 
 
 See Discharge Lists, 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 BLASTING. 
 
 See Negligence. 
 Ordinances. 
 
 BLIND. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Care to be exercised by the 
 blind. 
 
 Florida v. Williams (Fla.), 
 vol. S, p. 696. 
 Refusal of carrier to carry blind 
 persons. 
 
 Zackery v. Mobile, etc., R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol.' 6, p. 267. 
 
 BONDHOLDERS. 
 
 See Reorganization, 
 
 BONDS. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Coupons. 
 Municipal Aid. 
 Preferential Claims. 
 Curative statute of Alabama 
 making valid election for is- 
 sue of railroad aid bonds. 
 Carpenter v. Greene County 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 191. 
 
206 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 BONDS— Continued. 
 
 Effect of unfulfilled promise of 
 railroad officers on right of 
 innocent purchasers of rail- 
 road aid bonds. 
 Carpenter v. Greene County 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 191. 
 Equity jurisdiction of bill to 
 obtain cancellation of guar- 
 anty on. 
 ■ Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Louisville Trust Co. 
 
 (U. S.), vol. IS, p. 345. ■_ 
 Equity will not compel minority 
 bondholders to assent to re- 
 organization scheme requir- 
 ing them to scale bonds. 
 Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Ziegler 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 1. 
 Power of railroad to guaranty. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Louisville Trust Co. 
 
 (U. S.), vol. IS, p. 345. 
 Presumption of regularity of 
 guaranty. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Louisville Trust Co. 
 
 (U. S.), vol. IS, p. 345. 
 Purchaser not required to in- 
 spect corporate records of rail- 
 road company to see whether 
 guaranty by such company of 
 certain bonds was authorized 
 by stockholders. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Louisville Trust Co. 
 
 (U. S.), vol. IS, p. 34S. 
 
 Purchaser of guaranteed bonds 
 
 with notice that guaranty is 
 
 irregular cannot recover on it. 
 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Louisville Trust Co. 
 
 (U. S.), vol. IS, p. 34S. 
 Right of action on railroad 
 bonds where transferred with- 
 out indorsement. 
 Carpenter v. Greene County 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 191. 
 Right of one claiming to have 
 loaned company money to in- 
 tervene in action by bond- 
 holders to foreclose mortgage. 
 Eirst Nat. Bank of Grand 
 
 Junction I/. Wyman (Colo.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 277. 
 Right to interest on coupons 
 attached to railroad bonds 
 under New York statute. 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. 
 
 Appeals (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 209. 
 Specific performance. 
 O'Beirne v. Alleghany & K. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 860. 
 
 BONDS —Continued. 
 Validity of bonds issued in ex- 
 change in good faith to effect 
 reorganization. 
 Sioux City, O. & W. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Manhattan Trust Co. (C. 
 
 C. A.), vol. IS, p. 430. 
 Validity of railroad aid bonds 
 under statutes of Alabama. 
 Carpenter v. Greene County 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 191. 
 Whether estopped by recitals in 
 second mortgage executed by 
 purchaser at sale from claim- 
 ing right to be subrogated to 
 standing of such foreclosed 
 mortgages as were superior 
 in general foreclosure suit to 
 prior mortgage for satisfac- 
 tion of which second mort- 
 gage was executed. 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. 
 
 Appeals (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 209. 
 
 BONDS AND NOTES. 
 See Railroads. 
 
 BOOKS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 BBAKEMEN. 
 
 See Contributory Negligence. 
 Coupling Cars. 
 Fellow Servants. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Trespassers. 
 Collision between separated sec- 
 tions of train contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Richmond & D. R. Co. v. 
 Tribble (Va.), vol. 3, p. 
 632. 
 Evidence as to duties of. 
 McCray v. Galveston, H.' & 
 S. A. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 p. 276. 
 Killed by steel rail falling from 
 forward car. 
 
 McCray v. Galveston, H. & 
 S. A. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 p. 276. 
 Striking against a cattle chute 
 on a siding close to track. 
 Boyd V. Harris (Pa.), vol. 4, 
 p. 472. 
 
 BRIDGE GUARDS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 BRIDGES. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Taxation. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 207 
 
 SRIHGES— Continued. 
 As part of highway. 
 Pittsburg & West End Pas- 
 senger Railway Co. v. Point 
 Bridge Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 
 209. 
 Character of railroad bridge re- 
 quired for convenience and 
 necessity a judicial question. 
 Williams, State's Atty. v. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 Co. (Conn.), vol. 12, p. 860. 
 Construction of overhead bridge 
 in street. 
 
 City of Charlottesville v. 
 Southern Ry. Co. (Va.), 
 vol. 16, p. 600. 
 Contributory negligence in 
 driving heavy vehicles upon, 
 question for jury. 
 Bush V. Delaware, L. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 516. 
 Death of employee from over- 
 head bridge. 
 
 Fitzgerald v. New York Cent. 
 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 434. 
 
 Defendant not entitled to notice 
 
 of defect in bridge caused by 
 
 its act. 
 
 I<ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Pittman (Ky.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 55. 
 
 Duty to keep in repair under 
 
 New York Laws 1897, ch. 754, 
 
 sec. 64. 
 
 Bush V. Delaware h. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. y.), vol,. 721, p. 
 516. 
 Duty to maintain overhead 
 bridge under New York Laws 
 1890, ch. 565, sec. 11, requir- 
 ing restoration of highway. 
 Bush V. Delaware, L. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 516. 
 Evidence of subsequent re- 
 pairs. 
 
 Bush V. Delaware, h. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 516. 
 Expert testimony as to dura- 
 bility o:f bridge. 
 Bush V. Delaware, L. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 516. 
 Expert testimony as to durabil- 
 ity of material. 
 Bush V. Delaware, L. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 516. 
 Framework of bridge, construc- 
 tion of New York Laws 1897, 
 
 BRIDGES— Continued. 
 
 ch._ 754, sec. 64, requiring 
 
 maintenance of bridge over 
 
 highway. 
 
 Bush V. Delaware, L. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 516. 
 Grant of use of bridge to other 
 
 railroads. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 1. 
 
 Knowingly using defective 
 bridge at crossing as contrib- 
 utory negligence. 
 Evans V. Charleston & W. C. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 200. 
 
 Liability of railroad assuming 
 duty of municipality for 
 negligence in maintaining 
 bridge. 
 Bush V. Delaware, L. & W. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 516. 
 
 Liability of railroad for im- 
 proper construction. 
 Brown v. Pine Creek Ry. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 693. 
 Mandamus to compel construc- 
 tion of, over street, parties. 
 Williams, State's Atty. v. 
 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 
 Co. (Conn.), vol. 12, p. 860. 
 
 Master free from negligence is 
 
 not liable for death of servant 
 
 from low bridge. 
 
 Myers v. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 
 & O. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 749. 
 Negligence in maintaining low 
 topped bridge. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Love 
 
 (Kan.), vol. 4, p. 256. 
 Obstruction of navigable 
 stream. 
 Hedges v. West Shore R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 5, p. 647. 
 Jones V. St. Paul, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 6, p. 789. 
 
 Right of street railway to build 
 
 overheard bridge over right 
 
 of way of a railroad company. 
 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Harrisburg & M. Electric 
 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 151. 
 Servant having notice assumes 
 risk of low bridge. 
 Myers v. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 
 & O. Rv. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 749. 
 
208 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 BHIDGES—ConHnued. 
 
 Signal for overhead bridges at 
 crossings. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 R. Co. V. Halvert (III.), vol. 
 IS, p. 180.' . 
 Specific performance of contract 
 granting right to use bridge. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S. ), 
 vol. 6, p. 1. 
 Whether railroad liable for per- 
 sonal injuries caused by col- 
 lapse depended on weight of 
 vehicle, construction of New 
 York Laws 1890, ch. S68, sec. 
 .154. 
 
 Bush V. Delaware, L/. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 516. 
 
 BROKERS. 
 Delivery to broker or consignor. 
 American Sugar Refining Co. 
 V. McGhee (Ga.), vol. 2, p. 
 , 697. 
 
 BUILDING CONTRACTS. 
 See Working Contracts. 
 
 BURDEN OF PROOF. 
 
 See Contributory Nef^ligence. 
 Death by Wrongful Acts. 
 Negligence. 
 Chase v.' Maine Cent. R. R. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 6, p. 343. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Miller (Ind. ), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 684. 
 Grouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 780. 
 ' Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kelly (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 444. 
 Jacobson v. Wisconsin M. & 
 
 P. R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 228. 
 Lee V. International, etc., R. 
 
 C6. (Tex.), vol. S, p. 376. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 son (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 97. 
 Omaha Street Ry. Co. v. Mar- 
 tin (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 1. 
 Action for injury to live stock 
 shipped by connecting car- ■ 
 riers. 
 Milam v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 2S3. 
 Burden is on plaintiff, in action 
 for injuries alleged to have 
 been caused by fellow servant, 
 to show that he was free from 
 fault, and when this is done, 
 
 BURDEN OF PROOF— Cowif'ar. ; 
 burden is on defendant to 
 show that his servants were 
 not at fault. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Mooney (Fla. ), vol. 12, p. 
 721. ) 
 
 Burden is on plaintiff, in action 
 for personal injuries to show 
 extent of injuries and dam- 
 ages sustained thereby. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Barrett 
 (U. S.), vol. 11, p. 867. 
 Burden of proof as to compli- 
 ance with statute creating 
 absolute liability for failure 
 to observe statutory precau- 
 tious to prevent accidents on 
 railroads. 
 
 Walton V. Chattanooga Rapid- 
 Transit Co. (Tenn.), vol. 
 19, p. 436. 
 Burden of proof as to knowledge 
 of defect, in action for death 
 of employee. • 
 
 Judd V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 517. 
 Burden of proof as to negli- 
 gence of railroad where re- 
 sponsibility for origin of fire 
 has been fixed upon it. 
 Patteson v. Chesapeake & O. 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. 6, p. 389. 
 Burden of proof where passen- 
 ger is injured. 
 
 Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Rood 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 784. 
 Burden of proving conscious 
 suffering in action for death 
 by wrongful act. 
 Sweetland v. Chicago & G. 
 T. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 11, 
 p. 613. 
 Burden of proving nonassump- 
 tion of risk frorh unblocked 
 guard-rail. 
 
 Burnham v. Concord & M. R. 
 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 16, p. 320. 
 
 Connecting carriers, injury to 
 
 goods. 
 
 Gulf, etc., V. Jones (Ind. 
 
 Ter.), vol. 5, p. 695. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Tennessee Brewing Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 4, p. 661. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Central Texas & N. W. Rail- 
 way Co. V. Bush (Tex.), 
 vol. 3, p. 264.. 
 
 Hunter v. Montana Cent. 
 Ry. Co. (Mont.), vol. 16, 
 p. 615. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 209 
 
 BURDEN OF PROOF— CowiJW. BURDBN^OF PROOF— Cow/foT. 
 
 Absence of contributory neg- 
 ligence in action for death 
 by wrongful act. 
 Heckle v. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. IS, p. S84. 
 Burden of proving due care 
 by deceased where employee 
 is killed on track. 
 Dyer v. Fitchburg R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 11, p. 473. 
 Tumalty v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 11, p. 468. 
 Burden of proving failure of 
 injured person to exercise 
 care at crossing is on com- 
 pany. 
 
 Steele v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. IS, p. 
 129. 
 Where it is admitted that 
 plaintiff's decedent knew 
 that an appliance was de- 
 fective, burden is on plain- 
 tiff to show that his 
 decedent was justified in 
 running risk of injury 
 therefrom. 
 
 Ford V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 p. 489. 
 Crossings, due care by deceased 
 at crossing. 
 
 Crawford v. Chicago G. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 
 628. 
 Crossings, to show that driver 
 exercised reasonable care. 
 Chase v. Maine Cent. R. R. 
 (Mass.), vol. 6, p. 343. 
 Fellow servants. 
 Hunter v. Kansas City & M. 
 Railway & Bridge Co. (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 10, p. 620. 
 Instructions. 
 Ford V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, p. 
 489. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Johnson (Tex.), vol. 14, 
 p. 82. 
 Hale V. New York & N. E. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 16, p. 535. 
 Instructions as to burden of 
 proving exercise of due care 
 by person injured while on 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Murowski (111.), vol. 15, p. 
 697. 
 It was error to instruct upon 
 
 I D— 14 
 
 which party burden "of proof 
 
 rested. 
 
 Macon v. Paducah St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 614. 
 Necessity of change of route. 
 Village of Wayzata v. Great 
 
 Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 360. 
 •Negligence. 
 
 Central R. & B. Co. v. Ogle- 
 tree (Ga.), vol. 2, p. 382. 
 Heckle v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 15, p. 584. 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 lyauricella (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 382. 
 Parker v. South Carolina & 
 
 G. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 731. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence. 
 Cox V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 390. 
 Plaintiff in action to recover 
 for personal injuries alleged 
 to have been caused by de- 
 fective engine must show 
 that it was unsuitable for use 
 and that such defects caused 
 the accident. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Bar- 
 rett (U. S.), voIj 11, p. 867. 
 Statutory rule as to presump- 
 tion of negligence does not 
 apply in action against re- 
 ceiver. 
 Robinson v. Huidekoper 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 216. 
 Verdict not directed for party 
 on whom is burden of proof. 
 Cox V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 390. 
 
 BURGLARY. 
 Indictment for burglary. 
 State V. Davis (Mo.), vol. 7, 
 p. 601. 
 
 CARE. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 OAR COUPLERS. 
 
 See Couplings. 
 OAR INSPECTORS. 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 
 OAR RENTALS. 
 See Mortgages. 
 Receivers. 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 See Actions. 
 
 Terminal Companies. 
 
210 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF FREIGHT. 
 See tarriers of Goods. 
 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 
 Circus. 
 
 Common Carriers. 
 
 Coinpetition. 
 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 Demurrage. 
 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 
 Interstate Com.tnerce Act. 
 
 Limitation of Actions. 
 
 Penalties. 
 
 Railroad Commissioners. 
 
 Rates. 
 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Taxation. 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS. 
 See Bills of Lading. 
 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 
 Circus. 
 
 Conflict of Laws. 
 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 
 Demurrage. 
 
 Express Companies. 
 
 Fires. 
 
 Warehousemen. 
 
 Actions. 
 
 Action for breach of contract 
 of shipment and action ex 
 contractu. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Rosen- 
 berg (Ala.), vol. 22, p. 
 418. 
 Action for breach of contract 
 to furnish cars. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hodge (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 p. 574. 
 Action for damage to goods 
 shipped from outside of 
 state to point not on de- 
 fendant's road. 
 Kerr v. Georgia R. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 837. 
 Action in tort for injury to 
 property in shipment. 
 Waters v. Mob'le, etc., R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 6, p. 
 772. 
 Whether tender of payment of 
 freight must be shown. 
 Miami Powder Co. v. Port 
 Royal & W. C. R. Co. (S. 
 Car.), vol. 4, p. 426. 
 Act of God, heavy dew no ex- 
 cuse for delay in transporta- 
 tion. 
 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Truskett (C. C. A.), vol. 
 19, p. 618. 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Co«- 
 
 tinued. 
 Agency. 
 Agency of oflBcers to con- 
 signee after delivery ex- 
 tends only to goods right- 
 fully shipped. 
 Bowers v. J. B. Worth Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 22, p. 6S8. 
 Authority of local agents. 
 Coates V. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 3, p. 426. 
 Authority of local agents to 
 make contract for transpor- 
 tation beyond carrier's line. 
 Sutton V. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 
 20, p. 726. 
 Authority of station agent to 
 bind company by contract 
 to furnish cars. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hodge (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 p. 574. 
 Change of consignee by ship- 
 per's agent after consign- 
 ment to principal. 
 I<ake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 
 V. National Live-Stock 
 Bank (111.), vol. 13, p. 1. 
 Power of agent to release car- 
 riers from liability. 
 California Powder Works v. 
 Atlantic & P. R. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 4, p. 301. 
 Attachment. 
 
 Hamilton v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 8, p. 526. 
 Attachment of goods in transit. 
 Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. Bos- 
 sut (N. Mex. ), vol. 19, p. 
 683. 
 Carrier estopped to plead that 
 contract for shipment of 
 freight was ultra vires in an 
 action to recover for its fail- 
 ure to carry out such contract. 
 Bigelow V. Chicago, B. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 341. 
 
 Charges. 
 
 Liability for overcharge by 
 conductor. 
 
 Hall V. Norfolk & Western 
 Railroad Co. (W. Va.), 
 vol. 8, p. 632. 
 Payment of freight charges 
 advanced to connecting car- 
 rier on another shipment 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 211 
 
 CARBIERS OF GOOHS— Con- 
 tinued. 
 
 as condition precedent to 
 delivery. 
 
 Robinson v. Dover, etc., 
 JR. Co. (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 
 753. 
 Recovery of overcharges. 
 Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. 
 V. Pinnacle Coal Co. (W. 
 Va.), vol. 10, p. 3S8. 
 Whether freight should have 
 been paid before, action for 
 failure to deliver will lie. 
 L(Ouisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 AUgood (Ala.), vol. 6, p. 
 771. 
 Common carrier's liability. 
 Cooper V. Raleigh & G. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 412. 
 Consignor's right of action. 
 Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. 
 V. Commercial Guano Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 848. 
 Contracts. 
 
 Contract for carriage of 
 freight. 
 
 Bigelow V. Chicago B. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 341. 
 Contract for carriage of 
 goods must have mutuality. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Bagley (Kan.), vol. 13, 
 p. 259. 
 Contract for exclusive use of 
 track by shipper void as 
 against public policy. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 332. 
 Contract not to carry, to pre- 
 vent competition, not allow- 
 able. 
 
 Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. 
 V. Morgan's L. & T. R. 
 Co. (Iva.), vol. 13, p. 71. 
 Contract of carrier to furnish 
 cars not unilateral where it 
 imposes on the other party 
 the obligation to load, in- 
 spect, and ship. 
 Baxley v. Tallassee & M. 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 
 170. 
 Shipper presumed to know 
 contents of contract of ship- 
 ment. 
 
 Kellerman v. Kansas City, 
 St. J. & C. B. Railroad 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 290. 
 Verbal agreement for carriage 
 of freight cannot be modi- 
 fied by subsequent written 
 
 CARRIERS OP QOOT>S—Con- 
 
 tinued, 
 
 agreement after car was 
 loaded, where shippers' at- 
 tention was not called to 
 modification. 
 
 Stoner v. Chicago G. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 18, 
 p. 221. 
 What constitutes contract to 
 carry. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Where the evidence as to 
 whether or not a contract 
 of shipment was entered 
 into was conflicting the 
 question was properly sub- 
 mitted to the jury. 
 Meloche v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 10, p. 82. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Use of defective chute by 
 shipper in loading. 
 Candee v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 
 21, p. 434. 
 Conversion. 
 Downing v. Outerbridge (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 10, p. 861. 
 Damages. 
 Damage by rain, liability for 
 negligence in failing to in- 
 spect roof of car. 
 Gardner v. New Orleans & 
 N. E. R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 
 21, p. 865. 
 Damages not assessed in ver- 
 dict. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hartwell (Ky.), vol. 4, 
 p. 550. 
 Damages to goods through 
 negligence of shipper. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Kenwood (111.), vol. 9, 
 p. 556. 
 Damages to trees from cold 
 while in transit. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 10, p. 88. 
 Duty of plaintiff to lessen 
 damages by contracting 
 with others. 
 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Hodge (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 574. 
 
 Excessive verdict based upon 
 
 supposed good pedigree of 
 
 horse. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Radford (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 124. 
 
212 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Cb«- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Expenses incurred in seeking 
 delayed goods. 
 Swift River Co. v. Fitch- 
 burg R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 
 8, p. 512. 
 Instruction as to measure of 
 damages for injury to horse. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Radford (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 124. ' 
 Measure of Damages. 
 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hodge (Tex.), 
 vol. 2, p. S74. 
 Delay. 
 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. 
 Southern S. & C. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 276. 
 Failure to deliver goods at 
 time agreed upon. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 McGrath (Kan.), vol. 3, 
 p. 424. 
 For failure to furnish cars 
 according to contract. 
 Baxley v. Tallassee & M. 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 21, 
 p. 170. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hodge (Tex.)» 
 vol. 2, p. 574. 
 In action for breach of 
 contract for carriage of 
 goods. 
 
 Bigelow V. Chicago, B. & 
 
 N. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 341. 
 
 Injury to goods by fire while 
 
 negligently delayed by 
 
 carrier. 
 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 Millsaps (Miss.), vol. 
 17, p. 269. 
 Measure of damages for de- 
 lay in transportation. 
 Swift River Co. v. Fitch- 
 burg R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 8, p. 512. 
 Proof of value. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hart well (Ky.), vol. 4, 
 p. 550. 
 Purchase of wearing ap- 
 parel in action for loss of 
 trunk. 
 
 Merrill v. Pacific Trans- 
 fer Co. (Cal.), vol. 21, 
 p. 143. 
 Sentimental value of family 
 portraits. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Miss.), vol. 
 21, p. 855. 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Co«- 
 
 Hnued. 
 
 Statutory liability for dam- 
 ages. 
 
 St. Louis & San Francisco 
 Railway Co. v. Bryan 
 Fruit Co. (Kan.), vol. 
 2, p. 691. 
 Defenses. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hodge (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 p. 574. 
 Defense in action for breach 
 of contract to furnish cars. 
 Baxley v. Tallassee & M. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 170. 
 Delay. 
 Consignor as plaintifiE in ac- 
 tion for delay in delivery 
 of freight. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Deakins 
 (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 122. 
 Liability for destruction of 
 goods resulting from de- 
 lay in transportation. 
 Thomas v. Lancaster Mills 
 of Clinton (C. C. A.), vol. 
 2, p. 662. 
 Liibility of railroad company 
 for delay in shipment of 
 goods. 
 
 Bradley v. Chicago M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 5, p. 40. 
 Negligent delay of carrier not 
 proximate cause of injury 
 to goods damaged by fire. 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 Millsaps (Miss.), vol. 17, 
 p. 269. 
 Opinion evidence as to condi- 
 tion of freight delayed in 
 transportation. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Foulks (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 664. 
 Special damages for delay in 
 transportation. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 of Texas v. Belcher 
 (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 498. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 damage from delay in de- 
 livery of freight. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Dea- 
 kins (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 
 122. 
 Texas statute providing pen- 
 alty for delay in delivery of 
 certain freight in conflict 
 with interstate commerce 
 acts. 
 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. &. 
 Carden (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 448. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 213 
 
 OABRIERS OP GOODS— Co«- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Time tables e^s notice to ship- 
 per of delays. 
 
 Burns z). Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 17, p. 290. 
 Delivery by Carrier. 
 
 Bowers v. J. B. Worth Co. 
 (N! Car.), vol. 22, p. 6S8. 
 Dixon V. Central of Georgia 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 380. 
 Agent of consignee. 
 Central Railroad & Bank- 
 ing Co. V. Cooper (Ga.), 
 vol. 2, p. 688. 
 At flag station. 
 Allan V. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 347. 
 Bill of lading as conclusive 
 evidence of, under Missis- 
 sippi Code, in action by 
 carrier to recover over on 
 indemnity policy. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Lancashire Ins. Co. 
 (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 840. 
 Constructions of shipping 
 contract. 
 
 Roy V. Griffin (Wash.), voL 
 22, p. 596. 
 Failure to deliver goods, effect 
 of previous action against 
 another party. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bernheim (Ala.), vol. 8, 
 p. 754. 
 Liability, because of promise 
 of agent, for delay in deliv- 
 ery of freight. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Dea- 
 kins (Tenn. ), vol. 23, p. 
 122. 
 Liability for delivering to 
 wrong party, construction 
 of contract. 
 
 Germain Fruit Co. v. Cali- 
 fornia S. R. Co. (Cal. ), 
 vol. 22, p. 362. 
 Liability of carrier where 
 goods are refused by con- 
 signee. 
 
 American Sugar Refining 
 Co. V. McGhee (Ga.), vol. 
 2, p. 697. 
 Of goods by carrier. 
 
 Ratzer v. Burlington, C. R. 
 & N. Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 4, p. 55. 
 Oi goods to holder of bill of 
 lading. 
 
 Commercial Bank v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. (111.), 
 vol. 4, p. 263. 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Com- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Of portion of consignment 
 does not operate as delivery 
 of the whole. 
 
 Jeffris V. Fitchburg R. Co. 
 (Wis.), vol. 4, p. 608. 
 Proper point of delivery, 
 question for jury. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 ■ Bernheim (Ala.), vol.8, 
 p. 754. 
 Reasonable time for removal 
 of goods. 
 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Western Ry. of Alabama 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 455. 
 
 Reasonable time for removal 
 
 of goods, question of law 
 
 or fact. 
 
 Berry v. West Virginia & 
 ' P. R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 11, p. 103. 
 Refusal to deliver. 
 
 Alabama Mid. Ry. Co. v. 
 Darby (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 105. 
 
 Right of consignor to make 
 delivery of goods condi- 
 tional. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hartwelt (Ky.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 550. 
 
 Storaere on uncovered plat- 
 form. 
 
 Central Railroad & Banking 
 Co. V. Cooper (Ga. ), vol. 
 2, p. 688. 
 Termination of liability. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Wichita Wholesale Gro- 
 cery Co. (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 
 560. 
 Welch V. Concord R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 16, p. 830. 
 Title to goods passing with 
 delivery to carrier. 
 Hunter v. Randolf (N. 
 Car.), vol. 22, p. 79. 
 To broker of consignor. 
 American Sugar Refining 
 Co. V. McGhee (Ga. ), vol. 
 2, p. 697. 
 To real owner. 
 Thomas v. Northern Pac. 
 Exp. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 11, p. 121. 
 Validity of sale of goods to 
 carrier for freight before 
 delivery. 
 
 Wheeling & L. E. Co. v. 
 Koontz (Ohio), vol. 16, p. 
 827. 
 
214 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Co»- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 What constitutes. 
 Central Railroad & Banking 
 Co. V. Cooper (Ga.), vol. 
 2, p. 688. 
 Tate V. Yazoo & M. V. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, p. 
 461. 
 Without requiring surrender 
 of bill of lading. 
 Witt V. East Tennessee & 
 W. N. C. R. Co. (Tenn.) 
 vol. 8, p. 380. 
 Wrongful delivery by con- 
 necting carrier. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Carter (111.), vol. 8, p. 
 485. 
 Delivery to Carrier. 
 Cattle placed in railroad 
 stock pens not delivered 
 until received by carrier. 
 Kansas City P. & G. R. 
 Co. V. Barnett (Ark.), 
 vol. 22, p. 81. 
 Cotton on carrier's wharf 
 awaiting transportation by 
 steam boat company is in 
 carrier's "actual custody." 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Clay- 
 ton (U. S.), vol. 13, p. 
 236. 
 Effect of delay in delivery to 
 carrier partially caused by 
 its fault in making over- 
 charges. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Freight on platform presumed 
 to be in carrier's custody. 
 Kird V. New Orleans, etc., 
 R. Co. (L,a.), vol. 20, p. 
 930. 
 Reasonable time of delivery 
 to carrier. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Where goods properly marked 
 are placed inside of defend- 
 ant's freight depot for 
 immediate shipment, and 
 defendant's agents agree to 
 ship them on the following 
 morning, defendant is lia- 
 ble as a common carrier. 
 Meloche v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 10, p. 82. 
 Demurrage. 
 Carrier's lien. 
 
 Swan V. L/Ouisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Teun.), vol. 20, p. 
 446. 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Co«- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Destruction of property at 
 place of transshipment. 
 Thomas v. L/ancaster Mills 
 of Clinton (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 2, p. 662. 
 Detention of cars. 
 Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. 
 V. Ohio & Mississippi 
 Railroad Co. (Ky.), vol. 2, 
 p. 722. 
 Detention of cars by another 
 road. 
 
 Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. 
 V. Ohio & Mississippi 
 Railroad Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 2, p. 722. 
 Reasonable charge for deten- 
 tion of cars. 
 
 Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. 
 V. Ohio & Mississippi 
 Railroad Co. (Ky. ),vol. 
 2, p. 722. 
 Reasonableness of stipulation. 
 Swan V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, p. 
 446. 
 Right of company to collect 
 demurrage for cars belong- 
 ing to another company. 
 Kentucky Wagon Mfg. C5o. 
 V. Ohio & Mississippi 
 Railroad Co. (Kv.), vol. 
 2, p. 722. 
 Rule fixing rate of demurrage. 
 Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. 
 V. Ohio & Mississippi 
 Railroad Co. (Ky. ), vol. 
 2, p. 722. 
 SufBciency of notice of ar- 
 rival of cars to fix liability 
 of shipper for demurrage. 
 Galveston, Harrisburg, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Hunt (Tex.), 
 vol. 2, p. 731. 
 Discrimination. 
 Against connecting carrier 
 in issuing through bill of 
 lading. 
 
 State V. Wrightsville & T. 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 576. 
 Constitutional law. 
 
 State V. Texas & P. Ry. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 18, p. 399. 
 Constitution and statute of 
 Kentucky prohibiting 
 greater charge for short 
 than for long haul not in 
 conflict with federal con- 
 stitution or statutes. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth ( Ky. ), 
 vol. 22, p. 356. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 215 
 
 OABRIBBS OF GOODS— Cow- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Discriminatipu not warranted 
 by competition, under pro- 
 vision of Kentucky consti- 
 tution. 
 Hutcheson v. IvOUisviUe & 
 
 N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 293. 
 Equality of conditions as 
 affecting, 
 lyouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Commonwealth ( Ky. ), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 297. 
 Kentucky Const., sec. 218, 
 prohibiting the charging of 
 more for short than long 
 haul, not applicable where 
 short haul originates on 
 branch line and long haul 
 is altogether on main line. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Walker (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 473. 
 Liability for charging more 
 for long than short haul. 
 Liouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Walker (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 473. 
 Liability to indictment for 
 charging more for short 
 than long haul. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Commonwealth (Ky. ), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 356. 
 Mandamus to compel carrier 
 to grant equal facilities. 
 State V. Texas & P. Ry. 
 
 Co. (La.), vol. 18, p. 399. 
 
 Presumption that shipper is 
 
 damaged by a higher charge 
 
 for a short than a long haul. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Walker (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 473. 
 Prosecution for. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Commonwealth ( Ky. ), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 297. 
 Recommendation of railroad 
 commissioner as prerequi- 
 site to indictment. 
 Com. V. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 936. 
 Recovery cannot be had for 
 loss of goods under contract 
 of shipment providing for 
 unlawful discrimination. 
 Church V. Minneapolis & 
 
 St. L. Ry. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 382. 
 Recovery for overcharge. 
 Murray v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 278. 
 
 CARRIERS OP GOODS— Con- 
 tinued, 
 
 Remedies for. 
 Hutcheson v. Louisville & 
 N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 18, 
 p. 293. 
 Under Ky. St. sec. 820, rec- 
 ommendation of railroad 
 commission necessary to 
 indictment of carrier for 
 charging more for short 
 than long haul. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth ( Ky. ), 
 vol. 23, p. 326. 
 Duty of carrier, instructions. 
 Hinton v. Eastern Ry. Co. of 
 Minnesota (Minn.), vol. 11, 
 p. 12S. 
 Duty of consignee to receive 
 freight which has been 
 slightly damaged in transpor- 
 tation. 
 
 Corso V. New Orleans & N. B. 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. S, p. 43. 
 Duty of consignee to remove 
 goods in reasonable time. 
 Berry v. West Virginia & P. 
 R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 11, p. 
 103. 
 Duty of railroad to maintain 
 wagonway to freight yard. 
 Curtis V. DeCoursey (Pa.), 
 vol. S, p. 416. 
 
 Duty to Furnish Facilities. 
 
 Frostburg Mining Co. v. 
 
 Cumberland & Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. (Md.), vol. 
 
 2, p. S68. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Hodge (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 574. 
 State V. Texas & P. Ry. 
 
 Co. (La.), vol. 18, p. 399. 
 Duty to furnish cars. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Hodge (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 574. 
 Failure to furnish cars. 
 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Hodge (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 574. 
 Failure to furnish suitable 
 refrigerator cars. 
 Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. 
 
 Davis <I11.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 581. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Queen City Coal Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 4, p. 389. 
 Issues in action for breach of 
 contract to furnish cars. 
 Baxley v. Tallassee & M. 
 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 170. 
 
216 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF QOODS—Con- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Lessee of railroad must pro- 
 vide for transportation of 
 freight. 
 
 People, Cantrell v. St. 
 Louis, A. & T. H. R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 12, p. 227. 
 Right of company to refuse 
 carriage facilities to com- 
 peting telegraph line. 
 Mercantile T. Co. v. At- 
 lantic & P. R. Co. (U. 
 S.), vol. 1, p. 683. 
 Station agent's authority to 
 bind company by contract 
 to furnish cars. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hodge (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 p. S74. 
 SufSciency of complainant in 
 action for failure to fur- 
 nish car, 
 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. 
 ■V. I(ee (Ark.), vol. 23, p. 
 320. 
 What constitutes reasonable 
 facilities. 
 
 Frostburg Mining Co. v. 
 Cumberland & Pa. R. Co. 
 (Md.), vol. 2, p. 568. 
 Duty to receive and transport 
 goods. 
 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Waters (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 
 7S3. 
 Duty to receive foreign cars. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cur- 
 tis (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 7S3. 
 Equity jurisdiction as to com- 
 binations between them. 
 Post V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 16, p. 201. 
 Evidence. 
 As to trafiBc agreements. 
 Post V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 16, p. 201. 
 Burden of proof on carrier to 
 show absence where goods 
 were not delivered. 
 Mouton V. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 
 673. 
 
 Burden of proof on carriers 
 to show that loss by fire 
 was not caused by negli- 
 gence, where right of 
 contract is controlled by 
 common law. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Richmond (Tex.), vol. 21, 
 p. 847. 
 
 Of approval of rates by in- 
 
 OARRIERS OF GOODS— Cow- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 terstate commerce commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Mouton V. l/ouisville & 
 N. R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 20, p. 673. 
 Res inter alios acta not ad- 
 missible in action for 
 breach of contract to carry. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Statutory penalty for charg- 
 ing excessive fare, evidence 
 of distance between two 
 stations, mile posts. 
 Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. 
 V. Wells (Ark.), vol. 3, p. 
 427. 
 Exoneration by railroad com- 
 mission from operation of 
 law prohibiting the charging 
 of more for short than a long 
 haul. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Van Cleave (Ky.), vol. 21, 
 p. 477. 
 Explosives. 
 Release of carrier's liability 
 by agent. 
 
 California Powder Works v. 
 Atlantic & P. R. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 4, p. 301. 
 Express Companies. 
 Express companies may com- 
 pel shipper to affix revenue 
 stamp. 
 
 American Exp. Co. v. May- 
 nard, Atty. Gen. (U. 
 S.), vol. 17, p. S30. 
 Mandamus to compel carrier 
 to affix revenue stamp. 
 American Exp. Co. v. May- 
 nard, Atty. Gen. (U. 
 S.), vol. 17, p. 530. 
 Misdelivery. 
 Oskamp v. Southern Exp. 
 Co. (Ohio), vol. 17, p. 
 334. 
 Fires. 
 Fires, liability of carrier for 
 loss of freight by fire. 
 Hernsheim v. Newport 
 News, etc., Co. (Ky.), 
 vol. 6, p. 772. ' 
 
 Fires, loss by fire through 
 failure to ship. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Gidley (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 214. 
 Fires, statutory liability for 
 loss of goods by fire. 
 Walker v. Eikleberry 
 (Okla.), vol. 13, p. 253. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 217 
 
 CABRIERS OF GOODS— Co«- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Statute making railroad ab- 
 solutely liable for losses 
 caused by fires set by en- 
 gines not applicable to loss 
 of goods burned in freight 
 house. 
 
 Welch V. Concord R. R. (N. 
 H..), vol. 16, p. 830. 
 Foreign cars do not alter car- 
 rier's liability. 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. 
 Ry. Co. V. N. K. Fairbanks 
 & Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 179. 
 Forwarder. 
 Taylor v. Maine Central Rail- 
 road Co. (Me.), vol. 2, p. 
 614. 
 Garnishment, effect of after de- 
 livery to carrier. 
 Baldwin v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, 
 p. 202. 
 Goods, title passing with deliv- 
 ery to carrier. 
 
 Hunter v. Randolph (N. 
 Car.), vol. 22, p. 79. 
 Insurance. 
 Question for jury whether 
 loan or payment on account 
 of insurance. 
 
 Roos V. Philadelphia, W. 
 & B. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 21, p. 856. 
 Validity of stipulation pur- 
 porting to give carrier ben- 
 efit of insurance. 
 Roos V. Philadelphia, W. & 
 B. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, 
 p. 856. 
 Intoxicating Liquors. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. State 
 (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 179. 
 I/iability of carrier where in- 
 toxicating liquors are seized 
 and destroyed under police 
 regulations. 
 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Gans (Ark.), vol. 21, p. 
 498. 
 Invoice cost. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 564. 
 Jurisdiction of action to recover 
 excess of freight charges. 
 Conn V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 838. 
 Liability for breach of contract 
 to carry goods in bond. 
 Smith Bros. & Co. v. New 
 Orleans, etc., R. Co. (La.), 
 vol. 22, p. 419. 
 
 CABRIERS OF GOODS— Cow- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Liability for damage caused by 
 failure to properly ice refrig- 
 erator cars. 
 
 New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cromwell (Va. ), vol. 17, p. 
 328. 
 Liability for injury to ice com- 
 pany's employee caused by 
 ice and snow on roof of car 
 he was loading. 
 Baker v. Louisville & N. 
 Terminal Co. (Tenn.), vol. 
 20, p. 946. 
 Liability of carrier. 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. Ken- 
 wood (111.), vol. 9, p. .556. 
 Liability of carrier for injury 
 to cotton in compress. 
 Amory Mfg. Co. v. Gulf, C. 
 & S. P. Ry. Co. (Tex.), 
 vol. 8, p. 472. 
 Liability of carrier for loss of 
 goods on its wharf while 
 awaiting transportation by 
 steamboat company is that of 
 common carrier, not ware- 
 houseman. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Clay- 
 ton (U. S.), vol. 13, p. 236. 
 Liability of carrier who being 
 aware of nature of goods 
 shipped, and that cold was 
 injurious to them, shipped 
 them by northern route. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 564. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for personal injuries received 
 by employee of mill owner 
 while loading defective car. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Booth (Ga. ), vol. 5, p. 612. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 which furnishes a defective 
 car. 
 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Booth (Ga. ), vol. 5, p. 612. 
 Lien for freight. 
 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. 
 Georgia Railroad & Bank- 
 ing Co. (Ga. ), vol. 2, p. 
 685. 
 Limiting Liability. 
 
 Burgher v, Chicago, R. I. 
 & P. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 11, p. 130. 
 Cox V. Vermont Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 591. 
 Grieve v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 669. 
 St. Louis S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Sherlock (Kan.), vol. 9, 
 p. 462. 
 
218 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Cow- 
 
 iinued. 
 
 A carrier is not relieved from 
 liability under a contract 
 that he shall not berrespon- 
 sible for neg'ligence, of 
 himself or his servants, 
 such contract being con- 
 trary to public policy. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 564. 
 Assent of shipper to clause of 
 bill of lading limiting lia- 
 bility by agreement as to 
 value of shipment. 
 Ullman v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 782. 
 Burden of proof. 
 Hinton v. Eastern Ry. Co. 
 
 of Minnesota (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 125. 
 Burden of proof to show rea- 
 sonableness of agreement 
 fixing value of goods. 
 Gardner v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 83. 
 Burden on carrier to show 
 due care. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gidley (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 214. 
 By agreement as to value of 
 shipment. 
 Ullman v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 782. 
 Carrier exempted from loss of 
 goods by fire is not required 
 to keep sufficient watch to 
 preserve goods against loss 
 by fire. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gidley (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 214. 
 Consideration. 
 Mannheim Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Erie & W. Transp. Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. 13, p. 161. 
 Consideration necessary to 
 render limitation valid. 
 Richardson v. Chicago & 
 
 A. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 170. 
 Consignor as consignee's 
 agent in making contract 
 of shipment. 
 Mouton V. Louisville & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 673. 
 
 Constitutional provision that 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Co«- 
 
 tinued. 
 liability shall not be lim- 
 ited. 
 Miller Grain & Elevator Co. 
 
 V. Union Pac. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 8, p. 1. 
 Contract exempting carrier 
 from liability for loss by 
 fire, burden on carrier to 
 show that fire was not due 
 to its negligence. 
 Newberger Cotton Co. v. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (Miss.), vol. 10, p. 334. 
 Effect of arbitrary clause on 
 validity of limitation. 
 Ullman v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 782. 
 Effect of void negligence 
 clause or other limiting 
 clauses. 
 Ullman v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 782. 
 Exemption from liability for 
 fire from any cause what- 
 ever was not void. 
 California Powder Works v. 
 
 Atlantic & P. R. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 4, p. 301. 
 Exemption from liability for 
 loss resulting from negli- 
 gence. 
 Thomas v. Lancaster Mills 
 
 of Clinton (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 662. 
 Intention of party must 
 clearly appear from agree- 
 ment. 
 Gardner v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 83. 
 
 Lack of consideration. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Lan- 
 cashire Ins. Co. (Miss.), 
 vol. 21, p. 840. 
 
 Liability for failure to de- 
 liver. 
 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Bogard 
 (Miss.), vol. 18, p. 410. 
 Limitation of liability. 
 Cooper V. Raleigh & G. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 412. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Bogard 
 (Miss.), vol. 18, p. 410. 
 Limitation of liability as to 
 carriage of , express matter. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. 
 L. Ry. Co. V. Mahony 
 (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 441. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 219 
 
 OABBIEBS OP GOODS— Co«- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Limitation of liability by 
 common carrier. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. 
 
 Co. V. I(ippman (Ga. ), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 640. 
 Limitation of liability for 
 damages occurring upon 
 company's own lines. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. 
 
 V. Grossman (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), vol. 3, p. 42S. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Carter (111.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 485. 
 Miller v. Union Pac. R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 8, p. 1. 
 Limitation of liability for 
 loss of goods by fire does 
 not apply where there is 
 reasonable inference that 
 goods were stolen and the 
 car afterwards burned. 
 Merchants' Dispatch Trans. 
 
 Co. V. Hoskins (Ky. ), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 832. 
 Limitation of liability for 
 negligence. 
 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. South- 
 ern S. & C. Co. (Tenn.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 276. 
 Limitation of liability to a 
 fixed value. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 564. 
 Limitation requiring notice 
 of claim construed. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Law (Ark.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 286. 
 Limiting amoiint of damages 
 to be paid in consequence 
 of loss through carrier's 
 negligence. 
 Kellerman v. Kansas City, 
 
 St. J. & C. B. R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 290. 
 Limiting time within which 
 claim for loss may be made. 
 Cox V. Vermont Cent. R. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 591. 
 Dixie Cigar Co. v. Southern 
 
 Exp. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 863. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Reeves (Tex.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 429. 
 Meaning of "accident" in 
 bill of lading. 
 UUman v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 782. 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Co«- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Negligence. 
 Ullman v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 782. 
 Obligation to read receipt for 
 trunk limiting liability. 
 Merrill v. Pacific Transfer 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 21, p. 143. 
 Power to limit liability for 
 negligence. 
 Gardner v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 82. 
 Presumption as to law of an- 
 other state. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 10, p. 88. 
 Provision of bill of lading 
 limiting liability by agree- • 
 ment as to value of ship- 
 ment construed as referring 
 to loss by negligence. 
 Ullman v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 782. 
 Provision that goods be de- 
 livered on certain platform 
 where there is no protection 
 from weather, should be at 
 shipper's risk. 
 Allan V. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 347. 
 Reduced rates as considera- 
 tion. 
 Mouton V. Louisville & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 673. 
 Reduced valuation as consid- 
 eration for reduced rate. 
 Ward V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 30. 
 Reduced valuation clause. 
 Gardner v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 83. 
 Reduced valuation clause re- 
 quires a consideration. 
 Ward V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 30. 
 Right in general. 
 
 Chicago, Milwaukee, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. Wallace (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 2, p. 651. 
 Statutory prohibition not ap- 
 plicable to interstate ship- 
 ments. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. ». 
 
 Richmond (Tex.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 847. 
 
220 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OP GOODS— Cow- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Stipulation of shipping con- 
 tract limiting time for 
 bringing action invalid. 
 Richardson U. Chicago & 
 A. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 13, p. 170. 
 Validity of agreement fixing 
 value of shipment. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Murphey (Ga.), vol. 
 21, p. SSS. 
 Gardner v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, 
 p. 82. 
 Validitj- of clause in bill of 
 lading limiting liability. 
 Berry v. West Virginia & 
 P. R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 11, p. 103. 
 Validity of illegal contract 
 limiting value of freight as 
 affected by fraud of ship- 
 per. 
 
 Lucas V. Burlington, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, 
 p. 366. 
 Validity of reduced valuation 
 clause for which no special 
 consideration was shown. 
 Gardner v. Southern Ry.. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, 
 p. 82. 
 Want of consideration where 
 carrier limits his liability 
 for negligence to certain 
 amount. 
 
 Kellerman v. Kansas City, 
 St. J. & C. B. Railroad 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 290. 
 Loss of goods in an action on a 
 special contract of shipment 
 to recover the value of two 
 bales of cotton alleged to 
 have been lost by defend- 
 ant; plaintiff must show, 
 there having been many 
 shipments, out of which 
 shipment it was lost. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Gross 
 (Miss.), vol. 10, p. 3S6. 
 Mandamus to compel carriage. 
 Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. 
 V. Morgan's L. & T. R. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 13, p. 71. 
 Merchandise, title passing with 
 delivery to carrier. 
 Hunter v. Randolph (N. 
 Car.), vol. 22, p. 79. 
 Misdelivery. 
 Hamilton v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 8, p. S26. 
 
 CARRIERS OP GOODS— Cow- 
 
 tinued. 
 Misshipment of consignment 
 by carrier, liability for inju- 
 ries to same on other roads. 
 Brown & Haywood Co. v. 
 Pennsylvania Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 2, p. 640. 
 Mistake, recovery of goods de- 
 livered through mistake. 
 Walker v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 4, p. 6S8. 
 Negligence in failing to extin- 
 guish fire, question for jury 
 in action for failure to deliver 
 goods. 
 
 Mouton V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 673. 
 Notice. 
 Burden of proof where carrier 
 relies on failure to give 
 notice of claim. 
 Ward V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 30. 
 Duty to notify consignee of 
 arrival of goods. 
 Berry v. West Virginia & 
 P. R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 11, p. 103. 
 Failure to give notice of claim 
 for loss no defense where 
 harmless. 
 
 Ward V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 30. 
 Failure to notify consignee. 
 Alabama Mid. Ry. Co. v. 
 Darby (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 lOS. 
 Knowledge of drayman of ar- 
 rival of goods not notice to 
 consignee. 
 
 Berry v. West Virginia & 
 P. R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 11, p. 103. 
 Notice of loss provision not 
 enforceable where conduct 
 of carrier renders the giv- 
 ing of notice impracticable. 
 Richardson v. Chicago & 
 A. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, 
 p. 170. 
 Notice to agent as notice to 
 corporation. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. 
 of Texas V. Belcher 
 (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 498. 
 Of character of goods shipped 
 where there is delay in 
 shipment by a railroad com- 
 pany. 
 
 Bradley v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 vol. 5, p. 40. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 221 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Cok- 
 
 Hnued. 
 
 SuflHciency of notice of claim. 
 St. Louis & San Francisco 
 Ry. Co. V. Bryan Fruit 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 691. 
 To bailor of delivery of g-oods 
 to real owner. 
 Thomas v. Northern Pac. 
 Exp. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 11, p. 121. 
 Waiver of stipulation requir- 
 ing notice of claim to be 
 given in certain time. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Bogard 
 (Miss.), vol. 18, p. 410. 
 Parties. 
 Proper plaintiff in action for 
 injury to freight. 
 Waters v. Mobile, etc., R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 6, pp. 
 771-772. 
 Proper plaintiff in action to 
 deliver; 
 
 Louisville, etc., Co. v. All- 
 good (Ala.), vol. 6, p. 771. 
 Right of consignor retaining 
 special title to sue for dam- 
 ages resulting from delay. 
 Spence v. Norfolk & West- 
 ern R. Co. (Va.), vol. 2, 
 p. 708. 
 Right of consignor to main- 
 tain an action for failure 
 to deliver. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Met- 
 calf (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 768. 
 When consignor may sue. 
 Spence v. Norfolk & West- 
 ern R. Co. (Va.), vol. 
 2, p. 708. 
 Pleading. 
 A count of the declaration in 
 an action to recover the 
 value of goods destroyed 
 through the alleged negli- 
 gence of a common carrier, 
 which alleges both a con- 
 sideration and a promise, 
 is one ex contractu and not 
 ex delicto. 
 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. i/. 
 Western Ry. of Alabama 
 (Ala.), vol. 10, p. 339. 
 Allegation of acceptance be- 
 fore offer to carrier was 
 withdrawn. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Construction of allegation 
 that delivery was according 
 to agreement. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Failure to allege plaintiff's 
 
 CARRIERS OF OiOOT)^ -Con- 
 tinued. 
 
 ownership, or that he was 
 the party with whom con- 
 tract of shipment was made. 
 United States Mail Line 
 Co. V. Corrollton Furni- 
 ture Mfg. Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 9, p. 286. 
 In action for injury to prop- 
 erty in shipment. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Arnett 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 794. 
 Injury to goods, sufficiency of 
 complaint. 
 
 Lang V. Brady (Conn.), vol. 
 _ 21, p. 843. 
 Injury to goods, whether nec- 
 essary to allege particular 
 acts of negligence. 
 Lang V. Brady (Conn.), 
 vol. 21, p. 843. 
 Sufficiency of complaint in 
 action for loss of trunk. 
 Merrill v. Pacific Transfer 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 21, p. 143. 
 Power of railroad commission 
 to compel carrier to contract 
 for transportation beyond its 
 terminus. 
 
 State V. Wrightsville & T. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 576. 
 Presumption as to ownership of 
 goods delivered conditionally. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hartwell (Ky.), vol. 4, p. 
 SSO. 
 Private Carrier. 
 Circus, railroad acting as 
 private carrier in trans- 
 porting. 
 
 Chicago, Milwaukee, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Wallace (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 2, p. 6S1. 
 Proper loading of car question 
 for jury. 
 
 Keating v. Detroit, B. C. & 
 A. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, 
 p. 386. 
 Proof of condition of goods. 
 Miami Powder Co. v. Port 
 Royal & W. C. R. Co. (S. 
 Car.), vol. 4, p. 426. 
 Rates. 
 Agreement as to regular tariff 
 rates. 
 
 Kellerman v. Kansas City, 
 
 St. J. & C. B. Railroad 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 290. 
 
 Applicability of Iowa statute 
 
 prohibiting extortion and 
 
 discrimination in joint 
 
 freight rates. 
 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 17, p. 363. 
 
222 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Co«- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Competition as circumstance 
 warranting discrimination 
 between long and short 
 hauls. 
 Lfouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Commonwealth ( Ky. ), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 841. 
 Fixing rates. 
 Mannheim Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Evie & W. Transp. Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. 13, p. 161. 
 In the absence of legislative 
 enactment a justice of the 
 peace has ' no authority to 
 determine the rate of freight 
 charges of a railroad corpo- 
 ration. 
 Norfolk & Western Ey. Co. 
 
 V. Pinnacle Coal Co. 
 
 (W. Va.), vol. 10, p. 358. 
 liability of railroad com- 
 pany for overcharges. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Crowell Lumber & Grain 
 
 Co. (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 223. 
 Mode of determining reason- 
 ableness of. 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Tompkins (U. S.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 349. 
 One executing contract with 
 city cannot claim benefit of 
 reduced rate granted city. 
 Dixon V. Central of Georgia 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 380. 
 Railroad commission is proper 
 tribunal for presenting 
 claim that competition re- 
 quires discrimination in 
 rates. 
 Louisville <& N. R. Co. 
 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky.), 
 
 vol. 15, p. 841. 
 Reasonableness of rates. 
 Mannheim Ins. Co. v. Erie 
 
 & W. Transp. Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. 13, p. 161. 
 Right to charge higher rates 
 than those fixed by railroad 
 commissioners. 
 Mississippi Railroad Com- 
 mission V. Gulf & S. I. R. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 864. 
 Schedule of freight rates. 
 Kellerman v. Kansas City, 
 
 St. J. & C. B. Railroad 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 290. 
 Rebates. 
 Discrimination . 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. 
 
 V. Diamond Coal Co. 
 
 (Ohio), vol. 16, p. 232. 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Cow- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Right to recover. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. 
 V. Diamond Coal Co. 
 (Ohio), vol. 16, p. 232. 
 Refrigerator cars. 
 Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. 
 V. Davis (111.), vol. 2, p. 
 581. 
 Refrigerator cars, liability of 
 carrier for damage to freight 
 caused by failure to properly 
 ice refrigerator cars. 
 New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cromwell (Va.), vol. 17, p. 
 328. 
 Regulation that capacity of 
 tank cars shall be estimated 
 at 40,000 pounds. 
 Coates V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. R. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 3, 
 p. 426. 
 Restriction in lease as to re- 
 ceiving and shipping freight 
 did not render contract void 
 as against public policy. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Black (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 864. 
 Revenue Tax. 
 Carrier cannot compel pay- 
 ment by shipper by in- 
 creasing rates. 
 Atty. Gen., Moore w. Amer- 
 ican Exp. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 13, p. 95. 
 Custom duties. 
 
 Mitchelson v. Minneapolis, 
 etc., R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 7, p. 768. 
 Mandamus to compel carriage 
 of goods where shipper re- 
 fuses to pay for revenue 
 stamp. 
 
 Atty. Gen., Moore z^. Amer- 
 ican Exp. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 13, p. 95. 
 Revenue stamp, federal juris- 
 diction where carrier pro- 
 hibited from adding cost of 
 to maximum rates fixed by 
 state railroad commission. 
 Trammell v. Dinsmore 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 19, p. 
 468. 
 
 Revenue stamps payable by 
 shipper. 
 
 Crawford v. Hubbell (C. 
 C. N. Y.), vol. 13, p. 92. 
 Stamp must be afBxed by car- 
 rier. 
 
 Atty. Gen., Moore ». Amer- 
 ican Exp. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 13, p. 95. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 223 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS- 
 tinued. 
 
 Right to mandatory injunction 
 to compel railroad company 
 to stand cars to be loaded in 
 street in front of shipper's 
 property. 
 
 L(Ouisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 332. 
 Shipping receipts obtained af- 
 ter shipment with different 
 consignee named do not en- 
 title holder to recover for fail- 
 ure to carry and deliver in 
 accordance with terms of such 
 receipts. 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 
 V. National Live Stock 
 Bank (111.), vol. 13, p. 1. 
 Stoppage in Transitu. 
 
 Jeffris V. Fitchburg R. Co. 
 (Wis.), vol. 4, p. 608. 
 Delivery. 
 
 Wheeling & L. E. R. Co. v. 
 Koontz (Ohio), vol. 16, p. 
 827. 
 End of transit. 
 Brewer Lumber Co. v. Bos- 
 ton & A. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 21, p. 548. 
 Exercise of right where notes 
 are tendered back. 
 Brewer Lumber Co. v. Bos- 
 ton & A. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 21, p. S48. 
 Right exists against pur- 
 chaser from consignee 
 where goods were sold on 
 credit by consignor. 
 Branan v. Atlanta & W. P. 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 
 237. 
 Storage of goods by di- 
 rection of consignee, suffi- 
 ciency of evidence. 
 Brewer Lumber Co. v. Bos- 
 ton & A. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 21, p. 548. 
 Whether acceptance of notes 
 constituted payment. 
 Brewer Lumber Co. v. Bos- 
 ton & A. R. Cor (Mass.), 
 vol. 21, p. 548. 
 Tender of goods as bar to re- 
 covery for misdelivery. 
 Hamilton v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 8, p. 526. 
 Title passing with delivery to 
 carrier. 
 
 Hunter v. Randolph (N. 
 Car.), vol. 22, p. 79. 
 Traffic agreement as partner- 
 
 Cow- CARRIERS OF GOODS— Co»- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 ship. 
 
 Post V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 16, p. 201. 
 Transfer of defective car. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sny- 
 der (Ohio), vol. 7, pp. 768, 
 769. 
 Transportation service and 
 transfe*- service distin- 
 guished. 
 
 Dixon V. Central of Georgia 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 380. 
 Trover' and conversion. 
 
 Baker v. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 6, p. 772. 
 Usages and Customs. 
 Effect of usages and customs 
 upon carrier's liability. 
 Meloche v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 10, p. 82. 
 Venue of action where goods 
 are injured in transit. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Horn- 
 beck (Tex.), vol. 9, p. 238. 
 Warehousemen. 
 
 Berry v. West Virginia & 
 P. R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 11, p. 103. 
 Carrier's lien on goods at- 
 tached in warehouse. 
 Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Bossut (N. Mex. ), vol. 
 19, p. 683. 
 Fires, liability for destruc- 
 tion of goods by fire. 
 Backhaus v. Chicago & N. 
 W. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 3, 
 p. 426. 
 Liability as. 
 Georgia & A. Ry. v. Pound 
 (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 398. 
 Liability for goods destroyed 
 in warehouse. 
 
 Berry v. West Virginia & 
 P. R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 11, p. 103. 
 Lien for storage charges. 
 Dixon V. Central of Georgia 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 380. 
 Refusal of consignee to accept 
 goods. 
 
 American Sugar Refining 
 Co. V. McGhee (Ga.), vol. 
 2, p. 697. 
 Sufficiency jot evidence to 
 prove custom changing car- 
 rier's liability as. 
 Georgia & A. Ry. v. Pound 
 (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 398. 
 
224 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS— Cb«- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Usag'es and customs as affect- 
 ing' carrier's liability as. 
 Georgia & A. Ry. v. Pound 
 (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 398. 
 What constitutes a carrier. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Wichita Wholesale Grocery 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 560. 
 When relation of carrier and 
 shipper begins. 
 Dixon V. Central of Georgia 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 380. 
 
 CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK. 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Circus. 
 Competition. 
 Conflict of Laws. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Demurrage. 
 
 Action for loss of cattle through 
 defective receiving pens is 
 ex delicto. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Byrne (Ind. Ter.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 17. 
 Action for negligence may be 
 based on statute prescribing 
 penalty for failure to care for 
 stock in transit. 
 Burns v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 290. 
 Act of God, heavy dew not sufB- 
 cient to relieve carrier from 
 liability for delay in trans- 
 portation of live stock. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Truskett (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 273. 
 Assumption of risk by shipper. 
 Heller v. Chicago & G. T. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 3, p. 599. 
 Assumption of risks from de- 
 fects in cars furnished by 
 shipper. 
 Leonard v. Whitcomb (Wis.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 520. 
 Authority of shipper's agent. 
 Burgher v. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 130. 
 Burden of proof. 
 Grieve v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 669. 
 Burden of proof where ship- 
 ment was made through con- 
 necting carriers. 
 Milam v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 253. 
 
 CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK 
 — Continued. 
 
 Carrier's duty to care for stock 
 under South Carolina statute. 
 Milam v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 253. 
 Carrier's duty where shipper 
 makes special contract to care 
 for stock. 
 
 Burns v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, 
 p. 290. 
 Carrier's liability. 
 Cooper V. Raleigh & G. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 412. 
 Cause of action for killing horse 
 in transit, pleading. 
 Ausk V. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 21, p. 
 851. 
 Collision, instruction as to lia- 
 bility of company not en- 
 gaged in transporting stock. 
 Williams v. Houston & Texas 
 Central R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 2, p. 533. 
 Collision between trains of 
 different companies, rights of 
 colliding railroad companies 
 inter se. 
 
 Williams v. Houston & Texas 
 Central R. Co. (Tex..), vol. 
 2, p. 533. 
 Complaint. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hughes (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 p. 507. 
 Contract for shipment of live 
 
 Gulf.'c. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Frost (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 422. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Injury to person riding in car 
 with stock. 
 
 Heumphreus v. Fremont, 
 Elkhorn, etc., R. Co. (S. 
 Dak.), vol. 2, p. 546. 
 Injury to person riding in car 
 with stock in violation of 
 contract of carriage. 
 Heumphreus v. Fremont, 
 Elkhorn, etc., R. Co. (S. 
 Dak.), vol. 2, p. 546. 
 Of shipper in failing to un- 
 load and care for stock at a 
 certain point is a question 
 for jury. 
 
 Burns v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 17, p. 290. 
 Unloading cattle. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 American Exch. Bank 
 (Va.), vol. 3, p. 425. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 225 
 
 CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK 
 — Continued. — Continued. 
 
 Conversion. 
 Gulf, C. & S> F. R. Co. V. 
 Fowler (Tex. Civ. App. ), 
 vol. 3, p. 423. 
 Custom of sending caretaker 
 with cattle. 
 
 Heller v. Chicago & G. T. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 3, p. 599. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 Competency of witnesses to 
 prove value of live stock. 
 Missouri, Kansas & Texas 
 R. Co. V. Woods (Tex.), 
 vol. 2, p. 519. 
 Damages for delay in trans- 
 portation. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Edwards (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 8, p. 402. 
 Damages for depreciation 
 caused by delay in furnish- 
 ing cars. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Law (Ark.), vol. 
 81, p. 286. 
 Damages recoverable under 
 Missouri statute. 
 Paddock ». Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 17, p. 
 310. 
 Delay in transportation. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hughes (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 pp. 507, .508. 
 Deterioration of stock. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Stanley (Tenn.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 480. 
 
 Elements of damages in ac- 
 tion to recover for delay in 
 transportation of live stock. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Truskett (Ind. Ten), 
 vol. 17, p. 273. 
 Injury by delay. 
 San Antonio & Arkansas 
 Pass. R. Co. V. Pratt 
 (Tex.), vol. 2, p. 505. 
 Measure of damages. 
 Williams v. Houston & 
 Texas Central R. Co. 
 (Tex.), vol. 2, p. 533. 
 Measure of damages for fail- 
 ure to furnish cars. 
 San Antonio & A. P. R. 
 Co. V. Pratt (Tex.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 424. 
 
 Measure of damages for inju- 
 ries to live stock by negli- 
 gent transportation. 
 St. Louis Southwestern R. 
 
 ID— 15 
 
 Co. V. Smith (Tex.), vol. 
 2, p. 531. 
 Measure of damages for in- 
 juries to stock in shipment. 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 De Shong (Ark.), vol. 6, 
 p. 773. 
 Missouri statute requiring 
 railroads to pay attorney's 
 fee in addition to damages 
 recovered for injuries to 
 live stock in transit is un- 
 constitutional. 
 Paddock v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 17, p. 
 310. 
 Opinion of' owner as to dam- 
 ages in transit. 
 Milam v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 253. 
 Proof of market value of 
 stock. 
 
 Williams v. Houston & 
 
 Texas Central R. Co. 
 
 (Tex.), vol. 2, p. 533. 
 
 Stipulation as to measure of 
 
 damages for injury to live 
 
 stock. 
 
 Williams v. Houston & 
 Texas Central R. Co. 
 (Tex.), vol. 2, p. 533. 
 Declaration in action to re- 
 cover for injuries to live 
 stock defective, in not aver- 
 ring compliance with condi- 
 tion precedent in contract. 
 Baxter v. Louisville, N. A. 
 & C. Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 
 6, p. 618. 
 
 Delay. 
 
 Comer ii. Stewart (Ga.), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 263. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Hughes (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 507. 
 San Antonio & Arkansas 
 
 Pass. R. Co. V. Pratt 
 
 (Tex.), vol. 2, p. 505. 
 Injury from shipping cattle 
 through floods and wash- 
 outs. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. 
 
 Co. V. Bland (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), vol, 3, p. 423. 
 Injury to cattle by delay in 
 transportation. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 
 
 Co. V. Consolidated Cattle 
 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 368. 
 
226 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARBIEBS OF LIVE STOCK 
 
 — Continued. 
 
 Iviability for injury to horses 
 from changing cars and 
 from delay. 
 
 Felton V. McCreary-Mc- 
 Clellan Live Stock Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 9. 
 Liability of connecting car- 
 riers for delay. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Edwards (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 8, p. 402. 
 Province of jury as to reason- 
 ableness of delay. 
 Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. 
 Hall (C. C. A.), vol.2, p. 
 525. 
 Eight of company to instruc- 
 tion excusing delay because 
 of compliance with statut*; 
 requiring stoppage for food, 
 ■water and rest. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Hall (C. C. A.), vol. 2, p. 
 S2S. 
 Right of company to offset 
 gain in value of part of 
 shipment. 
 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hughes (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 p. 507. 
 Delivery to Carrier. 
 Placing cattle in receiving 
 pens as delivery. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Byrne (Ind. Ter.), 
 vol. 13, p. 17. 
 Demurrer. 
 
 Baxter v. Louisville, N. A. & 
 C. Ey. Co. (111.), vol. 6, p. 
 618. 
 Deterioration of stock in course 
 of transportation through 
 negligence of carrier. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Stanley (TetTn.), vol. 2, 
 p. 480. 
 Duties. 
 
 Heller v. Chicago & G. T. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 3, p. 599. 
 Duty of company to provide 
 stock pens. 
 
 Missouri, Kan., etc., R. Co. 
 V. Woods (Tex.), vol. 2, p. 
 519. 
 San Antonio & Arkansas P. 
 R. Co. V. Pratt (Tex.) vol. 
 2, p. S05. 
 Duty of shipper to care for stock 
 in transit. 
 
 Hengstler v. Flint & P. M. 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 
 707. 
 
 CARRIERS OP LIVE STOCK 
 — Continued. 
 
 Duty to furnish cars. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Williams (Neb.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 175. 
 Leonard v. Whitcomb (Wis.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 520. 
 Effect of written contract 
 signed by shipper in igno- 
 rance of its contents after 
 car is about to start. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Cooper (Ky. ), vol. 17, p. 
 
 304. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 conversation between ship- 
 per and agent of company 
 after contract of carriage. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hall 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 2, p. 525. 
 Burden of proving carrier's 
 negligence where stock is 
 injured in shipment. 
 Mitchell V. Carolina Cent. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 13, 
 p. 201. 
 Competency of witness to 
 prove value of live stoc^ 
 Missouri, Kansas, ,Stc., R. 
 Co. V. Woods (,!i<EKT, vol. 
 2,- p. 519. ,,,w?^-'' 
 Declarations of engineer 
 show;iiig malice, admissi- 
 ble in action for injuries to 
 cattle in transit. 
 Crawford v. Southern Ey. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 
 17. 
 Delay in transportation. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hughes (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 p. 507. 
 Of value of trotting horse. 
 Pittsburgh, C. C, <& St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Sheppard 
 (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 528. 
 Opinion evidence as to condi- 
 tion of cattle when loaded. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Arnett 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 794. 
 Parol evidence as to contract 
 of shipment. 
 
 Burgher v. Chicago, R. I. 
 
 & P. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 11, p. 130. 
 
 Exception to statute providing 
 
 for loading and unloading 
 
 stock. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 American Exch. Bank 
 (Va. ), vol. 3, p. 425. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 227 
 
 CABRIBRS OF LIVE STOCK OABRIERS OF LIVE STOCK 
 — Continued. — Continued, 
 
 Failure to supply gang-plank 
 for unloading. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 American Exch. Bank 
 (Va.), vol. 3, p. 425. 
 Failure to take cattle away at 
 promised time. 
 Kansas & A. V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Ayres (Ark.), vol. 6, p. 628. 
 Free transportation of shipper, 
 Kansas statute. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Campbell (Kan.), vol. 
 13, p. 69. 
 *' Horse" does not include 
 "jack." 
 
 Richardson v. Chicago & A. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, p. 
 170. 
 Injury to stock in transit where 
 shipper has made special con- 
 tract to care for them. 
 Burns v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, 
 p. 290. 
 Injury to stockmen. 
 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bell (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 413. 
 -instructions as to presumption 
 of negligence. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Reeves (Va. ), vol. 16, p. 
 166. 
 Instruction for plaintiff not 
 warranted by evidence, in 
 action for loss of cattle es- 
 caping from stock pen after 
 carrier had refused to receive 
 them until they had been 
 loaded. 
 
 Kansas City, P. & G. R. Co. 
 V. Barnett (Ark.), vol. 22, 
 p. 81. 
 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 
 Action for penalty for confin- 
 ing live stock for period 
 prohibited by interstate 
 commerce regulations. 
 United States v. St. Louis 
 & S. F. R. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 22, p. 812. 
 Diseased cattle. 
 .Davis V. Texas & P. R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App. ), vol. 3, 
 p. 426. 
 State statute forbiddin'g over- 
 loading may be applicable 
 to interstate shipments. 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 19, 
 p. 17. 
 
 Judicial notice, law of foreign 
 state. 
 
 Meuer v. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 493. 
 Kansas statute as to transpor- 
 tation of diseased cattle. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Haber (U. S.), vol. 13, p. 37. 
 L/iability for injury in loading 
 from defective chute where 
 loaded bj' shipper. 
 Candee v. New York, N. H. & 
 H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 21, 
 p. 434. 
 Liability for loss from want of 
 proper care where carrier had 
 knowledge of shipper's fail- 
 ure to furnish caretaker. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Williams (Neb.), vol. 21, p. 
 175. 
 Liability for loss in transit 
 from want of proper care. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. 
 Williams (Neb. ), vol. 21, p. 
 175. 
 Liability of carrier for escape 
 of stock from pen which 
 shipper knew was defective. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Law (Ark.), vol. 18, p. 
 286. 
 Liability of carrier for injury 
 to cattle through failure to 
 furnish cars. 
 
 Davis V. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 
 (Tex.), vol. 10, p. 301. 
 Liability of carrier where con- 
 tract provides that shipper 
 shall unload stock at his risk. 
 Cooper V. Raleigh & G. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 412. 
 Liability of common carrier. 
 Heller v. Chicago & G. T. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 3, p. 599. 
 Liability of company for neg- 
 ligence resulting in injury to 
 shipper. 
 
 Meuer v. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 493. 
 Liability of receivers for fail- 
 ure to comply with law regu- 
 lating transfer of live stock. 
 United States v. Harris (U. 
 S.), vol. 6, p. 773. 
 Liability of receivers under 
 statute imposing penalty for 
 cruelty to animals in transit. 
 United States v. Harris (U. 
 S.), vol. 17, p. 582. 
 
228 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OP LIVE STOOK 
 — Continued. 
 Iviability where shipper's agent 
 failed to attend cattle. 
 Burgher v. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 p. 130. 
 Liability with respect to cattle 
 pens. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Byrne (C. C. A.), vol. 18, 
 p. 573. 
 Ivimitatiou of action for in- 
 jury to. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Brown 
 (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 827. 
 
 Limiting Liability. 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. Ry. 
 
 Co. 's Receiver v. Graves 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 177. 
 Cooper V. Raleigh & G. R. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p.,412. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Reeves (Va.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 166. 
 Burden of proof where liabil- 
 ity limited. 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 17. 
 Burden of proving negli- 
 gence. 
 Mitchell V. Carolina Cent. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 201. 
 By stipulation that shipper 
 shall load at his own risk. 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 17. 
 Construction of contract of 
 carriage providing that car- 
 rier should not be liable for 
 acts of animals to them- 
 selves or to each other. 
 I/oeser v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 421. 
 Contract limiting liability for 
 loading and unloading. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 American Exch. Bank 
 
 (Va.), vol. 3, p. 424. 
 Contract limiting liability for 
 negligence. 
 Maxwell v. Southern Pac. 
 
 R. Co. (L,a.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 425. 
 
 Contract limiting liability 
 
 must be pleaded. 
 
 Kansas City, P. & G. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Pace (Ark.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 433. 
 
 Contract limiting liability of 
 
 CARRIERS OP LIVE STOCK 
 — Continued. 
 
 common carrier. 
 Grieve v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 669. 
 Contract that injury to stock 
 in transit shall be presumed 
 to have been caused by 
 shipper's negligence is 
 valid where there was a 
 consideration. 
 Paddock v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 17, p. 
 310. 
 Exemption of liability in con- 
 sideration of free carriage. 
 Lduisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bell (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 413. 
 Limitation of carrier's liabil- 
 ity to agreed valuation. 
 Loeser v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), voL 
 8, p. 421. 
 Limitation requiring notice 
 of claim construed. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Law (Ark.), vol. 
 18, p. 286. 
 Reasonableness of stipulation 
 requiring action to be 
 brought within forty, days. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc.j R. Co. 
 V. Stanley (Tenn.), vol. 
 2, p. 480. 
 Right of company to relieve 
 itself from consequence of 
 its own negligence. 
 Htjuston & Texas Central 
 R. Co. V. Davis (Tex.), 
 vol. 2, p. 487. 
 Right to limit its liability as 
 to cars furnished. 
 Leonard v. Whitcomb 
 (Wis.), vol. 7, p. 520. 
 Stipulation as to measure of 
 damages for injury to live 
 stock. 
 
 Williams v. Houston & 
 Texas Central R. Co. 
 (Tex.), vol. 2, p. 533. 
 Stipulation limiting the time 
 of bringing action. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Reeves (Tex.), vol. 8, p. 
 429. 
 To own line. 
 Keller v. Baltimore & O. R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 19, p. 197. 
 Validity of contract exempt- 
 ing company from liability 
 for injuries to shipper ac- 
 companving live stock. ' 
 Meuer v. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. 
 Dak.), vol. 2, p. 493. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 229 
 
 •CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK 
 —Continued. 
 
 Validity of contract limiting 
 liability by fixing value of 
 animal. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Radford (Ky.), vol. 23, 
 p. 124. 
 Validity of exemption from 
 liability for injuries. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L,. 
 Ry. Co. V. Sheppard 
 (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 528. 
 Validity of stipulation. 
 
 Brown v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 773. 
 Validity of stipulation fixing 
 value of stock at place of 
 shipment as basis of dam- 
 ages. 
 
 Houston & Texas Central 
 R. Co. V. Davis (Tex.), 
 vol. 2, p. 487. 
 Validity where same rate has 
 been granted other shippers 
 without limitation of lia- 
 bility. 
 
 Stewart v. Cleveland, C, C. 
 
 & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 28. 
 
 Maintenance of low snowshed 
 
 and failure to give warning 
 
 as negligence causing death 
 
 of stockman. 
 
 Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 14, p. 374. 
 negligence a question for jury 
 in action for injury to live 
 stock. 
 
 Loeser v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 8, 
 p. 421. 
 .Negligence in transferring 
 • stock a question for the jury. 
 Ivoeser v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 8, 
 p. 421. 
 negligence with respect to cat- 
 tle pen gates. 
 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Big- 
 ham (Tex.), vol; 6, p. 791. 
 Motice. 
 Duty of company to allege 
 facts to show reasonableness 
 of stipulation requiring no- 
 • tice of injuries. 
 
 Houston V. Texas Central R. 
 Co. V. Davis (Tex.), vol. 
 2, p. 512. 
 Notice of claim for injury to 
 live stock. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Reeves (Va. ), vol. 16, p. 
 166. 
 
 CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK 
 — Continued. 
 
 Notice of injuries, validity of 
 stipulation. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Kirkham (Kan.), vol. 
 21, p. 845. 
 Provision that shipper shall 
 give notice of injury to 
 stock by some officer, or 
 agent of th'e company before 
 animals are removed. 
 Baxter v. Louisville, N. A. 
 & C. Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 6, 
 p. 618. 
 Kansas & A. V. Ry. Co. 
 V. Ayers (Ark.), vol. 6, 
 p. 628. 
 Reasonableness of require- 
 ment of notice of injuries. 
 Houston &. Texas Central 
 R. Co. V. Davis (Tex.), 
 vol. 2, p. 487. 
 Reasonableness of stipulation 
 requiring notice of injury 
 to stock before removal from 
 station. 
 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Stanley (Tenn.), vol. 
 2, p. 480. 
 Requirement of notice of 
 full amount of loss before 
 removal of stock from sta- 
 tion. 
 
 Houston & Texas Central 
 R. Co. V. Davis (Tex.), 
 vol. 2, p. 487. 
 Validity of requirement that 
 notice of loss be given be- 
 fore removal of stocji from 
 station. 
 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Stanley (Tenn.), vol. 2, 
 p. 480. 
 Houston & Texas Central 
 R. Co. V. Davis (Tex.), 
 vol. 2, p. 487. 
 Pleading and proof in action 
 for loss of goods. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Williams (Neb.), vol. 21, 
 p. 175. 
 Presumption of negligence, in- 
 structions. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Reeves (Va. ), vol. 16, p. 
 
 166. 
 
 Presumption of negligence 
 
 where stock is injured in 
 
 transit. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Howard (Ga. ), vol. 21, 
 
 p. IS. 
 
 Cooper V. Raleigh & G. R. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 412. 
 
230 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK CARRIERS OP LIVE STOOKl 
 —Continued, — Continued, 
 
 Province of jury. 
 
 Williams v. Houston & Tex. 
 
 Central R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 533. 
 Question vyhether injury to 
 stock was caused by mixed 
 shipment or by failure to 
 provide trapdoor for car is 
 for jury. • 
 
 Paddock v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 310. 
 Release of liability for delay in 
 shipping stock. 
 San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. 
 
 V, Barnett (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. ), vol. 3, p. 423. 
 Release of liability of connect- 
 ing- line by person traveling 
 with live stock, validity. 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ashley (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 212. 
 Right of principal to sue upon 
 contract for carriage of live 
 stock. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Stanley (Tenn.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 480. 
 Shipper whose stock has es- 
 caped from cattle pen and 
 Jaeen killed on track may 
 bring one action for negli- 
 gence of carrier in furnishing 
 defective pens and for negli- 
 gence in killing stock. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Byrne (C. C. A.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. S73. 
 
 'Shipping condition" of stock. 
 Felton. V. Clarkson (Tenn.), 
 vol. 17, p. 300. 
 
 State and federal statutes re- 
 specting diseased cattle. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v, 
 
 Haber (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 471. 
 
 Statutory liability of carrier for 
 overloading where loaded by 
 shipper. 
 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 17. 
 Stockmen as passengers, 
 lyouisville & N. R. Co. v. Bell 
 (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 414. 
 
 Storm as excuse for not feed- 
 ing. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 
 V. American Exch. Bank 
 (Va.), vol. 3, p. 424. 
 Sufficiency of evidence in ac- 
 
 tion for loss in transit from 
 want of proper care. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Williams (Neb.),, vol. 21, 
 p. 175. 
 Trover and conversion, liability 
 for conversion by connecting 
 carrier. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Odom (Ark.), vol. 6, p. 773. 
 United States statute providing 
 for feeding and unloading 
 horses and mules. 
 Chesapeake & O* R. Co. v, 
 American Exch. Bank: 
 (Va.), vol. 3, p. 424. 
 Validity of contract between 
 company and shipper travel- 
 ing with stock. 
 Ft. Scott, W. & W. R. Co. V. 
 Sparks (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 
 110. 
 Validity of contract providing 
 for lower rate in considera- 
 tion that shipper shall load. 
 Candee v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 
 21, p. 434. 
 Validitj' of written contract of 
 shipment signed in haste 
 without reading. 
 Hengstler v. Flint & P. M. 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 
 707. 
 Waiver of stipulation requiring 
 persons accompanying stock 
 to ride in caboose. 
 Heumphreus v. Fremont, 
 Elkhorn, etc., R. Co. (S. 
 Dak.), vol. 2, p. 546. 
 Where the contract of shipment 
 of stock beyond a carrier's 
 line provides that there shall 
 be no extraterminal liability 
 for damage to the stock such 
 liability will not be held to 
 exist against the carrier. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Tarter (Ky.),vol. 7, p. 607. 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSEN- 
 GERS. 
 
 See Actions. 
 Baggage, 
 Blackboards. 
 Blind. 
 Children. 
 Conflict of Laws. 
 Connecting Carriers, 
 Consolidation . 
 Contributory Negligence, 
 Damages. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 231 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Elevated Railroads. 
 Evidence. 
 
 Exemplary Damages. 
 Illegal Arrest. 
 Imputable Negligence. 
 Injunctions. 
 Instructions. 
 Interstate Com,fnerce. 
 Leases and Running Pow- 
 ers. 
 Licensees. 
 Mortality Tables. 
 Pleading. 
 
 Railroad Comtnissioners. 
 Rates. 
 
 Separate Coaches. 
 Sleeping Car Companies. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 Street Railways. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Trial. 
 
 Usages and Customs. 
 Warehousemen. 
 Accomruodation trains and 
 through trains, definitions. 
 Gray v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. R. Co. (111.), vol. 21, p. 
 2S2. 
 Action for injuries, whether ex 
 delicto or ex contractu. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hine (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 382. 
 Action of tort or contract for 
 injury to passenger. 
 Atlantic & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Laird (U. S.), vol. 8, p. 
 36S. 
 Act of conductor in directing 
 person assisting passenger to 
 alight from moving train as 
 negligence. 
 
 Johnson v. Southern Ry. Go. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 12, p. 272. 
 Act of God. 
 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Mar- 
 shall (Va.), vol. 2, pp. 220, 
 221. 
 Appliances. 
 Defects. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 2, p. 222. 
 Keating v. Detroit, B. C. & 
 A. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, 
 p. 222. 
 Liability for defects in cars 
 only discoverable while they 
 were being constructed. 
 Siemsen v. Oakland, etc.. 
 Electric Ry. (Cal.), vol. 
 23, p. 564. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENaSRS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Must use all readily attain- 
 able appliances known to 
 science. 
 
 Whitney v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 ,19, p. 184. 
 Negligence of company, 
 where passenger was in- 
 jured by defective rail, is 
 for jury. 
 
 M'Cafferty v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 122. 
 
 Where imperfect wheel caused 
 
 an accident which results 
 
 in injury to a passenger the 
 
 question of the carrier's 
 
 negligence was for the jury. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Howard (U. S.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 660. 
 
 Arrest. 
 
 Arrest for failure to pay fare. 
 Strieker v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 758. 
 Authority of state ofiBcer to 
 enter car and make arrest. 
 Claiborne v. Chesapeake & 
 O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 14, p. 217. 
 Evidence of justification was 
 proper to be considered in 
 determining whether police 
 officer acted on his own re- 
 sponsibility, in action for 
 arrest of passenger. 
 Dixon V. New England R. 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 10. 
 Good faith of police officer, 
 not an element to be consid- 
 ered in action for illegal ar- 
 rest of passenger. 
 X»ixon V. New England R. 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 10. 
 Illegal arrest of passenger for 
 riding beyond destination 
 did not entitle him to puni- 
 tive damages. 
 
 Cone V. Central R. Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. .12, p. 278. 
 Liability of conductor and 
 company where conductor 
 causes arrest of passenger. 
 Oaiborne v. Chesapeake & 
 O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 14, p. 217. 
 Of passengers, liability; 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Kuhn (Miss.), vol. 19, p. 
 466. 
 
232 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. — Continued. 
 
 Stop-over checks, rules of 
 company requiring con- 
 ductor to issue them ad- 
 missible in action for illegal 
 arrest of passenger who 
 failed to obtain one. 
 Dixon V. New England R. 
 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 10. 
 Assaults. 
 
 Georgia, R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Richmond (Ga. ), vol. S, 
 
 p. 694. 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ampey (Va.), vol. S, p. 
 
 707. 
 Higgins V. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. S, p. 694. 
 A conductor cannot lawfully 
 use more force in repelling 
 an assault upon him by a 
 passenger than is necessary 
 for his defense. 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Berger (Ark.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 235. 
 Assault by employees. 
 
 Krantz v. Rio Grande West- 
 ern R. Co. (Utah), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 432. 
 McFarlan v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 22, p. 16. 
 Assault by employee not in 
 line of duty. 
 Haver v. Central R. Co. 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 12, p. 261. 
 Assault on passenger by con- 
 ductor. 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Berger (Ark.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 235. 
 Disorderly and dangerous 
 passengers. 
 Louisville & Nashville R. 
 
 Co. V. McEwan (Ky. ), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 438. 
 Duty to protect passenger 
 from indignities and per- 
 sonal violence. 
 Birmingham Ry. & Elec- 
 tric Co. V. Baird (Ala.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 909. 
 Duty to, protect passenger 
 from other passengers. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 McEwan (Ky. ), vol. 2, p. 
 
 438; vol. 17, p. 208. 
 Failure of station agent to 
 protect person in station 
 from assault and robbery. 
 Krantz v. Rio Grande West- 
 ern R. Co. (Utah), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 432. 
 
 Injury to passenger by insane 
 person. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Greenthal (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 6, p. 261. 
 Liability for assault by con- 
 ductor on passenger. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. 
 Co. V. Brown (Ga.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 561. 
 
 * Smith V. Norfolk & W. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 17, p. 
 108. 
 Liability for assault on pas- 
 senger by conductor retali- 
 ating for abusive words. 
 Birmingham Ry. & Electric 
 Co. V. Baird (Ala.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 909. 
 
 Liability for injury to pas- 
 senger from malicious or 
 willful act of employee. 
 Birmingham Ry. & JSlectric 
 Co. V. Baird (Ala.), vol. 
 22, p. 909. 
 Liability for injury to pas- 
 senger tripped up by 
 drunken fellow passenger. 
 Cobb V. Boston Elevated Ry. 
 (Mass.), vol. 21, p. 424. 
 Liability for rudeness of con- 
 ductor. 
 
 Daniels v. Florida Cent. & 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 , 23, p. 107. 
 
 Liability of company for as- 
 sault by another passenger. 
 Louisville & Nashville R. 
 Co. V. McEwan (Ky.), 
 vol. 2, p. 438. 
 Liability of company for as- 
 sault on passenger by em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Henry (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 
 418. 
 Lampkin v. L. & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 2, p. 425. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of use 
 of unnecessary force by 
 conductor in preventing 
 passenger from entering 
 car while in-coming pas- 
 sengers were alighting. 
 McParlan v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 22, 
 p. 16. 
 Assisting Passengers. 
 Duty to give person assisting 
 passenger notice of starting 
 of train. 
 
 Berry v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 401. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 233 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 —Continued. 
 
 Ejection of person assisting' 
 female passenger to board 
 train. 
 
 Macon, D. & S. R. Co. v. 
 Moore (Ga. ), vol. 15, p. 
 842. 
 X/iability for death of 'person 
 at station to meet passen- 
 ger. 
 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Spencer (Colo.), vol. 18, 
 p. 236. 
 One assisting departing pas- 
 senger is a licensee. 
 Whitley v. Southern Ry. 
 Co^ (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 
 210. 
 One assisting departing pas- 
 senger who is tolri by em- 
 ployee to alight while train 
 is starting from station 
 may recover for injuries 
 sustaine<? while so doing. 
 International & G. N. R. 
 Co. V. Satterwhite (Tex. 
 Civ. App. ), vol. 12, p. 215. 
 Backing train at depot and in- 
 juring passenger is negli- 
 gence. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Tomlinson (Ark.), vol. 22, 
 p. 682. 
 Care required in "kicking" 
 cars. 
 
 Bradley v. Ohio River Ry. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 18, p. 
 340. 
 Carriers estopped to deny au- 
 thority of clerk assuming to 
 be general passenger agent. 
 Southern Rv. Co. v. Marshall 
 (Ky. ), vol. 23, p. 82. 
 Carrier liable for negligence of 
 servant though he was per- 
 forming an ultra vires agree- 
 ment of the carrier. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Howard (U. S.), vol. 17, p. 
 660. 
 
 Carrying beyond Destination. 
 Dave V. Morgan's Louisiana 
 
 & Texas, etc., Co. (La. 
 
 Ann.), vol. 2, p. 127. 
 Kentucky Central R. Co. v. 
 
 Biddle (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 656. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Cayce (Ky. ), vol. 3, p. 
 
 656. 
 Carrier liable for death of in- 
 toxicated passenger carried 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 beyond station and then ex- 
 pelled from depot. 
 Haug V. Great Northern Co. 
 
 (N. Dak.), vol. 12, p. 25. 
 Carrier not liable for injuries 
 occurring at hotel. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Price (Ga. ), vol. 12, p. 
 
 283. 
 Carrying passenger beyond 
 station, instructions as to 
 damages! 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bryant 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 159. 
 Children. 
 Gage V. Illinois, Cent. R. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 8, p. 372. 
 Georgia, C. <S N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Watkins (Ga.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 429. 
 Duty of passenger for flag 
 station whose ticket has not 
 been taken up to notify 
 conductor. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Dorsey (Ga. ), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 212. 
 Duty to passenger on train 
 moving past his destina- 
 tion. 
 McDonald v. Boston & 
 
 Maine R. Co. (Me.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 293. 
 Failure to awaken passenger. 
 Fisher z*. Paxson (Pa.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 516. 
 Houston & Texas Central 
 
 R. Co. V. Smith (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), vol. 2, p. 177. 
 McKeon v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 219. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Alex- 
 ander (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 vol, 2, p. 184. 
 Failure to instruct as to duty 
 of passenger for flag sta- 
 tion whose ticket has not 
 been taken up to notify con- 
 ductor. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Dorsey (Ga. ), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 212. 
 Failure to stop at station. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Miles (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 774. 
 Liability for carrying pas- 
 senger beyond station where 
 failure to notify conductor 
 as to destination. 
 Pence v. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 807. 
 
234 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Ijiability for injuries result- 
 ing from. 
 
 Houston & Texas Central 
 Railroad Co. v. Smith 
 (Tex. Civ. App. ), vol. 2, 
 p. 177. 
 Iviability of carrier for failure 
 of sleeping- car employee 
 to awake passenger in time 
 to get off at his station. 
 Airey v. Pullman Palace 
 Car Co. (La.), vol. 11, 
 p. 836. 
 Right to recover for failure 
 to stop train at station 
 where passenger relied on 
 statement of ticket agent. 
 Atkinson v. Southern Ey. - 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 651. 
 Chartered Train. 
 
 lyiability for injury to pas- 
 senger on chartered train. 
 Texarkana & 'Ft. S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Anderson (Ark.), 
 vol. 18, p. 37. 
 Checks. 
 Failure to inform conductor 
 of change in rules and reg- 
 ulations. 
 
 Sheets v. Ohio River R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 2, p. 129. 
 Collision. 
 Clark V. Chicago & Alton R. 
 Co. (Mc), vol. 2, p. 307. 
 Conductors. 
 Authority of conductor to 
 grant stop-over privileges. 
 International & G. N. R. 
 Co. V. Best (Tex.), vol. 
 17, p. 1S3. 
 Burden of proof on carrier to 
 show that persons taking 
 up tickets was not the con- 
 ductor. 
 
 Coursey v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 412. 
 Duty of conductor where pas- 
 senger refuses to leave place 
 of danger. 
 
 Aufdenberg v. St. Louis, I. 
 
 M. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 323. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence of use 
 
 of unnecessary violence by 
 
 conductor in preventing 
 
 passenger from entering car 
 
 while other passengers were 
 
 alighting. 
 
 McFarlan v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 22, 
 p. 16. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence that 
 conductor was acting within 
 course of his employment 
 in preventing passenger 
 from boarding train. 
 McFarlan v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 22, 
 p. 16. 
 Sufficiency of evidence that 
 conductor was acting within 
 course of his employment 
 in preventing passenger 
 from boarding train from 
 which other passengers 
 were alighting. 
 McFarlan v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 22, 
 p. 16. 
 Conflict of Laws. 
 Need not plead wrong was 
 actionable under foreign 
 law. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Kuhn (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 p. 324. 
 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 
 Advertisement as to carriage 
 of passengers on continuous 
 route without change. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 389. 
 Inference of agreement by 
 initial carrier to extend its 
 liability. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 389. 
 Joint liability of companies 
 using track and operating 
 trains in common for inju- 
 ries sustained by collision. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 389. 
 Liability of carrier selling 
 ticket as agent for wrong- 
 ful enforcement of quaran- 
 tine regulations by con- 
 necting carrier. 
 St. Clair v. Kansas City, 
 
 M. & B. R. Co. (Miss.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 426. 
 Liability of carrier selling 
 ticket for injuries to pas- 
 senger while beine: carried 
 by another company. 
 Barkman v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. N. J.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 250. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 235 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 I/iability of company for in- 
 juries received on connect- 
 ing line. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Jones (U. S. ), vol. 2, p. 
 389. 
 Lfiability of initial carrier on 
 its own line. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Jones (U. S. ), vol. 2, p. 
 389. 
 Liability of intersecting rail- 
 road as joint tort feasor 
 because of proximity of de- 
 fective platform of other 
 company used by its own 
 passengers. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Battle (Ark.), vol. 22, p. 
 700. 
 Negligence of initial carrier 
 was question for jury. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Farmers' & Drovers' 
 Livestock Commission 
 Firm (Ky. ), vol. 17, p. 
 284. 
 Ownership of stock and bonds 
 of company forming part of 
 continuous route. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Jones (U. S. ), vol. 2, p. 
 389. 
 Right of passengers on ex- 
 cursion train to go by in- 
 tersecting railroad. 
 Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. 
 V. Kirby (Md.), vol. 18, 
 p. 248. 
 Consolidation, effect on con- • 
 tracts of carriage. 
 Tompkins v. Augusta South- 
 ern R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 587. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 Constitutionality of 'i 3, art. 
 1, ch. 72, Comp. St., mak- 
 ing railroad companies lia- 
 ble for injuries to passen- 
 gers in the absence of 
 negligence. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Wolfe (Neb.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 26. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Young (Neb.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 343. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 requiring separate coaches. 
 Smith V. State (Tenn.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 144. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 requiring the heating of 
 passenger cars. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 Co. V. People of the State 
 of New York (U. S.), vol. 
 8, p. 172. 
 Contract between carrier and 
 new company whereby lat- 
 ter agrees to indemnifs' 
 former for any injury to 
 news boys on its trains is 
 not against public policy. 
 Kansas City, M. & B. R. 
 Co. V. Southern Ry. News 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 528. 
 Construction of Nebraska stat- 
 ute creating liability in ab- 
 sence of negligence. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Zernecke (Neb.), vol. 17, 
 p. 76. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Fisher v. West Virginia & 
 
 P. R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 
 4, p. 86. 
 Piper V. New York Cent. & 
 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 202. 
 Saunders v. Southern Pac. 
 
 R. Co. (Utah), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 13. 
 Absence of evidence of. 
 
 Reimer v. N. Y., N. H. & 
 
 H. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 378. 
 Advice of conductor as to 
 method of leaving train. 
 McDonald v. Boston & 
 
 Maine R. Co. (Me.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 293. 
 
 Alighting from Moving Train 
 or Car. 
 
 Agulino 7'. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 314. 
 Atchison, Topeka & S. 
 
 F. R. Co. V. O'Melia 
 
 (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 257. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Meyers (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 262. 
 Blevins v. Atchison, To- 
 peka, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Okla.), vol. 2, p. 329. 
 Brasher v. Houston Cent. 
 
 A. & N. R. Co. (La. 
 
 Ann.), vol. 2, p. 262. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Byrum (111.), vol. 2, pp. 
 
 261, 262. 
 
236 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. — Continued. 
 
 Chicago. B. & Q. R. Co. 
 
 V. Hyatt (Neb.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 44. 
 Floytrup v. Boston & 
 
 Maine R. Co. (Mass.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 274. 
 Hoehn v. Chicago, P. & 
 
 St. Iv. R. Co. (111.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 261. 
 Jacob V. Flint & P. M. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, 
 . p. 257. 
 La Pointe v. Boston & M. 
 
 R. R. (Mass.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 105. 
 Ivehman v. Railroad Co. 
 ' (La. Ann.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 259. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Depp (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 440. 
 McDonald v. Kansas City 
 
 & L R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 2, pp. 258, 262. 
 New Jersey Traction Co. 
 „ V. Gardner (N. J.), vol. 
 '■ 2, p. 259. 
 
 Outen V. North & South 
 „ St. R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 258. 
 Rothstein v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 2, pp. 258, 262. 
 Schiffler v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 122. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Beckworth (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. ), vol. 2, pp. 258, 
 
 261. 
 Victor V. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 
 
 2, pp. 257, 259. 
 
 Alighting at some distance 
 from station at invitation 
 of conductor. 
 Hinshaw v. Raleigh & A. 
 
 A. L. R. Co. (N. Car.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 558. 
 Alighting from moving car 
 after mere announcement 
 of arrival at station. 
 Payne v. Nashville, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 677. 
 
 Alighting from moving 
 
 car, question for jury. 
 
 Coursey v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 412. 
 
 Alighting from moving 
 
 street car. 
 
 New Jersey Traction Co. 
 
 V. Gardner (N. J.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 843. 
 Alighting from moving 
 train by direction of em- 
 ployee. 
 
 McPeak v. Missouri Pa- 
 cific R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 226. 
 Alighting from moving 
 train by invitation of 
 employee. 
 Atchison, Topeka & 
 
 Santa Fe R. Co. v. 
 
 Hughes (Kan.), vol.2, 
 
 p. 248. 
 Lewis V. President, etc.. 
 
 Canal Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 192. 
 Alighting from moving 
 train contrary to warning 
 of employees is contribu- 
 tory negligence. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Goodwin (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 219. 
 Alighting from moving 
 train to avoid a ditch. 
 Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. 
 
 V. McLane (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), vol. 2, p. 263. 
 Alighting.on carrier's invi- 
 tation not contributory 
 negligence per se. 
 Cooper V. Georgia, C. , & 
 
 N. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 12. _ 
 By invitation of train 
 hands. 
 Atchison, Topeka & S. F. 
 
 R. Co. V. O'Melia 
 
 (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 257. 
 Durham v. Louisville & 
 
 N. R. Go. (Ky.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 260. 
 Hodges V. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 46. 
 Jacob V. Flint & P. M. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, 
 
 pp. 257, 260. 
 Lehman v. Railroad Co. 
 
 (La. Ann.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 259. 
 McDonald v. Kansas City 
 
 & I. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 258. 
 New Jersey Traction Co. 
 
 V. Gardner (N. J.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 259. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 237 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. — Continued. 
 
 Outen V. North & South 
 
 St. R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 258. 
 Rothstein v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 258. 
 Savannah, F. & W. R. 
 
 Co. V. Wall (Ga.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 260. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Beckworth (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. ), vol. 2, p. 261. 
 Victor V. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 2, 
 
 pp. 257, 259. 
 Question for jury. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. Co. v. 
 
 Storment (111.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 116. 
 When alighting- from mov- 
 ing train is. 
 Sanders, v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 281. 
 Alighting from Train. 
 
 Alighting from train to 
 avoid danger is not. 
 Brockett ■v. Fair Haven & 
 
 W. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 407. 
 Alighting from wrong side 
 of train. 
 
 Flanagan v. Philadel- 
 phia, W. & B. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 119. 
 A passenger alighting from 
 a train is not guilty of 
 negligence in assuming 
 that his car is at the plat- 
 form, when, owing to 
 the snow covering the 
 surface of the earth, there 
 is nothing to show him 
 that the train has not 
 stopped at the platform. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Friel (Ky.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 126. 
 A passenger on a train in- 
 stead of leaving it by a 
 safe exit which was pro- 
 vided, alighted on the 
 other side on a platform, 
 which was so narrow that 
 he was injured by a sec- 
 ond train, which came up 
 on the opposite side of the 
 platform. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Davidson (U. S. ), vol. 
 
 7, p. 715. 
 
 Question for jury. 
 
 L/ewis V. President, etc.. 
 
 Canal Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 192. 
 
 Whether train was stopped 
 
 at station question for 
 
 jury- 
 Cooper V. Georgia, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 ■ 22, p. 667. 
 Arm protruding from car 
 window. 
 
 Clark V. Ivouisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky. ), vol. 8, p. 355. 
 Assumption of risk by pas- 
 sengers for sleeping in ex- 
 posed situation after breach 
 of contract to carry. 
 Mewethy v. Detroit, G. R. 
 & W. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 22, p. 691. 
 Boarding IVIoving Car. 
 
 Finkeldey v. Omnibus 
 Cable Co. (Cal.), vol. 5, 
 p. 393. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 O'Keefe (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 611. 
 lyouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bernard (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 
 55. 
 Schaefer v. St. Louis & 
 S. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, 
 p. 224. 
 After the train had com- 
 menced moving from the 
 station and the door for 
 admitting passengers from 
 such station had been 
 locked the deceased, the 
 holder of a free pass over 
 the road, boarded the mov- 
 ing train, and being un- 
 able to effect an entrance 
 because of the locked 
 door, remained upon the 
 platform of the car until 
 knocked off by the shock 
 of a collision, which took 
 place before the conductor 
 had time to admit him into 
 the car : held, that he was 
 not an accepted passenger. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 O'Keefe (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 611. 
 At invitation of conductor. 
 Distler v. I(Ong Island R. 
 Co. (N.Y.),vol. 6, p. 235. 
 Young V. Chicago, etc.,R. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 6, p. 
 231. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. -^Continued. 
 
 Mixed question of law and 
 
 fact. 
 
 Schaefer v. St. Ivouis & S. 
 E. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 224. 
 Burden of proof. 
 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 628. 
 Carelessly stepping down from 
 car not having sufficient 
 steps is. 
 Coburn v. Philadelphia, W. 
 
 & B. R. Co. (Pa. ) , vol. 20, 
 
 p. 34. 
 Care required of passenger 
 crossing intervening tracks 
 to platform. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 King (C. C. A.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 167. 
 Care to be exercised by pas- 
 senger crossing tracks in 
 leaving train at station. 
 Graven v. MacL,eod (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 305. 
 Care to be exercised by passen- 
 ger on mixed train. 
 Macon, D. & S. R. Co. v: 
 
 Moore (Ga.), vol. IS, p. 842. 
 
 Concurring proximate cause. 
 
 Cooper z/. Georgia, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 667. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 passenger at station in going 
 by usual route to baggage 
 room whereby he was in- 
 jured, where there was 
 another route in using which 
 he would have received no 
 injury, was for the jury. ' 
 Exton V. Central R. Co. of 
 
 New Jersey (N. J.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 240. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 passenger crossing track at 
 station to board train without 
 looking and listening is for 
 jury. 
 Beecher v. Long Island R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 29S. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 passenger crossing track to 
 board train a question for 
 jury. 
 Beecher v. Long Island R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 17, p. 199. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 passenger going on plat- 
 form of car, at station, is for 
 jury. 
 McCurrie v. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 12, p. 170. 
 
 Contributory negligence of 
 passenger on freight train 
 in leaving seat, question 
 for jury. 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Burrows (Kan.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 678. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 passenger riding on step of 
 crowded car was for jury. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Kelsey (111.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 82. 
 Criminal negligence on part 
 of passenger to be shown. 
 Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co. 
 
 V. French (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 365. 
 Crippled woman passenger of 
 sixty-three years of age in- 
 jured after alighting from 
 train, while standing to 
 drink, while freight train 
 was switching. 
 Felton V. Horner (Tenn.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 79. 
 Custom of train to slow down 
 to permit passenger to 
 alight. 
 Brashear v. Houston Cent., 
 
 etc., R. Co. (La. Ann.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 293. 
 Duty of company to warn 
 passengers not to leave cars. 
 Floytrup v. Boston & Maine 
 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 273. 
 Duty of passenger alighting 
 on track at station to look 
 and listen for trains was for 
 jury. 
 Atlantic City R. Co. v. 
 
 Goodin (N. J.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 291. 
 Effect of passenger's intoxi- 
 cation in violation of statute 
 ou company's duty to protect 
 him. 
 Wheeler v. Grand Trunk 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. H.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 84. 
 
 Failure to allege that train 
 
 had stopped when passenger 
 
 was injured while alighting. 
 
 Townsend v. Nashville, C. 
 
 & St. L. Ry. (Tenn.), vol. 
 
 _ 21, p. 7. 
 
 Failure to leave premises by 
 safest way. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Rickets (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 282. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 239 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Fall from platform while 
 waiting- for train. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. David- 
 sou (C. C. A.), vol. 7, p. 
 715. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Turley (C. C. A.), vol. 10, 
 p. 380. 
 Freight trains. 
 
 Arkansas Midland Ry. Co. 
 V. Griffith (Ark.), vol. 9, 
 p. 846. 
 Going on platform before 
 train stops. 
 
 Hicks V. Georgia, S. & F. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 
 279. 
 Going to door of street railway 
 car while car is in motion. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 V. Thalheimer (N. J.), vol. 
 9, p. 858. 
 Injury to passengers alight- 
 ing, sufficiency of evidence. 
 Girton v. L,ehigh Valley R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 157. 
 Injury to passenger on steps 
 of car in anticipation of 
 stoppage. 
 
 Scheiber v. Chicago, St. 
 Paul, etc., R. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 2, p. 289. 
 Injury to passenger leaving 
 railroad premises. 
 Illinois Central R. Co. v. 
 Davidson (C. C. A.), vol. 2, 
 p. 265. 
 Instructions as to care by pas- 
 senger on street car. 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 McNulty (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 255. 
 Instructions as to weight of 
 evidence. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Hoover (Ind. Ter.), vol. 23, 
 p. 73. 
 Intoxication not contributory 
 negligence per se. 
 Trumbull v. Erickson (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 17, p. 93. 
 Jumping from Moving Car. 
 Floytrup v. Boston & 
 Maine R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 2, p. 273. 
 Jagger v. People's St. Ry. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 771. 
 Jumping from moving train 
 by invitation of employee. 
 Atchison, Topeka & Santa 
 Fe R. Co. V. Hughes 
 (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 248. 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Jumping from moving train, 
 by order of conductor, to 
 take up dangerous posi- 
 tion. 
 
 Aufdenberg v. St. Louis, 
 I. M. &S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 3, p. 323. 
 Jumping from moving train, 
 passenger on street cars. 
 Pray v. Omaha St. R. Co. 
 (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 299. 
 Jumping from moving train, 
 passenger upon vestibule 
 train returning through 
 vestibule which was not 
 lighted walking through a 
 door leading out of train 
 which had been left un- 
 fastened. 
 
 Bronson v. Oakes (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 9, p. 166. 
 Jumping from moving train, 
 to avoid ditch. 
 Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. 
 V. McLane (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), vol. 2, p. 263. 
 Leaning out of street car. 
 Cummin gs v. Worcester, 
 etc., R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 5, 
 p. 3S9. 
 Leaving moving train. 
 McDonald v. Boston & Maine 
 R. Co. (Me.), vol. 2, p. 293. 
 Leaving railway premises by 
 unsafe route. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 
 V. Cox (Ark.) , vol. 2, p. 280. 
 Leaving seat as contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Burr V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 16, p. 162. 
 Liability for injury to pas- 
 senger's arm projecting 
 from the window, caused by 
 proximity of cattle chute. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Hoover (Ind. Ter.), vol. 23, 
 p. 73. 
 May be shown under general 
 denial. 
 
 Kennedy v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 121. 
 
 Moving car, push by employee 
 
 when deceased attempted to 
 
 get off. 
 
 Sharer v. Paxson (Pa.), vol. 
 2, p. 429. 
 Negligence of company in al- 
 lowing passenger to go on 
 car platform. 
 
 Floytrup v. Boston & Maine 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 
 273. 
 
240 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Of passenger on street car, 
 question for jury. 
 Blondel v. St. Paul City R. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 6, p. 272. 
 Of passenger standing in aisle 
 of car is for jury. 
 Ivane v. Spokane Palls & N. 
 R. Co. (Wash.), vol. 14, p. 
 436. 
 Of passenger will not prevent 
 recovery for recklessness and 
 ■willfulness. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. 
 Brown (Miss.), vol. 19, p. 
 681. 
 Of person assisting passenger, 
 question for jury. 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Tomlthson (Ark.), vol. 22, 
 p. 682. 
 Order of conductor to take up 
 dangerous position. 
 Aufdenberg v. St. I^ouis, I. 
 M. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 3, p. 323. 
 Saunders v. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 13. 
 Passenger assuming risk when 
 alighting at other point than 
 at station. 
 
 Bohannon v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 548. 
 Passenger attempting to cross 
 track near a train killed by 
 another train. 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 Chancellor (111.), vol. 10, p. 
 842. 
 Passenger carelessly stepping 
 down from car not having 
 sufficient steps is guilty of. 
 Coburn v. Philadelphia, W. 
 & B. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 20, 
 p. 34. 
 Passenger compelled to sleep 
 on top of stock car attempt- 
 ing to walk from one car to 
 another. 
 
 Neville v. St. I,ouis, etc. , Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 196. 
 Passenger crossing track at 
 station to board train not 
 guilty of negligence as a 
 matter of law in failing to 
 stop, look and listen. 
 Betts V. Lehigh Val. R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 14, p. 299. 
 Passenger crossing track at 
 station to board train without 
 Ipoking and listening, ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 
 Beecher v. Long Island R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 295. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 —Continued. 
 
 Passenger going on platform 
 before train stops is guilty 
 of contributory neglig-ence. 
 Hick V. Georgia S. & F. Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 279. 
 Passenger going on platform 
 of car at station, question 
 for jury. 
 
 McCurrie v. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 12, p. 170. 
 Passenger leaving seat not 
 guilty of contributory negli- 
 gence per se. 
 
 Agulino V. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 14, 
 p. 314. 
 Burr V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 16, p. 162. 
 Passenger voluntarily ap- 
 proaching burning oil tank. 
 Conroy v. Chicago, St. P., 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 8, p. 714. 
 Passenger voluntarily placing 
 himself in position of dan- 
 ger. 
 , Fisher v. West Virginia & 
 P. R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 4, 
 p. 86. 
 Permanent injuries, subse- 
 quent contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Fullerton v. Fordyce (Mo.), 
 vol. 10, p. 729. 
 Person alighting from street 
 car, passing behind it. and 
 starting across parallel track 
 without looking to see if an- 
 other car was approaching. 
 Baltimore Traction Co. v. 
 Helms (Md.), vol. 6, p. 651. 
 Person injured in boarding 
 train by passing over the 
 sloping part oi the platform 
 instead of going down steps. 
 Rathgebe v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 288. 
 Position of passenger. 
 Aufdenberg v. St. Louis, I. 
 M. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 3, p. 323. 
 
 Question for jury. 
 Albion Lumber Co. v. De 
 
 Nobra (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 564. 
 Bronson v. Oakes (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 166. 
 Exton t>. Central R. Co. of 
 
 New Jersey (N. J.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 240. 
 Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 14, p. 374. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 241 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued, 
 
 Questions of law and fact. 
 Schaefer v. St. L,ouis & S. 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 224. 
 
 Question whether a passenger 
 
 standing- in aisle of car is 
 
 guilty of is for jury. 
 
 I^ane v. Spokane Falls & N. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 436. 
 Remaining in car after plat- 
 form lights were extin- 
 guished. 
 St. Ivouis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Battle (Ark.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 700. 
 Riding on bumper of street 
 car. 
 Nieboer v. Detroit Electric 
 
 Railway (Mich.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 93. 
 Riding on front platform of 
 street car not conclusive evi- 
 dence of contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 Bradley v. Second Ave. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 184. 
 Riding on platform. 
 Chesapeake, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Ivang (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 776. 
 Fisher v. West Virginia & 
 
 P. R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 
 4, p. 86. 
 Mann v.- Philadelphia Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 260. 
 Ward V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 322. 
 Watson V. Portland & G. E. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Me.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 194. 
 
 Riding on platform, going on 
 
 platform of moving car is 
 
 negligence as matter of law. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Head (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 302. 
 Riding on platform or steps 
 bars recovery. 
 Sanders v. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Okla.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 244. 
 Riding on platform or steps is 
 negligence per se. 
 East Omaha St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Godola (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 300. 
 Riding on platform or step of 
 crowded car. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Kelsey- (111.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 82. 
 Riding on running board of 
 
 ID— 16 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. , 
 
 street car. 
 
 Hassen v. Nassau Elec. R;. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 1. 
 Riding on top of car will not 
 prevent recovery for reck- 
 lessness and willfulness. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v,. 
 
 Bosworth (U. S.), vol. 19i. 
 
 p. 680. 
 Riding upon steps of car. 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v.. 
 
 Moneyhun (lud.), vol. S, p. 
 
 682. 
 Riding with arm projecting- 
 from car window, questioa 
 for jury. 
 Kird V. New Orleans, etc.^ 
 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 20, p. 930. 
 Right of passenger to assume- 
 that he may cross train to 
 station in safety a questiork 
 for jury. 
 Alabama, G. & S. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Coggins (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 109. 
 
 Right of passenger to rely ot> 
 
 conductor's promise to notify 
 
 him of arrival at destination. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. zr^ 
 
 Quick (Ala.), vol. 20v p. 25. 
 
 Right of passenger to rely ons 
 
 information of one acting as 
 
 ticket agent. 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Moorman (Tex.), vol. 11. 
 
 p. 157. 
 Right of passenger to rely on 
 information of ticket agent 
 as to trains. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. V, 
 
 Moorman (Tex.), vol. 11. 
 
 p. 157. 
 Shipper riding unnecessarily 
 in freight car by permission 
 of trainmen. 
 Walker v. Green (Kan.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 366. 
 Sleeping in exposed situation 
 where breach of contract to 
 carry. 
 Mewethy v. Detroit, G. R. & 
 
 W. Co. (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 691. 
 Standing on platform of 
 crowded car not contributory 
 negligence. 
 Trumbull v. Erickson (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 17, p. 93. 
 Standing on steps of crowded 
 street car. 
 Pray v. Omaha St. R. Co. 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 299. 
 
242 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 GARRIBRS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Stepping- from stationary car 
 on track at switch. 
 Kellogg V. Smith (Mass.), 
 vol. 23, p. 80. 
 Stepping off insufficiently 
 lighted platform. 
 Bradley v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, p. 281. 
 Stopping of electric car at 
 dangerous place. 
 Vasele v. Grant St. Electric 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 9, 
 p. 75. 
 Taking passage in baggage car 
 as contributory negligence. 
 Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. 
 V. Swann (Md.), vol. 2, p. 
 187. 
 The negligent and terrifying 
 acts and exclamations of 
 brakeman in a caboose of a 
 mixed freight and passenger 
 train were such as to reason- 
 ably cause a passenger in 
 caboose to believe that a 
 wreck was imminent, and he 
 jumped from the train and 
 was injured. It appeared 
 that brakeman had no ex- 
 press duty to perform in or 
 about the caboose, nor in the 
 direction of the passengers, 
 and that there was no reason 
 for his alarm : held, that 
 the railway company was 
 liable for the injuries. 
 Ephland v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 7, p. 
 579. 
 Tripping over employee. 
 Connor v. Concord & M. R. 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 2, p. 281. 
 Whether contributory negli- 
 gence as miatter of law to 
 step into hole in platform. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 628. 
 Whether passenger left the 
 car to avoid injury, suffi- 
 ciency of evidence. 
 Gradert v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 
 118. 
 Yielding seat to infirm passen- 
 ger not contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Trumbull v. Erickson (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 17, p. 93. 
 Criminal law, discrimination. 
 State V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 11, p. 228. 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 
 — Continued. 
 Damages. 
 Apportionment of damages 
 under Georgia statute where 
 negligence of carrier and 
 passenger is concurrent. 
 Alabama, G. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Coggins (C. C. A.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 109. 
 Ejection. 
 Charleston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Varnadore (Ga.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 162. 
 Cox V. Los Angeles Ter. R. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 2, p. 162. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 
 Sparger (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 161: 
 Laird v. Pittsburgh Traction 
 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 2, p. 161. 
 Lexington & E. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Lyons (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 212. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Blair (Tenn.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 p. 159. 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Huffman (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 162. 
 Schmitt V. Milwaukee St. 
 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 2, p. 161. 
 Yagelmeyer v. Cincinnati, 
 
 S. & M. R. Co. (Mich.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 161. 
 Ejection, counsel's fees as ex- 
 emplary damages. 
 Winters v. Cowan (Ohio), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 40. 
 Ejection, excessive damages 
 for. 
 Chamberlain v. Lake Shore 
 
 & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 241. 
 Lexington & E. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Lyons (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 212. 
 Zion V. Sduthern Pac. R. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 167. 
 Ejection, exemplary damages, 
 question for jury. 
 Barker v. St. Louis, I. M. 
 
 &S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 157. 
 Ejection from train. 
 Sloane v. Southern Cali- 
 fornia R. Co. (Cal.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 182. 
 
 Elements of damages for 
 carrying sleeping passenger 
 beyond destination. 
 Airey v. Pullman Palace 
 
 Car Co. (La.), vol. 11. p. 
 
 836. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 243 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Elements of damage for fail- 
 ure to carry. 
 
 LfOuisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Spinks (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 48. 
 Evidence of character of busi- 
 ness and profits. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Posten (Kan.), vol. 11, 
 p. 138. 
 Evidence of custom requiring 
 ladies to have escort, in ac- 
 tion for carrying passenger 
 beyond destination. 
 Dorsey v. Central of Georgia 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 566. 
 Excessive verdict. 
 
 Atchison, Topeka & Santa 
 Pe R. Co. V. Hughes 
 (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 248. 
 Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co. 
 V. French (Neb.), vol. 4, 
 p. 365. 
 Excessive verdict for carrying 
 passengers beyond station. 
 LfOuisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Guy (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 774. 
 Excessive verdict for ejection. 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Bell (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 155. 
 St. I^ouis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Harper (Ark.), vol. 21, p. 77. 
 Exemplary damages for fail- 
 ure to carry. 
 
 Gillman v. Florida Cent. & 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 12, p. 125. 
 Exemplary damages for fail- 
 ure to stop at destination. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Hardin 
 (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 250. 
 Failure to stop at destination. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Hardin 
 (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 250. 
 Fright, but no bodily injury. 
 Lehigh & H. Ry. Co. v. 
 Marchant (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 748. 
 Harshness of language of 
 employee, provoked by con- 
 duct and language of pas- 
 senger, in enforcing com- 
 pany's rules is not ground 
 ■ for exemplary damages. 
 Bullock V. Delaware, L. & 
 W. R. Co. (N. J. App.), 
 vol.11, p. 837. 
 Inability to attend to business 
 as an element of damages. 
 Storrs I'. Los Angeles Trac- 
 tion Co. (Cal.), vol. 22, p. 
 704. 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Inconvenience to passenger 
 voluntarily returning to 
 destination on freight train, 
 after having been carried 
 beyond it. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V, Power (Ark.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 1. 
 Instructions as to damage for 
 failure to carry. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Spinks (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 48. 
 Instructions in action for ejec- 
 tion of passenger. 
 Miller z/. King (N. Y.),vol. 
 
 21, p. 376. 
 Measure of damages. 
 
 Judice V. Southern Pac. R. 
 
 Co. (La. Ann.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 185. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Jackson (Ky.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 437. 
 Measure of damages for fail- 
 ure to stop at destination. 
 Judice V. Southern Pac. R. 
 
 Co. (La. Ann.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 185. 
 Measure of damages in action 
 ex contractu. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Spirk (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 205. 
 Measure of damages in action 
 ex delicto. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Spirk (Neb.), vol.7, p. 205. 
 Nervous shock owing to ejec- 
 tion of passenger. 
 Sloane v. Southern Califor- 
 nia R. Co. (Cal.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 182. 
 Nominal damages for ejection, 
 where train had been stopped 
 by quarantine guard. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Linam (Ark.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 5. 
 Nominal damages for failure to 
 fill out thousand-mile ticket. 
 Holden v. Rutland R. Co. 
 
 (Vt.), vol. 21, p. 168. 
 Passenger may recover for 
 mental suffering caused by 
 agent selling her a ticket for 
 wrong route. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Arm- 
 strong (Tex.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 256. 
 Passenger wrongfully ejected 
 must not increase damages. 
 Bader v. Southern Pac. R. 
 
 Co. (La.), vol. 17, p. 60. 
 
244 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Punitive damages for ejection. 
 Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. 
 V. Kirby (Md.), vol. 18, p. 
 248. 
 Punitive damagfes for injury 
 to passenger while alight- 
 ing. 
 
 Glover v. Charleston & S. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 17, 
 p. 102, 
 Punitive damages for insult- 
 ing passenger. 
 ' Jackson Electric Ry., Light 
 & Power Co. v. Lowry 
 (Miss.), vol. 23, p. 103. 
 Punitive damages for mali- 
 cious assault by conductor 
 on street railway passenger. 
 Lexington Ry. Co. v. Cozine 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 624. 
 Punitive damages for mali- 
 cious or wanton acts of serv- 
 ant. 
 
 Ristine v. Blocker (Colo.), 
 vol. 18, p. 139. 
 Purchase of wearing apparel, 
 in action for loss of trunks. 
 Merrill v. Pacific Transfer 
 Co. (Cat), vol. 21, p. 143. 
 Question of exemplary dam- 
 ages for ejection of passen- 
 ger properly left to jury. 
 Barker v, St. Louis, I. M. & 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, 
 p. 157. 
 Right to recover exemplary 
 damage for injury to pas- 
 senger from carelessly back- 
 ing train. 
 
 Appleby v. South Carolina 
 
 & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 581. 
 
 Right to recover for mistake 
 
 in filling out thousaud-mile 
 
 ticket. 
 
 Holden v. Rutland R. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 21, p. 168. 
 Sleeping-car companies, meas- 
 ure of damages for loss of 
 passenger's property. 
 Cooney v. Pullman Palace- 
 Car Co. (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 
 587. 
 Degree of Care. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ga.),vol. 12, p. 
 . 286. 
 
 Davfs V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 4, ' 
 p. 622. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 V. Lucas (Ga.), vol. 16, 
 p. 818. 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued, 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Warlick (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 4, p. 32. 
 Kird V. New Orleans, etc., 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 20, p. 
 930. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Scott (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 261. 
 Care required in constructing 
 and maintaining tracks. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 324. 
 Payne v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 6, p. 773. 
 Cari;ier's liability, general 
 rule. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Wolfe (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 26. 
 Instruction as to care due by 
 carrier. 
 
 Sanders v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 281. 
 Insurer of passenger's safety. 
 Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co. 
 V. French (Neb.), vol. 4,. 
 p. 36S. 
 Liability for injury to pas- 
 senger. 
 
 Wheeler v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. (N. H.) vol. 23, p. 84. 
 Liability of carrier. 
 
 Hoy t V. Cleveland, C. , C. & 
 St. L. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 9, p. 818. 
 Derailment from negligent load- 
 ing of freight car, question 
 for jury. 
 
 Keating v. Detroit, B. C. & 
 A. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, 
 p. 386. 
 Discharging Passengers. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to announcement of change 
 of cars. 
 
 Floytrup v. Boston & Maine 
 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 273. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 
 to train being behind time 
 
 where plaintiff contended 
 
 that he had not time ta 
 
 alight. 
 
 KilHan v. Georgia R. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 695. 
 Alighting from moving train 
 at direction of conductor. 
 Johnson v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 12, p. 272. 
 Backing car upoij passenger 
 leaving railroad premises. 
 Dallas & O. C. R. Co. v. 
 Reeman (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 2, p. 281. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 245 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Burden of proof to show negli- 
 gence in failing to employ 
 conductor where passenger 
 is injured in alighting from 
 street car. 
 Palmer v. Winona Railway 
 
 & Light Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 696. 
 Calling of station as invitation 
 to alight. 
 Barry v. Boston & A. R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 12, p. 245. 
 Carrying beyond station. 
 McDonald v. Boston & Maine 
 
 R. Co. (Me.), vol. 2, p. 293. 
 
 Car starting while plaintifE 
 
 was alighting, negligence 
 
 question for jury. 
 
 Raub V. Los Angeles (Cal.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 224. 
 Car startin g while plaintiff was 
 alighting, question of law 
 and fact. 
 Raiib V. Los Angeles (Cal.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 224. 
 Duty of company to stop at 
 station. 
 McDonald v. Boston & Maine 
 
 R. Co. (Me.), vol. 2, p. 293. 
 Duty of company to fetop train 
 at station not scheduled, 
 when ticket is sold from one 
 point to a point not sched- 
 uled. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cameron (C. C. A.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 108. 
 Duty to assist infirm passenger 
 to leave train. 
 Brady v. Old Colonv R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 280. 
 Daniels v. Western R. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 2, p. 280. 
 Madden v. Port Royal & W. 
 
 C. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 384. 
 Duty to passenger alighting. 
 Cooper V. Georgia, C. & N. 
 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 12. 
 Lutz V. Louisville Ry. Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 280. 
 Evidence of invitation to 
 alight in action for injury 
 from sudden stoppage of 
 train. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Bowlds (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 553. 
 T'ailure to stop at station. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Miles (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 774. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Injury to passenger, on car 
 platform, expecting to be let 
 off, past station. 
 Brashear v. Houston Cent. 
 A. N. R. Co. (La. Ann.), 
 vol. 2, p. 185. 
 Inviting passenger to alight 
 at dangerous place. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Win- 
 ters (111.), vol. 12, p. 93. 
 Mensing v. Michigan Cent. 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 12, p. 
 223. 
 Inviting passenger to alight 
 from moving train. 
 Cooper V. Georgia, C. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 16, 
 p. 12. 
 Rickert v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.) vol. 12, p. 162. 
 Liability for carrying passen- 
 gers beyond destination. 
 Hoy t w. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. L. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 9, p. 818. 
 Liability for injury to alight- 
 ing passenger, question for 
 jury. 
 
 Parlier v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23,. p. 559. 
 Liability for injury to passen- 
 ger alighting from moving 
 ing car after mere announce- 
 ment of arrival at station. 
 Payne v. Nashville, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 677. 
 Liability for injury to passen- 
 ger alighting from moving 
 train in presence of con- 
 ductor, question for jury. 
 Cooper V. Georgia, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 
 677. 
 Liability for injury to passen- 
 ger caused by stepping on 
 banana skin. 
 
 Goddard v. Boston & M. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 21, p. 423. 
 Liability of company for fail- 
 ure of conductor to awaken 
 passenger at destination. 
 Missouri, Kansas, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Kendrick (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), vol. 2, p. 179. 
 Liability of company for fail- 
 . ure to let passenger off at 
 other than regular station. 
 Matthews v. Charleston & 
 S. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 2, 
 p. 109. 
 
246 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 ^- Continued. 
 
 Liability of railroad for injury 
 to passeng-er crossing- inter- 
 vening- track to platform. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 King (C. C. A.), vol. 17, p. 
 167. 
 Negligence a question for jury 
 where passenger -was injured 
 by reason of ice on car step. 
 Gilman v. Boston & M. R. 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 
 478. 
 Not negligence to allow pas- 
 senger having knowledge of 
 the ground to alight beyond 
 platform. 
 
 l/ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Keith (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 180. 
 Parcel thrown from train. 
 Winship v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. R. (Mass.), vol. 10, 
 p. 27S. 
 Passenger injured by trunk 
 falling on him while he was 
 passing to the eating house 
 from train. 
 
 Duvernet v. Morgan's Louis- 
 iana & T. R. R. & S. S. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 6, p. 483. 
 Passing between station and 
 train at high rate of speed, 
 negligence. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Ryan (111.), vol.8, p. 754. 
 Promise of conductor to notify 
 passenger of arrival at sta- 
 tion. 
 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. 
 McCuUough (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), vol. 3, p. 429. 
 Protection against weather af- 
 ter alighting. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Keller (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 89. 
 Question for jury, under plead- 
 ing and proof, whether 
 plaintiff was injured by rea- 
 son of failure to stop train 
 at station. 
 
 Cooper w. Georgia, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 
 677. 
 Question of fact whether pas- 
 senger had time to alight. 
 Killian v. Georgia R., etc., 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. S, p. 694. 
 Right to pass station without 
 stopping. 
 
 Noble V. Atchison, T. & S. 
 F. R. Co. (Okla.), vol. S, 
 p. 309. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Running freight train past 
 station at a high rate of 
 speed while passengers are 
 alighting from another train 
 is negligence. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kelly 
 (111.), vol. 17, p. 52. 
 Special agreement that train 
 should stop at station. 
 Noble V. Atchison, T. & S. 
 F. R. Co. (Okla.), vol. 6, 
 p. 309. 
 Stoppage of train an invita- 
 tion to alight. 
 
 Raub V. Los Angeles (Cal.), 
 vol. 2, p. 281. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of no- 
 tice to conductor of inten- 
 tion to leave train on part of 
 person assisting passenger. 
 Berry v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 401. 
 Time allowed passengers to 
 leave train, jumping after 
 train starts. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Ricketts (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 
 186. 
 Dogs. 
 
 Gregory v. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 6, p. 774. 
 Drover struck by overhanging- 
 shed. 
 
 Saunders v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 4, p. 13. 
 Drunkenness. 
 
 Brown v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 55. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ellis (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 132. 
 Death of intoxicated passen- 
 ger carried beyond station 
 and expelled from depot. 
 Haug V. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 12, p. 25. 
 Ejection. 
 Edgerly v. Union St. R. Co. 
 
 (N. H.), vol. 6, p. 795. 
 Hamilton v. Pittsburgh, etc., 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 70. 
 Liability for injury to intoxi- 
 cated passenger falling from 
 train , sufficiency of evidence. 
 Wheeler v. Grand Trunk 
 Ry. Co. (N. H.), vol. 23, 
 p. 84. 
 Liability of company for death 
 of intoxicated passenger af- 
 ter expulsion from train. 
 Louisville & Nashville R. 
 Co. V. Ellis (Ky.), vol. 2, 
 p. 132. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 247 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Question of fact whether pas- 
 senger was incapacitated by 
 intoxication when received 
 as such. 
 
 Wheeler v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 23, p. 84. 
 Duties of carriers of passengers, 
 g'eneral rules. 
 
 Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. 
 
 V. Swann (Md.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 187. 
 Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. By- 
 rum (111.), vol. 2, p. 211. 
 Chicago, Kansas & Western 
 
 R. Co. V. Erazer (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 206. 
 Daniels v. Western & A. R. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 2, p. 211. 
 East Tennessee, etc.,R. Co. v. 
 
 Miller (Ga.), vol. 2, p. 216. 
 Kinney v. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 652. 
 Louisville R. Co. v. Park (Ky.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 211. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Orr 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 211. 
 Duty of carriers of passengers 
 as a question for jury. 
 Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. 
 
 V. Swann (Md.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 187. 
 Duty of carrier to give notice of 
 the danger of approaching 
 burning oil tank. 
 Conroy v. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 
 & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 714. 
 Duty of company to passenger 
 sleeping near track. 
 Gulf, C. & S. P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Bolton (Ind. Ter.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 130. 
 Duty to furnish seats. 
 Pray v. Omaha St. R. Co. 
 (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 222. 
 
 Duty to Heat Cars and Depots. 
 
 Duty of railroad company to 
 heat its cars, action for death 
 of child from exposure to 
 cold. 
 Pt. Worth & D. C. Railway 
 
 Co. V. Hyatt (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), vol. 3, p. 397. 
 ■ Statute requiring heating of 
 passenger cars. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 
 Co. V. People of the State 
 
 of New York (U. S.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 172. 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 Duty to Light. 
 Duty to keep platform lighted 
 after arrival of train. 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Battle (Ark.), vol. 22, p. 
 700. 
 Failure to light platform must 
 be proximate cause of pas- 
 senger's injury. 
 Berry v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 401. 
 Liability for failure to light 
 station as affected by inten- 
 tion to remain unreasonable 
 time. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Wood (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 493. 
 Lighting platforms. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Ricketts (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 
 186. 
 Duty to passenger boarding 
 cars. 
 
 Appleby v. South Carolina & 
 G. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, 
 p. 581. 
 Duty to provide seats. 
 Graham v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 vol. 12, p. 149. 
 Duty to receive passengers. 
 Zackery v. Mobile & O. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 6, p. 267. 
 
 Ejection. 
 
 Coyle V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 529. 
 Scott V. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 
 St. L. R. Co. (Ind.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 428. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to reasons for taking car in 
 question. 
 Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. 
 
 V. Hardage (Ga.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 158. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 plaintiff's drunkenness at 
 time of ejection. 
 Raynor v. Wilmington, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 561. 
 Arkansas statute prohibiting 
 ejection of passenger for 
 refusing to pay fare at places 
 other than stations is not 
 applicable where ejection 
 was for other cause. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Lewis (Ark.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 483. 
 
^248 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 ■ — Continued, 
 
 Authority of train hands. 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. 
 Huffman (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 2, p. 157. 
 Blind person. 
 
 Zackery v. Mobile, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 6, p. 267. 
 
 Breach of conditions on ticket. 
 
 Central Trust Co. v. East 
 
 Tennessee, V. & G. E. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 159. 
 
 Burden of proving condition 
 
 on ticket. 
 
 Daniels v. Florida Cent. & 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 23, p. 107. 
 Burden of proving right to 
 eject. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Cannon (Ga.), vol. 14, 
 p. 405. 
 Carrier liable where servant 
 uses unnecessary force. 
 Haver v. Central R. Co. of 
 N. J. (N. J.), vol. 17, p. 
 490. 
 Conductor has a right to eject 
 a person from his car whose 
 .sole claim to be considered a 
 -passenger is by virtue of a 
 ticket void on its face. 
 McGhee v. Reynolds (Ala.), 
 vol. 10, p. 49. 
 Conductor not wearing badge. . 
 Cox V. Ivos Angeles Ter. R. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 2, p. 159. 
 Cross-examination of plaintiff 
 as to habits with respect to 
 temperance. 
 
 L/Ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bizzell (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 615. 
 Disorderly conduct of passen- 
 ger. 
 
 Robinson v. Rockland, T. & 
 C. St. R. Co. (Me.), vol. 
 2, p. 159. 
 Drunken passengers. 
 
 Hamilton v. Pittsburg, etc., 
 R. Co. (Pa. ) , vol. 10, p. 70. 
 Drunken passengers, subse- 
 quent death on track. 
 Brown v. I,ouisville, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 55. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ellis (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 132. 
 Ejecting passengers from 
 train, scope of brakemau's 
 authority. 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 
 V. Peterson (Ind.), vol. 3, 
 p. 427. 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Ejection at improper place. 
 Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. 
 V. Hardage (Ga.), vol. 2, p. 
 158. 
 Ejection at place other than 
 station. 
 
 Gillan v. Minneapolis, St. 
 Paul, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 
 vol. 2, p. 145. 
 Fjection of passenger for hav- 
 ing unstamped ticket who 
 enters on conductor's invita- 
 tion. 
 
 International & G. N. R. Co. 
 V. Best (Tex.), vol. 17, p. 
 153. 
 Ejection of passenger riding 
 on expired ticket. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Howard 
 (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 758. 
 Fjection of passenger who has 
 failed to comply with con- 
 ditions on tickets. 
 Dangerfield v. Atchison, T. 
 & S. P. R. Co. (Kan.) , vol. 
 17, p. 650. 
 Employee's authority need not 
 be proven in action for ma- 
 licious ejection. 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Kilpatrick (Ark), vol. 17, 
 p. 212. 
 Evidence. 
 Lexington & E. Ry. Co. v. 
 Lyons (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 
 212. 
 Evidence of conductor's con- 
 duct. 
 
 Iseman v. South Carolina & 
 G. R. Co. (S. Car.) , vol. 11, 
 p. 219. 
 Excessive damages. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Ray (Tenn.), vol. 11, p. 
 174. 
 Wenz V. Savannah, F. & W. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. IS, p. 
 844. 
 Excessive damages for threats 
 of ejection. 
 
 Mueller v. Chicago, B. & N. 
 Ry. Cp. (Minn.), vol. 12, 
 p. 137. 
 Exemplary damages. 
 
 Allen V. Wilmington & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 8, p. 
 257. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Long 
 (Kan. App.), vol. 6, p. 774. 
 Lexington & E. Ry. Co. 
 V. Lyons (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 
 212. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 249 
 
 OARBIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Kxemplary damages for im- 
 plied malice. 
 Cowen V. Wititers (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 107. 
 Exemplary damages, plead- 
 ing. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ray (Tenn.), vol. 11, p. 174. 
 Exemplary damages where 
 malice is shown. 
 Smith V. Philadelphia, W. 
 
 & B. R. Co. (Md.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 264. 
 Expulsion of passenger travel- 
 ing on ticket issued by one 
 of consolidating companies 
 before consolidation, right 
 of action. 
 
 Tompkins v. Augusta South- 
 ern R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 587. 
 Expulsion of police officer from 
 train. 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 
 Sanders (Tex. J3iv. App.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 427. 
 Pact that passenger's ticket 
 was purchased on Sunday is 
 immaterial, in action to re- 
 cover for. 
 Materson v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 395. 
 Pailure of passenger to change 
 car and take most direct 
 route where there are two 
 roads. 
 
 Church V. Chicago, Mil- 
 waukee, etc., R. Co. (S. 
 
 Dak.), vol. 2, p. 1. 
 Por failure to have round-trip 
 ticket stamped where ticket 
 agent could not be found. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wood 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 555. 
 
 Pormer acceptance of less 
 
 than usual fare and offer of 
 
 passenger to pay difference. 
 
 Cox V. Los Angeles Ter. R. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 2, p. 158. 
 General and special findings. 
 Atchison, Topeka, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. Brown (Kan.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 113. 
 Good faith of conductor. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. Russ (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 141. 
 Instructions. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Long (Kan. App.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. ,774. 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Liability for death of ejected 
 passenger not happening at 
 place of her ejection. 
 Southern Ry. Co. in Missis- 
 sippi V. Miller (Miss.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 680. 
 Liability for ejection of 
 drunken passenger at dan- 
 gerous place. 
 Bohannou v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 548. 
 Liability for wrongful ejec- 
 tion of passenger without 
 force. 
 Bohannon v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 548. 
 Liability of carrier for ejec- 
 tion of passenger given 
 wrong ticket by agent. 
 Spink V. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 86. 
 Liability of carrier for ejec- 
 tion of passenger holding 
 excursion ticket, who has 
 not been identified in accord- 
 ance with condition on 
 ticket. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Cannon (Ga.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 405. 
 Liability of carrier where 
 passenger's ejection was 
 caused through mistake of 
 ticket agent. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hine (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 382. 
 
 Liability of company for death 
 
 of intoxicated passenger 
 
 after expulsion from train. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ellis (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 132. 
 Liability of company for ex- 
 pulsion by lessee of train. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Osborne (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 157. 
 Liability of railroad for act 
 of conductor in expelling 
 passenger. 
 Higgins V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 694. 
 Minor passenger may be 
 ejected for failure to pay 
 fare for child accompanying 
 her. 
 Warfield v. Louisville & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 135. 
 Mistake of ticket agent. 
 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Holmes (Miss.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 270. 
 
2S0 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Keeny (Ga.), vol. 5, pp. 
 
 305, 308. 
 Ellsworth V. Chicago, Bur- 
 
 ling'ton, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Iowa) , vol. 2, p. 80. 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gaines (Ky.), vol. S, p. 
 
 226. 
 Negligence, question for jury. 
 Eidsou V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (Miss.), vol. 11, p. 832. 
 Nonpayment of fare. 
 Atchison, Topeka, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. Brown (Kau.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 113. 
 Cox V. l/os Angeles Ter. R. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 2,p. 158. 
 Passenger injured by being 
 pushed off moving car by 
 employee. 
 Sharer v. Paxson (Pa.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 429. 
 Passenger who boarded train 
 under the advice of conductor 
 of another train. 
 Allen V. Wilmington & W. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 257. 
 Place of ejection for nonpay- 
 ment of fare. 
 Kansas City, P. & G. R. Co. 
 
 V. Holden (Ark.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 116. 
 Place other than station. 
 Gillan v. Minneapolis, St. 
 
 Paul, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 145. 
 Police, expulsion from train. 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 
 Sanders (Tex. Civ. App. ) , 
 
 vol. 3, p. 427. 
 Presumption that plaintiff was 
 a passenger. 
 Iseman v. South Carolina & 
 
 G. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 219. 
 Profanity. 
 0'I(Oughlin V. Boston & M. 
 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 160. 
 Robinson v. Rockland, T. 
 
 &C. St. R. Co. (Me.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 159. 
 Province of jury. 
 Charleston & S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Varnadore (Ga.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 156. 
 
 Proximate cause of injury. 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol. 17, 
 p. 212. 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Push by employee when de- 
 ceased attempted to get off 
 car. 
 Sharer v. Paxson (Pa.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 429. 
 Remarks of counsel. 
 Kansas City, Ft. Scott, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. Sokol (Ark.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 148. 
 Resistance. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. Russ (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 141. 
 Returning of fare to passenger 
 whose minor child has been 
 ejected. 
 Braun v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.) , vol. 17, p. 139. 
 Right of action of female 
 passenger, having neither 
 ticket nor money for ejection 
 in perilous locality. 
 Jackson v. Alabama & V. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Miss.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 392. 
 Right to eject passenger be- 
 yond destination, who had 
 failed to alight. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Lewis (Ark.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 483. 
 
 Right to eject passenger 
 boarding train at improper 
 place after he has been ac- 
 cepted as passenger and has 
 tendered his fare. 
 Kansas City, P. & G. R. 
 Co. V. Holdeu (Ark.), vol. 
 16, p. 116. 
 Right to eject passenger for 
 failure to pay fare for his 
 minor child. 
 
 Braun v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, p. 139. 
 
 Right to eject passenger where 
 
 the time limit of his ticket 
 
 has expired. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Watson 
 (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 209. 
 Rules and regulations. 
 Decker v. Atchison, Topeka, 
 etc., R. Co. (Okla.), vol. 2, 
 p. 118. 
 
 Scope of brakeman's author- 
 ity. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 
 
 w. Peterson (Ind.), vol.3, 
 
 p. 427. 
 
 Smoking contrary to rules. 
 Nelson v. Salt Lake R. T. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 2, p. 156. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 251 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued, — Continued, 
 
 Sufficiency of alleg-ation as to 
 use of excessive force in 
 ejecting- passengers. 
 McGhee v. Reynolds (Ala.), 
 vol. 22, p. 17. 
 SufEciency of evidence as to * 
 wrongful ejection of pas- 
 sengers. 
 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Bell (Miss.) , vol. 21, p. ISS. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of mal- 
 ice and wantonness. 
 Ristine v. Blocker (Colo.), 
 vol. 18, p. 139. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of right 
 to return passage. 
 Daniels v. Florida Cent. & 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, 
 p. 107. 
 Ticket good for one day only 
 bearing wrong date. 
 Ellsworth V. Chicago, Bur- 
 lington, etc., R. Co. 
 (Iowa) , vol. 2, p. 80. 
 Waiver of right of action for 
 ejection for failure to have 
 round-trip ticket stamped. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wood 
 (Ga,), vol. 23, p. SSS. 
 Where passenger refuses to 
 show ticket or to pay fare. 
 Price V. Chesapeake & O. R. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 14, p. 
 399. 
 Where ticket was limited to a 
 particular time stamped 
 upon it. 
 
 McGhee v. Drisdale (Ala.), 
 vol. 6, p. 774. 
 Whether force was used, ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 
 Raynor v. Wilmington, etc., 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, 
 p. 561. 
 Whether remedy for wrongful 
 ejection is an action ex de- 
 licto or ex contractu. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v, 
 Spirk (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 205. 
 Estoppel to deny authority of 
 clerk assuming to be gen- 
 eral passenger agent. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Marshall 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 82. 
 Evidence. 
 Accommodation trains, expert 
 testimony. 
 
 Gray v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. R. Co. (111..), vol. 21, p. 
 252. 
 Admissibility of evidence as to 
 
 announcement of change of 
 
 cars. 
 
 Ploytrup V. Boston & Maine 
 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 273. 
 Burden of proof to show that 
 person taking up tickets was 
 not conductor. 
 Coursey v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (Ga), vol. 21, p. 412. 
 Burden of proving negligence 
 in failing to employ con- 
 ductor where passenger is 
 injured in alighting from 
 street car. 
 Palmer v. Winona Railway 
 
 & Light Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 696. 
 Company chargeable with 
 trainmen's knowledge of 
 passenger's injuries. 
 Wheeler v. Grand Trunk Rv. 
 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 23, p. 84. 
 Declaration of conductor where 
 passenger is ejected. 
 Barker v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 157. 
 Declarations of plaintiff with 
 respect to her injuries. 
 Hall V, Cedar Rapids, etc. , 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa) , vol. 23, p. 
 
 316. 
 Evidence of conductor's knowl- 
 edge that plaintiff injured 
 by sudden stoppage of car 
 was a cripple. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v, 
 
 Bowlds (Ky.). vol. 23, p. 
 
 553. 
 Hearsay evidence of what 
 plaintiff said to physician in 
 action for injuries to pas- 
 senger. 
 Webber v. St. Paul City Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 6, p. 775. 
 If the judge is satisfied that 
 the declarations of the de- 
 ceased police officer were 
 made in good faith they are 
 admissible in action for ille- 
 gal arrest of passenger. 
 Dixon V. New England R. 
 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 10. 
 Impeaching evidence of train 
 hand who has ejected pas- 
 senger. 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 
 Sanders (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 428. 
 Instructions as to credibility 
 of witnesses in action for 
 ejection. 
 Schmitt V. Milwaukee St. R. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 2, p. 156. 
 
253 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARBIBBS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 Physician's testimony. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 Sanders (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 428. 
 Presumption of neg-ligence. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Rudulph (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 6. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 from injury to party in 
 charge of live stock. 
 New York, C. & St. Louis R. 
 Co. ,». Blumenthal (111.), 
 vol. 4, p. 174. 
 Rebuttal of presumptions of 
 negligence. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. 
 Co. V. Rudulph (Ga.), vol. 
 21, p. ,6. 
 Records of former suits as evi- 
 dence in action for ejection. 
 Chamberlain v. Lake Shore 
 & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 17, p. 241. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 breach of contract for car- 
 riage. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wood 
 (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 611. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of fail- 
 ure to use due care in discov- 
 ering his peril, to support 
 verdict for plaintiff in ac- 
 tion for injury sustained by 
 him while riding on freight 
 train. 
 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Ticket as evidence in action 
 for ejection. 
 
 Lexington & E. Ry. Co. v. 
 Lyons (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 
 212. 
 Excursion trains, care due pas- 
 sengers on. 
 
 Ward V. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, p. 322. 
 
 Exemption from Liability. 
 
 Carrier cannot stipulate for 
 exemption from liability for 
 servant's negligence. 
 Williams v. Oregon Short- 
 Line R. Co. (Utah), vol. 
 12, p. 61. 
 Contract by shipper exempting 
 company from liability in 
 consideration of pass does 
 not bind minor agent. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Lee (C. C. A.), vol. 14, 
 p. 265. 
 Contract exempting carriers 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 
 — Continued. 
 
 from liability for injury to 
 express messenger valid. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. 
 Co. w. Voigt (U. S.), vol. 
 17, p. 111. 
 Contract releasing carrier 
 from liability for negligence 
 to employee of sleeping car 
 company inures to benefit of 
 company transporting car. 
 Russell V. Pittsburgh, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 601. 
 Drover, carrier exempting him- 
 self from liability for negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Saunders v. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 13. 
 Exemption from liability for 
 death of messenger. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Mahony (Ind.), 
 vol. 8, p. 441. 
 Exemption from liability in 
 consideration of free car- 
 riage of stockmen. 
 Louisville & M. R. Co. v. 
 BelKKy.), vol. 8, p. 414. 
 Exemption of railroad com- 
 pany from liability for in- 
 jury to express messenger. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Keefer (Ind.), vol. 
 5, p. 26. 
 Injury to news agent. 
 
 Starr v. Great Ncfrthern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 778. 
 Private carrier. 
 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Keefer (Ind.), vol. 
 5, p. 26. 
 Scope of contract releasing 
 carrier from liability for 
 negligence to employee of 
 sleeping car company. 
 Russell V. Pittsburgh, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 601. 
 Stipulation of exemption from 
 liability for negligence, 
 void. 
 
 Doyle V. Fitchburg R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 5, p. 257. 
 Validity of contract releasing 
 carrier from liability for 
 negligence to employee of 
 sleeping car company. 
 Russell V. Pittsburgh, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 23, 
 p. 601. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 253 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Explosion of oil tank. 
 
 Conroy v. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 8, 
 p. 71S. 
 Failure of carrier to restrain 
 passenger by physical force 
 from taking- an exposed posi- 
 tion. 
 
 Conroy v. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 8, 
 ■ p. 715. 
 Failure to carry, action ex de- 
 licto will not lie where con- 
 tract was executory and 
 voluntarily made. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Spinks (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 48. 
 Failure to inform passenger of 
 approach of train. 
 L,ewis V. President, etc., 
 Canal Co. (N. Y.), vol. 2, p. 
 192. 
 False statements of ticket agents 
 as to movements of trains. 
 Fowlks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Va.), vol. 14, p. 2S0. 
 Federal courts not bound to fol- 
 low state decisions on ques- 
 tions relating to the carriage 
 of freight or passengers, 
 Whitney v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 184. 
 Fellow passenger's act causing 
 injury does not render com- 
 pany liable. , 
 
 McDonnell v. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 12, p. 17S. 
 
 Floods. 
 
 Burden of proving freedom 
 from negligence where 
 passenger is injured in de- 
 railment caused by extraor- 
 dinary flood. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn 
 (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 324. 
 
 Failure to warn passengers of 
 danger created by washing 
 away of embankments which 
 caused overturning of cars. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Tarin 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 928. 
 
 Liability for failure to provide 
 culvert able to withstand 
 extraordinary flood, where a 
 passenger was injured. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn 
 (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 324. 
 
 Plaintiff was delayed upon 
 defendant's, railroad by a 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 flood and highwater, upon 
 advice of defendant's agent 
 he sought transportation 
 over a second road, where 
 he was again delayed. It 
 was held that defendant was 
 liable for the expense in- 
 curred by plaintifF, includ- 
 ing that incident to the 
 unavoidable delay on the 
 line of the second carrier. 
 Turner v. Great Northern R. 
 Co. (Wash. ) , vol. S, p. 238. 
 Foot-stools. 
 
 Madden v. Port Royal & W. 
 C. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 2, 
 p. 280. 
 Free Passes. 
 Contract to procure. 
 
 Curry v. Kansas, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 7SS. 
 Discrimination . 
 
 State V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 11, p. 228. 
 Interstate commerce. 
 Curry v. Kansas, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Kan.), vol.8, p. 7SS. 
 Liability for injury to person, 
 riding gratuitously. 
 Russell V. Pittsburgh, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 601. 
 Validity of printed conditions 
 in passes issued to em.- 
 ployees. 
 
 Whitney v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 184. 
 
 Freight Trains. 
 Care due passenger. 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Ashley (C. C. A.), vol. 2, 
 p. 212. 
 Steele v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 14, p. 350. 
 Care due to shipper riding in 
 stock car on shipper's pass. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Lee (C. C. A.), vol. 14, 
 p. 264. 
 Duty to person riding on 
 freight train by sufferance 
 of trainmen. 
 
 Dalton V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 768. 
 Failure to have conductor on, 
 is negligence as a matter of 
 law. 
 
 Means v. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 
 363. 
 
254 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. — Continued. 
 
 Highest degree of care due 
 passenger on. 
 
 Sprague v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 14, p. 
 356. 
 Injury to passenger on freight 
 car. 
 
 Beyer v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 9, p. 819. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for injury to licensee on 
 freight train. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Best (111.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 660. 
 
 Liability of railroad company 
 
 for injury to passenger on 
 
 freight train. 
 
 Heyward v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 10, p. 260. 
 Passengers. 
 Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. 
 Griffith (Ark.), vol. 9, p. 
 846. 
 Passenger on freight train 
 cannot demand to be carried 
 to other than regular stop- 
 ping place of such train. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Howard 
 (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 758. 
 Passenger riding in freight 
 car. 
 
 Schilling v. Winona, etc., 
 R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 5, p. 
 694. 
 Right of action of passenger 
 on freight train injured 
 through negligence in stop- 
 ping train- 
 
 Garland v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 759. 
 Right of person to board 
 freight train, -without per- 
 mit, relying on ticket agent's 
 representations. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hine (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 
 382. 
 Right of sheriff to ride on 
 freight train. 
 
 Allen V. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 Ry. Co. (Ohio) , vol. 9, p. 
 25. 
 Shipper riding unnecessarily 
 in freight car with permis- 
 sion of trainmen, is guilty 
 of contributory negligence. 
 Walker v. Green (Kan.), vol. 
 14, p. 366. 
 The negligent and terrifying 
 acts and exclamations of a 
 brakeman in the caboose of 
 a mixed freight and passen- 
 
 ger train were such as to 
 reasonably cause a passen- 
 ger in the caboose to believe 
 that a wreck was eminent, 
 and he jumped from the 
 train and was injured. It 
 appeared that the brakeman 
 had no express duty to per- 
 form in or about the caboose, 
 nor in the direction of the 
 passenger, and that there 
 was no reason for his alarm : 
 held, that the railway com- 
 pany was liable for the in- 
 juries. 
 
 Ephland v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 7, p. 
 579. 
 Gross negligence in construct- 
 ing platform so as to cause 
 obstruction to train when cot- 
 ton is piled upon it. 
 Kird V. New Orleans, etc., 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 20, p. 930. 
 Ice on car step. 
 
 Gilman v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 478. 
 Implied invitation to enter sta- 
 tion. 
 
 Gray v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 481. 
 Implied invitation to enter train. 
 Jones V. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 11, p. 
 185. 
 Injuries to express companies. 
 Voight V. Baltimore & O. S. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Ohio) , vol. 9, p. 
 835. 
 Injury to passenger by starting 
 car. 
 
 Conway v. New Orleans & C. 
 R. Co. (La. Ann.), vol. 2, p. 
 222. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hale 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 73. 
 Merritt v. New York, N. H. & 
 H. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 
 223. 
 Raub V. Los Angeles T. R. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 2, p. 223. 
 Injury to passenger by throwing 
 mail sack from train. 
 Hughes V. Chicago & Alton R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 284. 
 Injury to passenger during re- 
 ceivership. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Manton 
 (U. S.), vol. 9, p. 850 
 Injury to passenger in express 
 car. 
 
 Fremont, etc. , Ry. Co. v. Root 
 (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 754. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 255 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. — Continued, 
 
 Injury to passenger on caboose. 
 Felton V. Horner (Tenn.), vol. 
 8, p. 79. 
 Injury to passenger on street 
 car, facts to be considered in 
 determining the question of 
 negligence. 
 
 Conway v. Lewiston, etc., R. 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 8, p. 770. 
 Injury to passenger on street 
 car, liability of company. 
 Conway v. Lewiston, etc., R. 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 8, p. 769. 
 Injury to passenger on street 
 car, presumption of negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Electric Ry. Co. v. Carson 
 (Ga.), vol. 8, pp. 769, 770. 
 Injury to passengers through 
 defective roadbed. 
 Smedley v. Hestonville, M. & 
 S. F. Passenger Ry. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 9, p. 649. 
 Injury to stockmen. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bell 
 (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 413. 
 Injury to third person through 
 ejection of drunken person 
 from station. 
 
 Gray v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 481. 
 Inspection of cars. 
 
 Keating v. Detroit, B. C. & A. 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, p. 222. 
 Inspection of trains. 
 
 Proud V. Philadelphia & R. R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 18, p. 633. 
 Instruction as to negligence in 
 starting train. 
 
 Johnson v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 12, p. 273. 
 Insults, passenger's right of ac- 
 tion. 
 
 • Cole V. Atlanta & W. P. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 14. 
 Joinder of parties. 
 
 Atlantic & P. Ry. Co. v. Laird 
 (U. S.),vol. 8, p. 36S 
 Joint negligence of two carriers 
 causing injury to passenger. 
 Atlantic & P. Ry. Co v. Laird 
 
 (U. S.), vol. 8, p. 365. 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 Piper (111.), vol. 9, p. 147. 
 Oolts and Jars. 
 
 Jerking of train not negli- 
 gence with respect to pas- 
 senger standing on car 
 platform after announce- 
 ment of station. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Morris (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 - 380. 
 Leaving car door open and 
 causing sudden jerk of 
 train, injuring passenger 
 closing door, is actionable 
 negligence. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bedell (Colo.), vol. 12, p.' 
 
 141. 
 Negligence in allowing pas- 
 senger to goon car platform. 
 Floytrup v. Boston & 
 
 Maine R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 273. 
 Negligence in starting train 
 question for jury. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe 
 
 (111.), vol. 11, p. 163. 
 Negligence of company ques- 
 tion for jury, where passen- 
 ger riding on platform of 
 street car is injured by sud- 
 den jerk. 
 Bradley iJ. Second Ave. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 184. 
 Negligence of company, where 
 passenger on platform of 
 car at station is injured by 
 jerking of train swinging 
 door to, is for jury. 
 McCurrie v. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 12, p. 170. 
 One assisting passenger to 
 board train was compelled 
 by sudden jerk of car to 
 jump, and was injured : 
 held, negligence of carrier 
 was question for jury. 
 Whitley v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 210. 
 Passenger closing car door 
 injured by sudden jerk. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bedell (Colo.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 141. 
 Passenger in baggage car. 
 Gardner v. Waycross, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. S, p. 694. 
 Passengers injured by sudden 
 jerk of train not required to 
 show which employee caused 
 it. 
 Pomeroy v. Boston & M. R. 
 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 12, p. 119. 
 Passenger injured by train 
 suddenly starting after it 
 has stopped at station while 
 she is on the platform. 
 Carroll v. Burleigh (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 5, p. 628. 
 
256 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Passenger on platform of car 
 at station injured by jerk- 
 ing' of train swinging door 
 to, company's negligence 
 was for jury. 
 
 McCurrie v. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 12, p. 170. 
 Starting train before passen- 
 ger is seated. 
 
 Middlesborough Ry. Co. v. 
 Webster (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 209. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to sus- 
 tain verdict for plaintiff in 
 action for injury to passen- 
 ger from sudden starting of 
 car. 
 
 Baldwin v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 117. 
 Kansas statute requiring free 
 transportation' for shippers 
 of live stock not applicable 
 to interstate shipments. 
 State V, Otis (Kan.), vdl. 12, 
 p. 850. 
 Knowledge of defects by rail- 
 road company. 
 
 Arkansas Midland Ry. Co. 
 V. Griffith (Ark.), vol. 9, p. 
 846. 
 Leases and Running Powers. 
 Collision on leased track. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Posten (Kan.), vol. 11, 
 p. 138. 
 Liability for expulsion of pas- 
 senger by lessee of train. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 Osborne (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 
 157. 
 Responsibility for acts of lea- 
 see. 
 
 White V. Norfolk & S. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 2, p. 222. 
 lyiability for death of passen- 
 ger alighting from moving 
 train by invitation of con- 
 ductor. 
 
 Lewis V. President, etc. , Canal 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 2, p. 192. 
 Liability for death of person at 
 station to meet passenger. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Spencer (Colo.), vol. 18, p. 
 236. 
 
 Liability for injuries received 
 
 by passenger while boarding 
 
 train not at platform. 
 
 Jones V. New York Cent. & 
 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 18S. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 Liability for injuries to pas- 
 sengers seeking to purchase 
 tickets, effect of slight errors 
 in instructions. 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 
 Martin (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 301. 
 Liability of carrier for death of 
 passenger whose head was 
 protruding from window. 
 Shelton v. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 678. 
 Liability of carriers for injury 
 to express messengers. 
 Voight V. Baltimore & O. S. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Ohio), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 835. 
 Liability of company for inju- 
 ries to person on train, at 
 instance of unauthorized em- 
 ployee. 
 Chicago, St. Paul, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Bryant (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 319. 
 Liability of company for injury 
 to third person where the act 
 is within the scope of the serv- 
 ant's employment, though the 
 particular act was not author- 
 ized. 
 Gray v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 481. 
 Liability of company for tor- 
 tious acts of employees. 
 Krantz v. Rio Grande West- 
 ern R. Co. (Utah), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 432. 
 Sharer v. Paxson (Pa.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 429. 
 Malice implied where carrier 
 carelessly repudiated valid 
 ticket. 
 Winters v. Cowen (C. C. 
 
 Ohio), vol. 12, p. 40. 
 Mandamus to compel operation 
 of passenger trains. 
 People, Cantrell v. St. Louis, 
 
 A. & T. H. R. Co. (111.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 227. 
 
 Massachusetts statute author- 
 izing actions for death of 
 passenger not applicable to 
 railroads. 
 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Hurd 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 674. 
 
 Massachusetts statute author- 
 izing recovery in actions for 
 death of passenger, to pun- 
 ish railroad, is remedial in 
 an international sense, and 
 recovery thereunder may be 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 257 
 
 OABRIBRS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 had in federal court of sister 
 state. 
 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Hurd 
 (C. C. A.), vol.21, p. 674. 
 Medical attention, failure to 
 aver due diligence in provid- 
 ing' for injured passenger. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 628. 
 Mistake. 
 Duty of company to person on 
 train by mistake. 
 L,ewis V. President, etc.. 
 Canal Co. (N. Y.), vol. 2, 
 p. 192. 
 Mistake of ticket agent. 
 Courts V. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 223. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Gaines (Ky.), vol. S, p. 226. 
 Mixed Trains. 
 Mixed trains are not sufScieut 
 compliance with duty to pro- 
 vide for carriage of passen- 
 gers. 
 
 People, Cantrell v. St. 
 Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 227. 
 Mixed trains made up in part 
 of a passenger equipment 
 and in part of freight cars, 
 used for the transportation 
 of passengers are "passen- 
 ger trains" within the mean- 
 ing of defendant's articles 
 of association and of its 
 "lease contract" with the 
 plaintiff; and the defendant 
 is required to furnish such 
 trains, reasonable passenger 
 depot facilities and service. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 St. Paul Union Depot Co. 
 (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 679. 
 Validity of by-laws excluding 
 mixed train from union de- 
 pot. 
 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 St. Paul Union Depot Co. 
 (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 679. 
 Whetljer railroad company 
 may be forced to operate 
 passenger instead of a mixed 
 train by mandamus. 
 People V. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 6, p. 241. 
 Nature of action. 
 Seals V. Augusta Southern R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 386. 
 Nebraska statute giving right 
 
 ID— 17 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 of action for injury to passen- 
 ger construed. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Zernecke (Neb.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 76. 
 Negligence and contri.buitory 
 negligence were questions for 
 jury, where passenger was in- 
 jured by reason of unfastened 
 door. 
 Bronson v. Oakes (C. C. A.)„ 
 
 vol. 9, p. 166. 
 Negligence a question for jury. 
 Lane v. Spokane Falls & N. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 436. 
 Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 14, p. 374. 
 New York, C. & St. Louis R. 
 
 Co. V. Blumenthal (111.), vol. 
 
 4, p. 174. 
 Sprague v. Southern Ry. Cow 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 14, p. 356. 
 Negligence in backing train at 
 depot. 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v, 
 
 Tomliusou (Ark.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 682. 
 Negligence in leaving switch 
 open. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kingman (Ky.), vol. S, p. 
 
 401. 
 Negligence in starting train. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe 
 
 (111.), vol. 11, p. 163. 
 Negligence in starting train, 
 question for jury. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe 
 
 (111.), vol. 11, p. 163. 
 Negligence in storing goods on 
 platform so as to obstruct pas- 
 senger train. 
 Kird V. New Orleans, etc. , R. 
 
 Co. (La.), vol. 20, p. 930. 
 Negligence of employees, though 
 performing ultra vires agree- 
 ment of carrier, renders car- 
 rier liable. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Howard (U. S.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 660. 
 "Negligent" speed. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. ». 
 
 Johnston (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 286. 
 
 Notice to company of danger to 
 
 passenger at station from 
 
 third parties, question for jury. 
 
 Exton V. Central R. Co. of 
 
 New Jersey (N. J.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 240. 
 
258 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 Parcels. 
 A person entitled by the terms 
 of his ticket to "personal 
 passage" on a railroad car 
 has not the right to carry 
 ■with him packages of gro- 
 ceries for the use of his 
 family. 
 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bullock (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 370. 
 
 Right to carry parcels, sufS- 
 
 ciency of evidence of usage 
 
 to show adoption of rule by 
 
 carrier. 
 
 Runyan v. Central R. Co. of 
 
 New Jersey (N. J.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 290. 
 
 Passenger injured by trunk 
 
 falling on him while he was 
 
 passing to the eating house 
 
 from a train. 
 
 Duvernet v. Morgan's LfOuisi- 
 ana & T. R. R. & S. S. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 6, p. 483. 
 Passenger trains, what are. 
 Gray v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 21, p. 252. 
 Plaintiff may recover upon 
 proof that only a portion of 
 his injuries resulted from the 
 cai rier's negligence. 
 Lutz V. Louisville Ry. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 280. 
 Pleading and proof in action for 
 ejection of passengers. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Lynn 
 (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 570. 
 Pleading in the alternative, in 
 action for injury to passenger 
 in a collision. 
 
 Brockett v. Fair Haven & W. 
 R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, p. 
 406. 
 Pleading, there can be no recov- 
 ery for failure to observe com- 
 mon-law duty of ordinary care 
 towards person on street cross- 
 ing where only cause of action 
 alleged his defendant's breach 
 of duty as carrier of passen- 
 gers. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Jen- 
 nings (111.), vol. 22, p. 127. 
 Presumption of Negligence from 
 Accident. 
 Arkansas Midland Ry. Co. 
 V. Griffith (Ark.), vol. 9, p. 
 846. 
 Bassett v. Los Angeles Trac- 
 tion Co. (Cal.), vol. 22, p. 5, 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hague (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 476. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 "Wolfe (Neb.) , vol. 22, p. 26. 
 Cooper V. Georgia, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 667. 
 Dampman v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol.. 2, p. 
 
 219. 
 Dennis v. Pittsburgh & C. 
 
 S. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 220. 
 East Tennessee, etc. , R. Co. 
 
 V. Miller (Ga.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 216. 
 Felton K. Holbrook (Ky.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 146. 
 Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co. 
 
 V. French (Neb.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 365. 
 McCafferty v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, p. 122. 
 Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Laurecilla (Tex.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 219. 
 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Marshall (Va.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 220. 
 Perry v. Malarin (Cal.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 219. 
 St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hedge (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 219. 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burrows (Kan.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 678. 
 Saunders v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. R. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 220. 
 Spencer v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 163. 
 Sprague v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 14, p. 356. 
 Steele v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 14, p. 350. 
 Whitney v. New York, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 184. 
 Derailment resulting from de- 
 fective cross tie, instruction. 
 Arkansas Midland Ry. Co. v. 
 Griffith (Ark.), vol. 9, p. 846. 
 Presumption of negligence from 
 derailment of train. 
 Albion Lumber Co. v. De 
 Nobra (U. S,), vol. 3, p. S64. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Zernecke (Neb.), vol. 17, p. 
 76. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn 
 (Tenu.), vol. 22, p. 324. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 259 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSBNaBRS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Presumption of neglig-ence from 
 injury to passenger on freight 
 train, in a collision. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Dawson 
 (Va.), vol. 18, p. 592. 
 Presumption of neglig e n c e 
 where injury is caused by col- 
 lision between trains. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. 
 V. Hausman (Ky.), vol. 17, 
 p. 237. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 where passenger was injured 
 in collision between street car 
 and wagon. 
 
 Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 809. 
 Prima facie case of negligence 
 from break in the track caus- 
 ing derailment. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn 
 (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 324. 
 
 Proximate Cause. 
 
 Chicago, K. & M. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bell (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 222. 
 
 Concurring causes as affecting 
 
 carrier's liability for injury 
 
 to passenger. 
 
 Rooney v. New York, N. H. 
 
 & H. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 425. 
 Derailment of train. 
 
 Davis V. Chicag-o, M. & St. 
 
 P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 622. 
 Derailment of train caused by 
 obstructions placed on track. 
 Davis V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. S, p. 710. 
 Proximate cause of injury 
 to passenger sustained in 
 alighting at point where 
 train had stopped because of 
 a collision. 
 Vandercook v. Detroit, G. R. 
 
 & W. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 353. 
 Proximate cause of injury to 
 passenger who stepped back, 
 from position of safety, 
 between cars of divided 
 train. 
 Butts V. Cleveland, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 100. 
 Proximate cause of injury to 
 passenger alighting from, 
 moving train. 
 
 Gulf, etc. , Ry. Co. v. Row- 
 land (Tex.), vol. 6, p. 775. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Proximate cause, question for 
 jury. 
 
 McCann v. Newark & S. O. 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 4, p. 
 382. 
 Reasonableness of regulations, 
 question for jury. 
 Gregory v. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 6, p. 775. 
 Rebuttal of presumption of neg- 
 ligence. 
 
 O'Connerw. Scrauton Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 650. 
 Relation between carrier and 
 passenger is contractual. 
 Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co. 
 V. French (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 
 365. 
 Res Gestae. 
 Complaint by plaintiff of his 
 injuries. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 Sanders (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 428. 
 Statement as to threats made 
 by station agent to passen- 
 ger as res gestae. 
 Ward V. Yazoo & M. V. R. 
 Co. (Miss), vol. 21, p. 401. 
 Statement of intention to be- 
 come a passenger by party 
 killed by defendant's loco- 
 motive. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. R- Co. v. 
 Chancellor (111.), vol. 10, p. 
 842. 
 Right of passenger on partially 
 constructed road. 
 Chicago, Kansas & Western R. 
 Co. V. Frazer (Kan.), vol. 
 2, p. 206. 
 Right of passenger to be in 
 baggage car, question for 
 jury. 
 
 Gardner v. Waycross, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 694. 
 Right to enter car where physi- 
 cal resistance by employees. 
 Runyan v. Central R. Co. of 
 New Jersey (N. J.), vol. 19, 
 p. 290. 
 Rules and Re^;ulations. 
 
 Church V. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 1. 
 Decker v. Atchison, Topeka, 
 etc., R. Co. (Okla.), vol. 2, 
 p. 118. 
 Concurrent negligence of 
 company's servants. 
 Deery v. Camden & A. R. Co. 
 (Pa. St.), vol. 2, p. 225. 
 
260 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Ejectment of passenger where 
 passenger should have 
 changed cars. 
 
 Church V. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 1. 
 Failure of company to notify 
 passenger of a regulation 
 requiring passage upon the 
 most direct route. 
 Church V. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 1. 
 Failure to inform conductor of 
 change in rules and regula- 
 tions. 
 
 Sheets v. Ohio River R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 2, p. 129. 
 Failure to notify passenger of 
 change of cars at distant 
 junction. 
 
 Church V. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 1. 
 Implied consent of passenger 
 to rule. 
 
 Deery v. Camden & A. R. 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 2, p. 
 22S. 
 Injury to passenger violating 
 rule of company. 
 Deery v. Camden & A. R. 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 2, p. 
 225. 
 Notice against riding on plat- 
 form waived by failure to 
 provide seats. 
 
 Graham v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 vol. 12, p. 149. 
 Passengers leaving car by 
 baggage compartment. 
 Deery v. Camden & A. R. 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 2, p. 
 225. 
 Passengers occupying plat- 
 form. 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Meyers (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 
 225. 
 Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. 
 Chollette (Neb.), vol. 2, 
 p. 225. 
 Reasonableness. 
 Church V. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 1. 
 Reasonableness of regula- 
 tions. 
 
 Gregory v. Chicago, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa) , vol. 6, p. 
 775. 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Regulations binding on pas- 
 senger having notice. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Kelsey (111.), vol. 16, 
 p. 82. 
 Unreasonable rule against 
 backing cars to receive pas- 
 sengers at crossing. 
 Jackson Electric Ry., Light 
 & Power Co. v. Lowry 
 (Miss. ) , vol. 23, p. 103. 
 
 Separate Coaches. 
 
 Constitutionality of statutes. 
 Plessy V. Ferguson (U. S.), 
 vol. 4, p. 277. 
 Failure of conductor to assign 
 passengers to separate 
 coaches. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth (Ky.), vol. 
 5, p. 644. 
 Failure to furnish equal ac- 
 commodation. 
 
 Norwood V. Galveston, H. & 
 S. A. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), vol. 3, p. 395. 
 Separate coach statute con- 
 strued. 
 
 Brown v. State (Ga.), vol. 
 17, p. 247. 
 Statute requiring separate 
 coaches is constitutional. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth (Ky.), vol. 
 14, p. 508. 
 
 Separate Trains. 
 
 People V. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 6, p. 241. 
 Business of leased roads as 
 well as main road considered 
 on question of compelling 
 operation of separate pas- 
 senger train. 
 
 People, Cantrell v. St. Louis, 
 A. & T. H. R. Co. (111.), 
 vol. 12, p. 227. 
 Severance of parties plaintiff in 
 action for breach or contract 
 to carry funeral party. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Marshall 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 82. 
 Speed, suflBciency of evidence to 
 show negligence in running 
 train at high rate of speed in 
 action for injury to postal 
 clerk. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ark.), vol. 20, p. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 261 
 
 OAREIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 —Continued. 
 
 Speed of train, operation of car 
 around curve at hig-h rats of 
 speed. 
 Gidionsen v. Union Depot R. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 226. 
 Hite V. Metropolitan St. R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 225. 
 Starting Trains and Cars. 
 
 Care due in starting mixed 
 train. 
 
 Macon, D. & S. R. Co. v. 
 Moore (Ga.), vol. IS, p. 
 842. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to g'o 
 to jury in action forinjuring 
 boarding- passenger by start- 
 ing street car. 
 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. 
 V. Baer (Md.), vol. 22, p. 
 662. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 Failure of station agent to 
 protect person in station 
 from assault and robbery. 
 Krantz v. Rio Grande West- 
 ern R. Co. (Utah), vol. 2, 
 p. 432. 
 Rights of passengers at sta- 
 tions. 
 
 Kates V. Atlanta, B. & C. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 140. 
 Stockman, carrier negligent in 
 maintaining snowshed of in- 
 sufficient height and in not 
 giving warning of its height. 
 Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 14, p. 374. 
 Substitution of baggage car for 
 pa,ssenger coach. 
 Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. 
 V. Swann (Md.), vol. 2, p. 
 187. 
 ■Sufficiency of evidence of neg- 
 ligence where car door shut 
 upon passenger's hand. 
 Skinner v. Wilmington & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 22, 
 • p. 32. 
 
 ■The negligent and terrifying 
 acts and exclamations of a 
 brakeman in the caboose of 
 a mixed freight and passen- 
 ger train were such as to rea- 
 sonably cause a passenger in 
 . the caboose to believe that a 
 wreck was imminent and he 
 jumped from the train and 
 was injured. It appeared that 
 the brakeman had no express 
 duty to perform in or about 
 the caboose nor in the direc- 
 
 OARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 tion of the passengers and 
 that there was no reason for 
 his alarm : held, that the rail- 
 way company was liable for 
 the injuries. 
 Ephland v. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 7, p. 579. 
 Where train broke apart negli- 
 gence was a question for jury. 
 Delaware, L,. & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ashley (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 386. 
 Whether carrier is liable for 
 injury caused to passenger by 
 a brakeman, while off duty, 
 going to summon conductor to 
 collect tickets, where brake- 
 man afterwards collected the 
 tickets himself. 
 Schimpf V. Harris (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 470. 
 
 Who Are Passengers. 
 
 Alighting at intermediate sta- 
 tion. 
 Lemery v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 257. 
 Alighting at intermediate sta- 
 tion does not terminate 
 relation of carrier and pas- 
 senger. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Overfield (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), vol. 12, p. 207. 
 A person with ticket care- 
 lessly entering train and 
 chargeable with knowledge 
 that it will not stop at his 
 destination is, within mean- 
 ing of Arkansas statute 
 providing for recovery of 
 damages for ejection of pas- 
 senger at place other than 
 usual stopping place. 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Harper (Ark.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 77. 
 Carrier not liable for injury to 
 one who while riding in bag- 
 gage car, colluding with 
 baggage-master, was com- 
 pelled by the latter to jump 
 from moving train. 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 
 Anderson (Miss. ) , vol. 14, 
 
 p. 412. 
 Duty of company, when duty 
 ends. 
 Louisville R. Co. v. Park 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 212. 
 
263 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Employee riding' from work 
 as passenger. 
 
 lonnone v. New York, N. H. 
 &H. R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 16, 
 p. 359. 
 Employee riding to work a 
 passenger. 
 
 Chattanooga Rapid-Transit 
 Co. V. Venable (Teun.), 
 vol. 19, p. 768. 
 Employees as passengers. 
 McNulty V. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 685. 
 "Wright V. Northampton & 
 H. R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 10, p. 151. 
 Employees riding on passes as 
 passengers. 
 
 Whitney v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 184. 
 Eailure to leave train within 
 reasonable time. 
 Chicago, Kansas & Western 
 R. Co. V. Prazer (Kan.), 
 vol. 2, p. 206. 
 Freight trains. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Black 
 (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 652. 
 How relation of carrier and 
 passenger created. 
 Parley v. Cincinnati, H. & 
 D. R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 21, p. 404. 
 Lfiability for injury to mail 
 agent, suflBciency of evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Martin v. Philadelphia & R. 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 23, p. 
 170. 
 One boarding a train intended 
 for a certain class of persons, 
 to which class he does not 
 belong, is not a passenger. 
 Eitzgibbon v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 14, 
 p. 270. 
 One does not cease to be a pas- 
 senger by merely leaving car 
 to avoid danger. 
 Gradert v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 
 118. 
 Passengers crossing track to 
 depot is not a trespasser. 
 Girton v. L,ehigh Valley R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 157. 
 Person on freight train, sufia-' 
 ciency of evidence. 
 Menaugh v. Bedford Belt Ry. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 22, p. 1. 
 
 CARRIERS OP PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Person on premises with inten- 
 tion of engaging passage. 
 Tillett V. Lynchburg & D. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 2, p. 167. 
 Person on train by mistake. 
 Ivewis V. President, etc.. 
 Canal Co. (N. Y.), vol. 2, 
 p. 192. 
 Person riding in stock car is 
 presumed not a passenger. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. L,ee (C. C. A.), vol. 14, 
 p. 264. 
 Person with commutation 
 ticket crossing tracks in 
 street to take train is not. 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 Jennings (111. ) , vol. 22, p. 
 127. 
 Plaintiff in action for personal 
 injuries must prove that he 
 is a passenger for hire where 
 it has been denied. 
 Clark V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 293. 
 Postal clerk as passenger. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kingham (Ky.), vol. S, p. 
 401. 
 Purchase of ticket not prereq- 
 uisite to relation of passen- 
 ger under Arkansas statute. 
 St. Louis & S. P. R. Co. V. 
 Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol. 17, 
 p. 212. 
 
 Railway mail clerk not a pas- 
 senger within meaning of 
 Pennsylvania statute. 
 Poreman v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 246. 
 
 Reception of persons as pas- 
 sengers by conductor of con- 
 struction train. 
 Chicago, Kansas & Western 
 
 R. Co. V. Prazer (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 206. 
 Relation of carrier and pas- 
 senger not terminated by 
 passenger leaving car tempo- 
 rarily at intermediate sta- 
 tion. 
 Alabama G. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Coggins (C. C. A.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 109. 
 
 Riding on engine. 
 Wilcox V. San Antonio & A. 
 P. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 442. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 263 
 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Servant riding- gratuitously by 
 permission of conductor is 
 a passeng-er. 
 I^ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Scott (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 261. 
 Stockman as a passenger. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Winters (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 93. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bell (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 413. 
 New York, C. & St. Louis R. 
 
 Co. V. Blumenthal (111.), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 174. 
 Transportation of post office 
 inspectors. 
 Central Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 United States (U. S.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 777. 
 When relation of carrier and 
 passeijger terminates. 
 Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Moore (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 84. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Win- 
 ters (111.), vol. 12, p. 93. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Keller (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 89. 
 Where one boards a train 
 intended for a class of per- 
 sons to whom he does not 
 belong-, and is received by 
 the conductor, and there is 
 no evidence of his knowledge 
 of limitations on the con- 
 ductor's authority to receive 
 him, the question whether 
 he was a passenger is for 
 the jury. 
 Fitzgibbon v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 14, p. 270. 
 Whether passenger on train 
 not stopping- at his station 
 is a trespasser. 
 Baldwin v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 
 Co. of Canada (Mich.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 117. 
 Whether passenger or tres- 
 passer, question depending 
 on whether mail clerk 
 boarded car at proper place. 
 Farley v. Cincinnati, H. & 
 
 D. R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 404. 
 Whether purchase of ticket or 
 ability to pay fare, is neces- 
 sary to constitute one a 
 passenger, 
 luness V. Boston, R. B. & L. 
 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 819. 
 
 CARS. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Inspection. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Car service association. 
 Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. 
 Ohio & Mississippi Railroad 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 722. 
 Heating. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 Co. V. People of the State 
 of New York (U. S.), vol. 
 8, p. 172. 
 Lease and sublease of cars 
 by receivers. 
 
 Mercantile Trust & Deposit 
 Co. V. Atlanta Stone, Coal 
 & Lumber Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 8, p. 102. 
 Mercantile Trust and De- 
 posit Co. V. Southern Iron 
 Car Line Co. (Ala.), vol. 8, 
 p. 102. 
 
 CAR STEPS. 
 
 See Street Railways. 
 
 OAR TRUST LEASES. 
 Receivers. 
 
 Lessor entitled to reasonable 
 compensation for use of 
 stock by receiver of company. 
 Piatt V. Philadelphia & R. 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 169. 
 Receivers' assumption of 
 obligations by use of leased 
 rolling stock. 
 Piatt V. Philadelphia & R. 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 169. 
 
 CATTLE. 
 
 See Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Fences. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 CATTLE CHUTES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Fences. 
 
 CATTLE GUARDS. 
 See Stock, Injuries to. 
 Action for damages from 
 failure to erect, pleading. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Harrell 
 (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 859. 
 Cattle guards are among as- 
 sumed risks of railway employ- 
 ment. 
 
 Fuller V. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 3, p. 589. 
 
264 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 ■OATTLB QVABJiSi— Continued. 
 
 Construction of cattle guards 
 
 where it is not required by 
 
 law is not neg-ligence. 
 
 Fuller V. L,ake Shore & M. S. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 3, p. 589. 
 
 ■ iContributory negligence in 
 
 action based on defect in 
 
 cattle guards. 
 
 Hathaway v. Detroit, T. & M. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 19, p. 
 714. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. City of Milwaukee (Wis.), 
 vol. 9, p. 537. 
 Defenses in proceedings to 
 revive action for failure to 
 maintain cattle guards against 
 purchaser of franchises. 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Glover (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 
 708. 
 Duty to build cattle guards at 
 wagon crossings in cities. 
 Groft V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 11, p. 652. 
 Injuries to stock, duty to con- 
 struct cattle guards. 
 Atchison, T.A S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Billings (Kan.), vol. 10, p. 
 740. 
 Inquiry into propriety of loca- 
 tion of station in such prox- 
 imity to public highway that 
 ■cattle guard could not be con- 
 structed. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R- Co. v. 
 
 Clonch (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 240. 
 
 I<iability for failure to erect, 
 
 where no necessity is shown. 
 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Fowler (Ga.) , vol. 11, p. 860. 
 
 Liability of purchaser at 
 
 receiver's sale for damages 
 
 from failure to maintain 
 
 cattle guards. 
 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Glover (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 708. 
 I/iability of receivers for failure 
 to maintain. 
 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Glover (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 
 708. 
 IJo obligation to maintain at 
 intersection with fences built 
 on right of way by former 
 owner where company ac- 
 quired fee-simple title. 
 Anderson v. Atlantic Coast 
 Line Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 20, p. 230. 
 Opinion evidence to effect that 
 guard could not be constructed 
 
 CATTLE GcXSABXiS— Continued. 
 without danger to employees. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Clonch (C. C. A.), vol. 3, p. 
 240. 
 Whether tenant is entitled to 
 complain of failure to comply 
 with statutory duty to repair. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Murphree (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 
 758. 
 Who is owner of land, and there- 
 fore bound to construct, under 
 Ga. Act of Nov. 11, 1889. 
 Harden v. Chattanooga South- 
 ern R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 
 632. 
 
 OATTLB PENS. 
 
 See Carriers of Live Stock. 
 CERTIFICATES. 
 
 See Receivers. 
 CERTIFICATION. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 CERTIFIED QUESTIONS. 
 
 Sufficiency. 
 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ey. Co. 
 V. Zantzinger (Tex.) , vol. 13, 
 p. 840. 
 
 CERTIORARI. 
 Error in overruling. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Ross (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 12. 
 Error in refusing petition. 
 Central of Georgia R. Co. v. 
 Woolsey (Ga.), vol. 19, p. 573. 
 Review of action of railroad 
 commissioners permitting 
 abandonment of station. 
 People, Loughran v. Board of 
 Railroad Com'rs of State of 
 New York (N. Y.), vol. IS, 
 p. 441. 
 
 CHANGE OP GRADE. 
 See Railroads in Streets. 
 Street Railways. 
 In city streets. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. City of 
 Defiance (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 
 638. 
 Rights of abutters. 
 Borough of McKeesport v. 
 McKeesport S. R. Co. (Pa. 
 St.), vol. 1, p. 171. 
 Kaufman v. Tacoma, O. & G. 
 H. R. Co. (Wash.), vol. 1, 
 p. 171. 
 LJmburger v. San Antonio R. 
 T. Co. (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 171. 
 May V. Carbondale Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 171. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 265 
 
 CHANGE OF LOCATION. 
 
 Carriers. 
 
 XfOwell V. Washington County 
 R. Co. (Me.), vol. 9, p. 115. 
 County commissioners. 
 
 Lowell V. Washington County 
 R. Co. (Me.), vol. 9, p. ISl. 
 
 CHANGE OF MOTIVE 
 POAVBR. 
 
 See Street Railroads. 
 
 CHANGE OF ROUTE. 
 Burden of proof as to necessity. 
 Village of Wayzata v. Great 
 Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 7, p. 360. 
 
 CHARACTER IN EVIDENCE. 
 See Evidence. 
 Simulating pain. 
 Austin & N. W. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Elmuirry (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 445. 
 
 CHARACTER OF NEGLI- 
 GENT ACT. 
 
 Jackson v. Norfolk & Western 
 R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 
 455. 
 
 CHARGES. 
 
 See Interstate Commerce, 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 CHARTER AUTHORITY. 
 
 See Consolidation of Rail- 
 roads. 
 
 CHARTERED TRAINS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 CHARTERS. 
 See Railroads. 
 
 Stock and Stockholders. 
 Street Railways. 
 Act inconsistent with prior leg- 
 islation as evidence of intent 
 to repeal existing charters. 
 West Jersey Traction Co. v. 
 Camden Horse R. Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. 1, p. 132. 
 Construction of. 
 
 Williamson v. Gordon Heights 
 Ry. Co. (Del.), vol. 14, p. 
 809. 
 Construction of charter of street 
 railway company. 
 West Jersey Traction Co. v. 
 Camden Horse R. Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. 1, p. 132. 
 Legislative power to amend 
 
 CHARTERS— Continued. 
 
 charter does not authorize con- 
 fiscation of property. 
 In re Opinion of the Justices 
 (N. H.), vol. 3, p. 447. 
 Pleading and proving in action 
 by foreign corporation. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 13, p. 423. 
 Whether refusal to grant pre- 
 vents renewal of petition. 
 In re Milford & M. R. R. (N. 
 H.), vol. IS, p. 818. 
 
 CHECKS. 
 
 See Pay Checks. 
 
 CHILDREN. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 , Fences. 
 Parent and Child. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Accident at street railway cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Consolidated & C. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Wyatt (Kan.), vol. 9, p. 
 756. 
 Allowing boys to ride on plat- 
 forms of street railway • cars. 
 Cronan v. Crescent City R. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 225. 
 As witnesses. 
 Burke v. KUis (Tenn.) , vol. 19, 
 p. 695. 
 Boy of a little over seven years 
 of age playing on railroad 
 right of way is a trespasser as 
 a matter of law. 
 Trudell v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 316. 
 Care due boy, who had been a 
 trespasser on company's plat- 
 form, at crossing. 
 Daubert v. Delaware, L. & W. 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 456. 
 Care required of. 
 Weldon v. Philadelphia, W. & 
 B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 13, p. 
 759. 
 Care required of parents to pre- 
 vent children straying on 
 track. 
 
 Thomas v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 
 586. ■ 
 
 Care required of street railways 
 
 to avoid injuring children of 
 
 tender years. 
 
 Levin v. Second Ave. Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 23, p. 318. 
 
266 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CHILDREN— Continued. 
 Care required on part of chil- 
 dren. 
 Adams v. Southern Rj'. Co. 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 9, p. 747. 
 Van Natta v. People's Street 
 Railway, etc., Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 3, p. 433. 
 Care to be exercised by railroad 
 company where children have 
 license in the yard. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Waller (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 620. 
 Child only held to such degree 
 of care as is reasonably to be 
 expected of children of his age. 
 Tully V. Philadelphia, W. & 
 B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 20, p. 
 322. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 829. 
 Cronan v. Crescent City R. 
 
 Co. (Iva.), vol. 6, p. 225. 
 Culbertson v. Crescent City 
 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 522. 
 Fox V. Oakland Consol. St. 
 
 Ry. (Cal.), vol. 9, p. 825. 
 Hedin v. City & Suburban 
 
 R. Co. (Ore.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 265. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jones 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 15, p. 16. 
 Johnson v. Reading- City 
 
 Pass. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 264. 
 Krenzer v. Pittsburgh, C, C. 
 
 & St. L. Ry. Co. (lud.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 343. 
 Mitchell V. Tacoma R. & M. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 1, p. 264. 
 Moss V. Philadelphia Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 690. 
 Riley v. Salt Lake R. T. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 1, p. 264. 
 Smith V. Pittsburgh & W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ohio), vol. 13, p. 
 
 716. 
 Swack V. New York, L- E. & 
 
 W. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 609. 
 West Chicago St. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Scanlan (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 482. 
 
 Age of boy nine years old mak- 
 ing his contributory negli- 
 gence in stumbling over 
 cinders piled near track a 
 question for the jury. 
 Anderson v. Union Ter- 
 minal R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, 
 p. 834. 
 
 CHILDREN— Co«^j«a^flf. 
 
 Age of, significance only as 
 mark of capacity. 
 Bess V. Atchison, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 19, p. 586. 
 Apprehension of danger from 
 train by boy seven years and 
 four months old. 
 Trudell v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 316. 
 Apprehension of danger, in- 
 structions. 
 
 Geist V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 364. 
 Boy's capacity for contribu- 
 tory negligence question for 
 
 jury- 
 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Shiflet (Tex.), vol.20, p. 
 
 38. 
 Boy's realization of danger of 
 falling asleep on track, suffi- 
 ciency of evidence for sub- 
 mission to jury. 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Shiflet (Tex.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 38. 
 Capacity of boy killed on track 
 to appreciate danger from 
 trains, admissibility of evi- 
 dence. 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Shiflet (Tex.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 38. 
 Child's capacity for, contribu- 
 tory negligence question of 
 law. 
 Bess V. Atchison, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 19, p. 586. 
 Child killed on track. 
 Pletcher v. Scranton Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 715. 
 Child run over by street car. 
 Harkins v. Pittsburgh, A. & 
 
 M. Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 302. 
 San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Bergsland (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 304. 
 Climbing over train. 
 
 Carmer Z). Chicago, St. P., M. 
 
 & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 331. 
 
 Contributory negligence of 
 parent will bar recovery for 
 wrongful death of child. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Dawson (Ark.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 30. 
 
 Degree of care required of 
 children . 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jones 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 15, p. 16. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 267 
 
 C'H.IIjDB.^EIN— Continued:. 
 
 Effect of contributory negli- 
 gence of boy nine years of 
 ag-e in playing on hand car. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 son (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 644. 
 Effect of contributory negli- 
 gence of boy ten years of 
 age in walking on track, in 
 action for his death based on 
 violation of ordinance re- 
 quiring bell to be rung. 
 Schmitt V. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 216. 
 Evidence of brightness and in- 
 telligence of child as affect- 
 ing contributory negligence, 
 admissible. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Potter (Kan.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 660. 
 Evidence of brightness and 
 intelligence of child is ad- 
 missible where contributory 
 negligence is an issue. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Potter (Kan.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 660. 
 Pact that an eight year old boy 
 would not have been in- 
 jured had he not been a tres- 
 passer was not conclusive 
 evidence of contributory 
 negligence. 
 Tully V. Philadelphia, W. & 
 
 B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 322. 
 Immature age of boy seventeen 
 years of age could not be 
 considered as bearing on the 
 question of his contributory 
 negligence. 
 Lemasters v. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 20, p. 296. 
 Instruction not warranted by 
 evidence. 
 Geist V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 364. 
 It is for the jury to determine 
 what degree of care and 
 prudence may be reasonably 
 required of a child of tender 
 years, from all the evidence 
 as to his capacity, and the 
 facts of the case on trial. 
 Consolidated City & C. P. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Carlson (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 274. 
 Not attributable to child six- 
 teen months of age. 
 Mason v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 83. 
 Of parents in sending nine 
 year old boy ou errand 
 
 CHILDREN— Co«««a^ar. 
 across railroad track. 
 Daubert v. Delaware L. & 
 
 W. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 4S6. 
 Of parents will bar recovery 
 for wrongful death. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Dawson (Ark.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 30. 
 Parents allowing children to 
 go on the railroad track. 
 Dan V. Citizens' St. R. Co. 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. 10, p. 880. 
 Garner v. Trumbull (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. IS, p. S89. 
 Parents' negligence. 
 
 Cunningham v. Los Angeles 
 
 Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 783. 
 Gunn V. Ohio River R. Co. 
 
 (W. Va.), vol.16, p. 275. 
 Parents' negligence in allow- 
 ing child to run on street not 
 proximate cause of its death. 
 Ploof V. Burlington Traction 
 
 Co. (Vt.), vol. 13, p. 702. 
 Question for jury. 
 Graney v. St. Louis, I. M. & 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mb.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 187. 
 Tully V. Philadelphia, W. & 
 
 B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 322. 
 Question for jury whether boy 
 twelve years of age was 
 guilty of in taking hold of 
 electric wire after being 
 warned of danger. 
 Macon v. Paducah St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 614. 
 Running in front of moving 
 street car. 
 Perry v. Macon Consol. St. 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 819. 
 Suit by administrator, negli- 
 gence of father. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 
 Hone (N. J.), vol. S, p. 679. 
 The court will not declare, as 
 matter of law, that a, boy teni 
 years old who crosses a street 
 car track in a crowd of 
 school children, just re- 
 leased from school, is culpa- 
 bly negligent because he 
 fails to see a street car com- 
 ing towards him, at a high 
 rate of speed, without the 
 ringing of any bell or other 
 warning. 
 Consolidated City & C. P. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Carlson (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 274. 
 
268 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CIII1jDB,EN— Continued. 
 
 The fact that a child may not 
 be capable of contributory 
 negligence does not always 
 render the defendant liable 
 upon the mere proof of the 
 act causing' injury. 
 Culbertson v. Crescent City 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 522. 
 Whether child of tender years 
 is chargeable with contribu- 
 tory neglifi'ence. 
 Gunn V. Ohio River R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 27S. 
 Crossings, degree of care re- 
 quired of children at crossings. 
 Goodrich v. Burlington, C. R. 
 & N. R. Co. (Iowa) , vol. 3, 
 p. 620. 
 Damages. 
 Disability during minority. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Johnson (Tex.), vol. 11, p. 
 291. 
 Elements of damage in ac- 
 tions for injuries to children. 
 E^leishman v. Neversink 
 Mountain R. Co. (Pa. St.), 
 vol. 4, p. 261. 
 L(Oss of time. 
 Burke z/. Ellis (Tenn.),vol. 
 19, p. 695. • 
 Measure of damages for death 
 of child. 
 
 Ft. Worth & D. C. Railway 
 Co. V. Hvatt (Tex.), vol. 
 3, p. 397. 
 Goodrich v. Burlington, C. 
 R. & N. R. Co. (Iowa), voL 
 3, p. 620. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Covenia 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 551. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Wilder (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 520. 
 Measure of damages for death 
 of child, under South Caro- 
 lina statute. 
 
 Mason zi. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 84. 
 Right of adult children to re- 
 cover damages for negligent 
 killing of their father, who 
 made them a yearly allow- 
 ance, is not affected by the 
 fact that they inherited his 
 estate. 
 
 Stabler v. Philadelphia & R. 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 
 815. 
 Declarations of as evidence. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Potter (Kan.), vol. 15, p. 
 660. 
 
 OHItiDBBN — Continued. 
 Degree of care required of boy 
 as a passenger. 
 
 Georgia, C. & N. R. Co. v. 
 Watkins (Ga.), vol. 3, p. 429. 
 Duty of engineer when infant 
 appears on track. 
 Gunn V. Ohio River R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 275. 
 Duty to child trespassing on 
 track near crossing. 
 Brague v. Northern Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. IS, p. 594. 
 Duty to guard excavation likely 
 to attract children . 
 Savannah, F. & W Ry. Co. v. 
 Beavers (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 646. 
 Electric railway company was 
 not liable for injury to child. 
 Fleishman v. Neversink 
 Mountain R. Co. (Pa. St.), 
 vol. 4, p. 261. 
 Evidence as to negligence of 
 driver and defective brake 
 where child was injured. 
 Gannon v. New Orleans City, 
 etc., R. Co. (I<a.), vol. 6, p. 
 792. 
 Evidence of brightness and 
 intelligence of , admissible 
 where contributory negligence 
 is an issue. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Potter (Kan.), vol. 15, p. 
 660. 
 Evidence of earning capacity of 
 child injured on track. 
 Jeffries v. Seaboard A. L. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 339. 
 Evidence to show number of 
 children of deceased. 
 Felton V. Spiro (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 865. 
 Failure to give signal as proxi- 
 mate cause where child was 
 injured at crossing, instruc- 
 tion. 
 
 Geist V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. 
 (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 364. 
 Gross negligence in leaving 
 hand car unlocked and acces- 
 sible to children. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wilson 
 (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 644. 
 Impairment of earning capacity 
 during minority as element of 
 damages- 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. V. 
 Davis (Ky. ) , vol. 19, p. 711. 
 Imputable negligence. 
 
 Dan V. Citizens' St. R. Co. 
 
 (Tenu.), vol. 10, p. 880. 
 Gunn V. Ohio River R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 275. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 269 
 
 CHILDREN— Continued. 
 Imputable neglig-ence of father 
 in suit by administrator of 
 minor. 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 Hone (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 679. 
 Imputed neg-lig-ence of parents. 
 Bias V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.),vol. 13, p. 616. 
 Ploof V. Burliug-ton Traction 
 Co. (Vt.), vol. 13, p. 702. 
 Injuries to children in yard. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Waller (Ga.), vol. S, p. 620. 
 Injury by street railroad. 
 
 Nelson v. Crescent City R. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 7, p. 192. 
 Injury to child on street railway 
 track. 
 
 Bergen County Traction Co. 
 V. Heitman (N. J.), vol. 11, 
 p. 286. 
 Injury to children on dangerous 
 premises. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 Edwards (Tex.), vol. S, p. 
 343. 
 Injury to child through viola- 
 tion of ordinance as to rate of 
 speed. 
 
 Graney v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 8, p. 187. 
 Joint action by parent and son, 
 instructions. 
 
 Gulf,' C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Johnson (Tex.), vol. 11, p. 
 291. 
 Killing child at crossing who 
 was climbing over trains. 
 Carmer v. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 8, 
 p. 331. 
 Killing child on track. 
 Alabama Great Southern R. 
 Co. V. Moorer (Ala.), vol. 9, 
 p. 742. 
 Liabi^ty for injuries to infant 
 trespasset ejected from mov- 
 ing train. 
 
 Enright v. Pittsburg Junction 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 20, p. 564. 
 Liability for injury to boy play- 
 ing on cross-ties piled in pub- 
 lic street. 
 
 Kramer v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 329. 
 Liability for injury to boy play- 
 ing with unlocked hand car. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wilson 
 (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 644. 
 Liability for injury to boy tres- 
 passer in railroad yard. 
 Bledsoe v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 927. 
 
 CHILDREN— Continued. 
 
 Liability for injury to child as 
 affected by failure to fence 
 tracks. 
 Marengo v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 660. 
 Liability for injury to child seen 
 by employees playing on 
 standing car, question for 
 jury. 
 Tully V. Philadelphia, W. & 
 
 B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 322. 
 Liability of company for carry- 
 ing child beyond destination. 
 Gage V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (Miss.), vol. 8, p. 377. 
 
 Liability of company where 
 
 child fell into excavation on 
 
 right of way and was drowned, 
 
 Dobbins v. Missouri, K. & T. 
 
 Ry. Co. of Texas (Tex.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 179. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for injury to child who strays 
 upon track in consequence of 
 failure of company to fence. 
 Rosse V. St. Paul & D. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 351. 
 Liability of railroad where a 
 child suddenly went under car 
 for a ball. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Waller (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 620. 
 Liability of receiver for negli- 
 gence of employees in permit- 
 ting child to ride in dangerous 
 place. 
 Burke v. Ellis (Tenn.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 695. 
 Liability of street railway com- 
 pany where child suddenly 
 runs on track and is killed. 
 Callery v. Easton Transit Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 11, p. 323. 
 Culbertson v. Crescent City R. 
 
 Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 522. 
 Lookout, liability for failure to 
 maintain where proximate 
 cause of death of trespassing 
 child sixteen months of age. 
 Mason v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 83. 
 Negligence a question for jury. 
 Reilly v. Philadelphia Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. S, p. 399. 
 Negligence of mother of injured 
 child in suffering him to wan- 
 der upon track was a question 
 for jury. 
 Green v. Chicago & W. M. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, p. 317. 
 
270 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CHILDREN— Continued. 
 Negligence of parents in allow- 
 ing child to run on street was 
 not proximate cause of its 
 death. 
 
 Ploof V. Burlington Traction 
 
 Co. (Vt.), vol. 13, p. 702. 
 
 Negligence per se to allow child 
 
 . of about seven years of age to 
 
 ride on car loaded with loose 
 
 earth. 
 
 Burke v. EUis (Tenn.), vol. 19, 
 p. 695. 
 Obstruction near track of street 
 railway and failure to signal. 
 Perry v. Macon Consol. St. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 
 819. 
 Presumption that boy seven 
 years and four month old 
 standing on railroad track 
 would avoid train. 
 Trudell v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 316. 
 Presumption that boy thirteen 
 years of age seen near track 
 will keep out of danger. 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. < v. 
 Kieff (Tex.), vol. 20, p. 238. 
 Proximate cause of injury to boy 
 nine years old stumbling over 
 cinders piled near track. 
 Anderson v. Union Terminal 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 834. 
 Right of child to recover wages 
 lost in action for personal 
 injuries brought by father as 
 guardian ad litem, 
 lyieberman v. Third Ave. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 858. 
 Street Railway Accidents. 
 
 Fox V. Oakland Consol. St. 
 Ry. (Cal.), vol. 9, p. 825. 
 Kierzenkowski v. Philadel- 
 phia Traction Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 9, p. 533. 
 Mitchell V. Tacoma R. & 
 M. Co. (Wash.), vol. 1, p. 
 269. 
 San Antonio St. R. Co. v. 
 Melchler (Tex. ) , vol. 1, p. 
 265. 
 Slensby v. Milwaukee St. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 9, p. 
 527. 
 Street railway's duty towards 
 children in the streets. 
 Czezewzka v. Benton-Belle- 
 fontaine R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 1, p. 258. 
 Mitchell V. Tacoma R. & M. 
 ■ Co. (Wash.), vol. 1, p. 258. 
 Riley v. Salt Lake R. T. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 1, p. 258. 
 
 CHILDREN— Continued. 
 
 San Antonio St. R. Co. v. 
 Melchler (Tex. ) , vol. 1, p. 
 257. 
 Wallace v. City & Suburban 
 R. Co. (Ore.), vol.1, p. 258. 
 Street railway's liability for 
 injury to child. 
 Sciortino v. Crescent City 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 526. 
 SuflBciency of evidence as to em- 
 ployment of boy to assist in re- 
 volving turntable. 
 Stacker v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, p. 704. 
 Testimony of engineer as to 
 whether injury to child could 
 have been prevented. 
 Jeffries v. Seaboard A. L. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 339. 
 There is no issue of manhood or 
 childhood in an action for in- 
 juries to man about twenty 
 years of age caused by his 
 jumping from moving train 
 upon which he was trespass- 
 ing. 
 ' Western & A. R. Co. v. Hol- 
 somback (Ga.), vol. 19, p. 
 351. 
 
 Train running backwards 
 through yards at time of day 
 when children had permission 
 to enter the yard. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Wal- 
 ler (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 620. 
 Trespass. 
 Alabama Great Southern Ry. 
 Co. V. Moorer (Ala.), vol. 9, 
 p. 742. 
 
 Trespassing on freight car, 
 sufficiency of evidence. 
 Underwood v. Western & A. 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 739. 
 
 Turntables. 
 
 Implied invitation. 
 Delaware, I. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Reich (N. J.), vol. 11, p. 
 313. 
 Turess v. New York, S. & 
 W. R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 11, 
 p. 297. 
 
 Liability of company for in- 
 jury to child playing on 
 turntable. 
 Delaware, I. & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Reich (N. J.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 313. 
 Turess V. New York, S. & 
 
 W. R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 297. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 271 
 
 CHILDREN— Continued. 
 
 Negligrence in leaving: unse- 
 cured. 
 
 East Tennessee & W. N. C. 
 R. Co. V. Cargille (Tenn.), 
 vol. 19, p. 282. 
 Whether instruction as to duty 
 of engineer seeing- child on 
 track was contradictory. 
 Thomas v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 586. 
 Witnesses. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. 
 Waren (Ark.), vol. 13, p. 729. 
 
 ciBCurr COURTS. 
 
 See Jurisdiction . 
 
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVI- 
 DENCE. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 CIRCUS. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Contract of carriage. 
 
 Chicago, Milwaukee, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. Wallace (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 651. 
 
 CITIZENSHIP. 
 See Jurisdiction. 
 
 Removal of Causes. 
 
 CLASS LEGISLATION. 
 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 CLEARANCE CARDS. 
 See Judicial Notice. 
 
 COLD. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 COLLISIONS. 
 
 See Actions. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Injuries and Collisions. 
 Negligence. 
 Street Railways. 
 Action against both companies. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Martin (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 4. 
 Both companies liable where 
 servants of both were negli- 
 gent. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Martin (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 4. 
 Care to be exercised to avoid. 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. 
 Swope (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 856. 
 Carriers of live stock, instruc- 
 tion as to liability of company 
 
 COLLISIONS— Cb«/z««^rf. 
 
 not engaged in transporting 
 stock. 
 
 Williams v. Houston & Texas 
 Central R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 p. 533. 
 Carriers of passengers. 
 Clark V. Chicago & Alton R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 307. 
 Collision of two railroad trains 
 at intersection of tracks. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Gray (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 
 48. 
 Metropolitan, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Kennedy (C. C. A.), vol. 9, 
 p. 509. 
 Crossings. 
 Clark V. Chicago & Alton R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 307. 
 Evidence of negligence. 
 
 Julius V. Pittsburg, A. & M. 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 9, p. 
 523. 
 Hand cars. 
 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 383. 
 Intersecting railroads. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Gray 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 48. 
 Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Kennedy (C. C. A.), vol. 9, 
 p. 509. 
 Intersection of street railways. 
 Taylor v. Grand Ave. Ry. Co. 
 _ (Mo.), vol. 9, p. 863. 
 Joint liability of companies us- 
 ing track and operating trains 
 in common for injuries sus- 
 tained by collision. 
 Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. 
 Jones (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 390. 
 Negligence in attempting to 
 cross in front of approaching 
 train having right of way. 
 Davis V. Houston & S. Ry. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 22, p. 751. 
 Rights of companies inter se, 
 where collisions between their 
 trains. 
 
 Williams v. Houston & Texas 
 Central R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 p. 533. 
 Separated sections of train. 
 Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Trib- 
 ble (Va.), vol. 3, p. 632. 
 Street railways. 
 Goorin v. Allegheny Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 9, p. 864. 
 Telegraphic orders admissible in 
 evidence without specific al- 
 legations that train dispatcher 
 was negligent. 
 
 Rinard v. Omaha, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 34. 
 
272 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 OOLOBBD PERSONS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Separate Cars. 
 Constitutionality of statutes. 
 Plessy V. E'erguson (U. S.), vol. 
 
 4, p. 277. 
 
 Failure of conductor to assig-n 
 passengers separate coaches. 
 I<ouisville, etc., R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 
 644. 
 Failure to furnish equal accom- 
 modation. 
 Norwood V. Galveston, H. & 
 
 5. A. Railway Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 3, p. 39S. 
 
 Protection. 
 "Wood V. Louisville & N. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 711. 
 
 COLOR OP TITLE. 
 Right of way. 
 St.) Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Warfel (111.), vol. 6, p. 791. 
 
 COMBINATIONS. 
 
 See Competing Lines. 
 
 COMITY. 
 
 See Receivers. 
 Construction of federal statutes. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Harrison 
 (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 270. 
 
 COMMERCE. 
 
 See Interstate Commerce. 
 COMMERCIAL LAWS. 
 
 See Interstate Commerce. 
 
 COMMISSIONS. 
 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 Railroad Commissions. 
 
 COMMON CARRIERS. 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Demurrage. 
 Express Companies. 
 Common-law liability as affect- 
 ing recovery against, for loss 
 of baggage. 
 
 Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 14, p. 416. 
 Limitation of liability, burden of 
 proof. 
 
 Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 14, p. 416. 
 Sleeping car companies. 
 Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. 
 Lawrence (Miss.), vol. 8, p. 59. 
 Street railways. 
 East Omaha St. R. Co. v. 
 Godola (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 300. 
 
 COMMON KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 COMMON LAW. 
 Presumptions. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. ife S. Ry. Co. v. 
 Brown (Ark.), vol. 16, p. 440. 
 Presumption as to common law 
 of sister state. 
 
 Crandall v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, p. 388. 
 
 COMMUTATION TICKETS. 
 See Tickets and Fares. 
 
 COMPARATIVE NEGLI- 
 GENCE. 
 Cicero & Proviso St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Meixner (111.), vol. 4, p. 246. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fox 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 863. 
 Damages. 
 Macon & I. S. Elec. St. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Holmes (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 385. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Watson 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 839. 
 
 COMPETING LINES. 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 Leased Lines. 
 Railroads. 
 Charter authority to consolidate 
 with other roads, impairment 
 of obligation of contracts. 
 Pearsall v. Great Northern R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 503. 
 Combination of. 
 State V. Central of Georgia. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 845.. 
 Consolidation of railroads. 
 Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry, 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 503. 
 Obligations of contracts. 
 Louisville & Nashville R. Co. 
 V. Kentucky (U. S.), vol. 3,. 
 p. S2S. 
 Pearsall v. Great Northern R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 503. 
 Purchase of competing line by 
 railroad corporation. 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.. 
 New York & N. Ry. Co. (N. 
 Y.), vol. 7, p. 321. 
 Validity of combination be- 
 tween. 
 
 State V. Central of Georgia. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 
 845. 
 
 COMPETITION. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Consolidation of Railroads.. 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 273 
 
 COMPROMISE. 
 
 See Stock, Injuries to. 
 Tender of rescission of com- 
 promise. 
 
 Western, etc., R. Co. v. Burke 
 (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 386. 
 
 OONOtTRRING CAUSES. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 CONDEMNATION. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 CONDITIONAL SALES. 
 See Sales. 
 
 CONDITIONS. 
 See Passes. 
 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Construction of conditions sub- 
 sequent. 
 
 Little Rock & Ft. Smith Rail- 
 way Co. V. Birnie (Ark.), 
 vol. 1, p. 645. 
 Donation of land to railroad. 
 Little Rock & Ft. Smith Rail- 
 way Co. V. Birnie (Ark.), 
 vol. 1, p. 645. 
 
 CONDUCTORS. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Fellow Servants. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 CONFISCATION. 
 
 See Charters. 
 
 CONFLICT OP LA-WS. 
 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 Master and Servant. 
 National Corporations. 
 Personal Injuries. 
 Actions for injuries where acci- 
 dent occurred in foreig-n state. 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. v. 
 Deitzen (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 232. 
 Actions to recover for injuries 
 received in another state. 
 Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. 
 Lawrence (Miss.), vol. 8, p. 
 59. 
 By the law of what state con- 
 tract of carriage is governed. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. v. Sheppard (Ohio), vol. 
 6, p. 528. 
 Construction of contract made 
 in one state for transportation 
 of live stock to another state. 
 Meuer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 2, 
 p. 493. 
 
 ID— 18 
 
 CONFLICT OP l^A.'WS— Con- 
 tinued. 
 Contract of carriage governed 
 by law of place of perform- 
 ance. 
 
 Burnett v. Peunsvlvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 4, ip. 449. 
 Contract of carriage of passen- 
 gers, by what law governed. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe 
 (111.), vol. 11, p. 163. 
 Death caused by acts committed 
 without the state. 
 Rudiger v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Wis. ) , vol. 6, p. SO. 
 Enforcement in another state of 
 constitutional provision that 
 knowledge of defective 
 machinery shall not prevent 
 recovery by employees. 
 Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Ihlen- 
 berg (C. C. A.), vol. 5, p. 573. 
 Extraterritorial effect of em- 
 ployer's liability act. 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 Rouse (111.), vol. 12, p. 706. 
 Injuries inflicted in another 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (Ala.), vol. 9, p. 252. 
 Kansas court will not enforce 
 the liability created by statute 
 of New Mexico for death by 
 wrongful act it being in part 
 penal, and giving a right of 
 action to the one who would 
 not be entitled to recover un- 
 der the laws of Kansas in a 
 similar case. 
 Dale V. Atchison, T. & S. F 
 
 R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 108'. 
 
 Law controlling where injury 
 
 and death are in different 
 
 states. 
 
 Van Doren v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 577. 
 Liability for wrongful death 
 governed by law of state where 
 inflicted. 
 Cowen V. Ray (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 531. 
 Limitation of carrier's liability. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gardiner (Neb.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 534. 
 Pittsburg, C , C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Sheppard (Ohio), vol. 
 
 6, p. 528. 
 Presumption as to law of an- 
 other state. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 10, p. 88. 
 
274 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CONFLICT OF LAWS— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 State statute void as in conflict 
 with United States statute. 
 St. Louis S. W. E. Co. v. 
 Garden (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 448. 
 Validity of contract limiting 
 liability of carrier. 
 Meuer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 2, 
 p. 493. 
 
 CONNECTING CARRIERS. 
 
 See Baggage. 
 
 Burden of Proof. 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Demurrage. 
 Interstate Comtnerce. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Application of statute providing 
 that accommodations shall be 
 furnished for the transfer and 
 carriage of goods at intersec- 
 tions. 
 
 Rutland R. Co. v. Bellows 
 Falls <% S. R. St. Ry. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 23, p. 675. 
 Authority of station agent to 
 bind carrier by through con- 
 tract. 
 
 Page V. Chicago, St. Paul, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 
 2, p. 622. 
 Burden of Proof. 
 Injury to goods. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Tennessee Brewing Co. 
 (Teun.), vol. 4, p. 661. 
 Where goods are injured. 
 Gulf, etc., Rv. Co. v. Jones 
 (Ind. Ter.), vol. 5, p. 69S. 
 Carrier may contract for trans- 
 portation beyond its own lines. 
 Page V. Chicago, St. Paul, 
 etcRy. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 
 2, p. 622. 
 Carrier misbilling freight over 
 connecting line as agent of 
 other carrier is directly liable 
 to shipper. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Foulks 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 664. 
 Carrier selling ticket under 
 through-trafBc agreement not 
 liable for injuries to passen- 
 gers on line of another carrier. 
 Mathews v. Atchison, T. & 
 S. F. R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 p. 2SS. 
 Complaint in statutory action 
 against terminal carrier. 
 Cave V. Carolina Mid. Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 13, p. 195. 
 
 CONNECTING CARRIERS— 
 Continued. 
 Condition in railroad aid tax 
 petition requiring connection 
 with noncompeting line not 
 invalid as against public pol- 
 icy. 
 Bras V. McConnell (Iowa), vol. 
 
 23, p. 127. 
 Contract for through shipment 
 shown by facts and ' circum- 
 stances. 
 Page V. Chicago, St. Paul, 
 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 622. 
 Contracting carrier liable as 
 initial carrier though goods 
 were hauled from warehouse 
 to depot in same city by an- 
 other line. 
 Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Commercial Guano Co. (Ga.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 848. 
 
 Defective Cars. 
 
 Corso v.. New Orleans & N. 
 E. R. Co. (La.), vol. 5, 
 p. 43. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Snyder (Ohio), vol. 7, p. 
 768. 
 Ratzer v. Burlington, C. R. 
 &N. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 4, p. 55. 
 Shea V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 (Minn.), vol. 5, p. 695. 
 Liability for transfer of de- 
 fective car where employee 
 is injured. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Snyder. (Ohio), vol. 7, p. 
 768. 
 Transfer of defective car. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Snyder (Ohio), vol. 7, p. 
 768. 
 Delivery, by carriers by wrong 
 connecting line. 
 Brown v. Haywood Co. v. 
 Pennsylvania Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 2, p. 640. 
 Discrimination against* in issu- 
 ing through bill of lading. 
 State V. Wrightsville & T. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 576. 
 Duty to trace freight, under 
 sec. 2318 of the Civil Code of 
 Georgia, providing for lia- 
 bility for negligence of con- 
 necting carrier. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Murphey <Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 55S. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 275 
 
 CONNECTING CARRIERS- 
 Contitiued. 
 
 Duty to transfer and carry g-oods 
 at intersection, recognizance 
 for costs where petition for 
 award under V. S. , sec. 3864. 
 Rutland R. Co. v. Bellows 
 Falls & S. R. St. Ry. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 23, p. 675. 
 Effect of one connecting' carrier's 
 failure to publish joint rate on 
 validity of contract to carry. 
 Va. Coal & Iron Co. v. Louis- 
 ville & N. R. Co. (Va.), vol. 
 21, p. 261. 
 Effect of recital that initial 
 carrier has issued to the con- 
 sig-nor a through bill of lading 
 reciting that the entire freight 
 charges have been prepaid, 
 where last carrier pays pre- 
 ceding charges. 
 American National Bank v. 
 Georgia Railroad Co. (Ga.), 
 vol. 2, p. 618. 
 Enforcement of statute requir- 
 ing construction of connec- 
 tions between railroads. 
 Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co. v. State 
 
 (Fla.), vol. 20, p. 501. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Common- 
 wealth (Va.), vol. 20, p. 360. 
 Evidence, admissibility of official 
 reports of connecting carriers 
 in action for loss of goods. 
 Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 21, p. 429. 
 Evidence, as to delivery for ship- 
 ment in action against a con- 
 necting carrier. 
 Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 21, p. 429. 
 Initial carrier as agent of con- 
 necting carrier in the sale of 
 coupons. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Mulford 
 (111.), vol. 5, p. 229. 
 Initial carrier's negligence a 
 question for jury. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Farmers' & Drovers' Live- 
 stock Commission Firm 
 (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 284. 
 Intermediate carrier cannot 
 object to notice of loss pro- 
 vided for in bill of lading. 
 Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 21, p. 429. 
 Joint liability. 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Edloff (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 453. 
 
 CONNECTING CARRIERS— 
 Continued. 
 
 Judgments in proceedings to 
 enforce statutory duty to 
 make connections with other 
 roads. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Common- 
 wealth (Va.), vol. 20, p. 360. 
 Liability as partners. 
 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Lamkin (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 867. 
 Liability for breach of contract 
 to carry in bond. 
 Smith Bros. & Co. V. New 
 Orleans, etc., R. Co. (La.), 
 vol. 22, p. 419. 
 Liability for conversion of live 
 stock by connecting carrier. 
 Little Rock, etc., Rv. Co. v. 
 Odom (Ark.), vol. 6, p. 773. 
 Liability for damage to goods 
 through negligence of con- 
 necting carrier, notice to con- 
 tracting carrier. 
 Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Austin (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 343. 
 Liability for delay in transpor- 
 tation of live stock, 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Edwards (C. C. A.), vol. 
 8, p. 402. 
 Liability for injurv to goods. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ten- 
 nessee Brewing Co. (Tenn.), 
 vol. 4, p. 661. 
 Liability for loss in yard of ter- 
 minal company. 
 Huntting Elevator Co. v. Bos- 
 worth (U. S.), vol. 19, p. 651. 
 Liability for loss of connecting 
 carrier's cars in yard of termi- 
 nal company. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Bos- 
 worth (U. S), vol. 19, p 680. 
 Liability for misbilling freight 
 as affected by relation between 
 carriers created by traffic con- 
 tract. . 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Foulks 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 664. 
 Liability of both companies un- 
 der contract construed to be 
 lease and not joint traffic ar- 
 rangement. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bree- 
 den(Ky.), vol. 23, p. 131. 
 Liability of carrier after delivery 
 to connecting carrier. 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. Wa- 
 ters (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 753. 
 Liability of carrier for default 
 of connecting carrier. 
 Miller Grain & Elevator Co. v. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 8, p. 1. 
 
276 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CONNECTING OABRIBRS— 
 Continued, 
 
 Liiability of carrier transferring 
 car over connecting' lines for 
 condition of car. 
 Olson V. Pennsylvania & O. 
 Fuel Co. (Minn.), vol. IS, p. 
 837. 
 I/iability of connecting carriers 
 for breach of contract to carry 
 in bond. 
 
 Smith Bros. & Co. v. New Or- 
 leans, etc., R. Co. (lya.), vol. 
 22, p. 419. 
 I/iability of connecting carrier 
 for through shipment. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cooper (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 304. 
 Liability of contracting carrier 
 where goods left for connect- 
 ing carrier are lost. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Clayton 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 9, p. 821. 
 Liability of first carrier for loss 
 of goods on its wharf while 
 awaiting transportation by 
 second carrier. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Clayton 
 (C. C.A.), vol. 9, p. 821. 
 Liability of initial carrier be- 
 yond its own line, failure to 
 comply with statute requiring 
 carrier to obtain written re- 
 lease. 
 
 Va. Coal & Iron Co. v. Louis- 
 ville & N. R. Co. (Va.), VOL 
 21, p. 261. \ 
 Liability of initial carrier for 
 delg-y. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Farmers' & Drovers' Live- 
 stock Commission Firm 
 (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 284. 
 Liability of initial carrier for 
 diverting goods from desig- 
 nated route. 
 
 Brown & Haywood Co. v. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 640. 
 
 Liability of initial carrier for 
 
 loss in shipment beyond its 
 
 own line, under South Dakota 
 
 statutes. 
 
 Sutton V Chicago & N. W. Ry. 
 Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 20, p. 726. 
 Liability of initial carrier on its 
 own line. 
 
 Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. 
 Jones (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 389. 
 Liability of, on unwarranted 
 contract made by agent of in- 
 itial carrier. 
 
 St. I<ouis & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Ostrander (Ark.), vol. 16, 
 p. 197. 
 
 CONNECTING CARRIERS— 
 Continued. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 transferring loaded cars for 
 short distance. 
 
 Missouri Pacific Railway Co. 
 V. Wichita, Wholesale Gro- 
 cery Co. (Kan.) , vol. 2, p. 560. 
 Liability to owner of goods. 
 United States Mail Line Co. 
 V. Carrollton Furniture 
 Mfg. Co. (Ky,), vol. 9, p. 286. 
 Iviability under through bill is- 
 sued by initial carrier is sev- 
 eral, not joint. 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. 
 Co. V. N. K. Fairbanks & 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, p. 179. 
 Limiting Liability. 
 A valid condition in a through 
 bill of lading, given by the 
 initial carrier, that the lia- 
 bility of the companies as 
 common carriers should ter- 
 minate upon the arrival of 
 the goods at the station of 
 delivery, and that after- 
 wards they should be liable 
 as warehousemen only, in- 
 ures to the benefit of the 
 connecting carrier. 
 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry. 
 Co. V. Sharp (Ark.), vol. 
 7, p. 710. 
 By selling ticket containing 
 stipulation. 
 
 St. Clair z/. Kansas City, M. 
 & B. R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 
 20, p. 426. 
 Carrier limiting its liability to 
 its own line. 
 
 Page V. Chicago, St. Paul, 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 
 2, p. 622. 
 Carriers of passengers. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Haw- 
 kins (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 
 2, p. 212. 
 Contract providing that car- 
 rier's liability shall cease on 
 delivery to connecting car- 
 rier. 
 
 Keller v. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co. (Pa. St.). vol. 4, p. 263. 
 Depositing in initial carrier's 
 warehouse as delivery where 
 connecting carrier had no 
 place for reception of goods, 
 under bill of lading provid- 
 ing for termination of lia- 
 bility with delivery to next 
 carrier. 
 
 Courteen v. Kanawha Dis- 
 patch (Wis.), vol. 21, p. 
 425. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 277 
 
 CONNECTING CARRIERS— 
 Continued. 
 
 For damages occurring- upon 
 company's own lines. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Grossman (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), vol. 3, p. 42S. 
 Liability for negligence of con- 
 necting carrier under statu- 
 tory prohibition against 
 limiting liability. 
 McCann z/. Eddy (Mo.), vol. 
 2, p. 633. 
 Right of carrier to limit liabil- 
 ity to its own line. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Bowles (Ind. Ter.), vol. 8, 
 p. 12. 
 Valid condition in a through 
 bill of lading, given by ini- 
 tial carrier, that the liability 
 of the companies as common 
 carriers should terminate 
 upon the arrival of the goods 
 at the station of delivery, 
 and that afterwards they 
 should be liable as ware- 
 housemen only inures to the 
 benefit of the connecting 
 carrier. 
 
 Kansas City, Ft. S. &M. Ry. 
 Co. V. Sharp (Ark.), vol. 7, 
 p. 710. 
 "Validity of stipulation by ini- 
 tial carrier against liability. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Farmers', etc.. Live Stock 
 Commission Firm (Ky.), 
 vol. 17, p. 284. 
 Where the contract of ship- 
 ment of stock beyond a car- 
 rier's line provides that 
 there shall be no extrater- 
 miual liability for damage 
 to the stock, such liability 
 will not be held to exist 
 against the carrier. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Tarter (Ky.), vol. 7, p. 
 607. 
 Mandatory injunction as to 
 selection of. 
 
 Post V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 16, p. 201. 
 Mistake of ticket agent, ejection. 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Holmes (Miss.), vol. 10, p. 
 270. 
 Payment for goods destroyed 
 by collision on connecting 
 line. 
 
 Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. 
 Jones (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 390. 
 
 CONNECTING CARRIERS - 
 Continued. 
 Payment of freight charges ad- 
 vanced to connecting carrier 
 on another shipment as condi- 
 tion precedent to delivery. 
 Robinson v. Dover, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 753. 
 Party defendant where a rail- 
 road company is being sued by 
 the interstate commerce com- 
 mission for carrying freights 
 at an unlawful rate. 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Inter- 
 state Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S.), vol. S, p. 86. 
 Power conferred on railroad 
 commission to require joint 
 rates. 
 
 Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. & 
 P. R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, p. 
 228. 
 Power of jury in fixing terms 
 upon which railroads may con- 
 duct their lines. 
 Altoona, etc., R. Co. v. Beech 
 Creek R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 787. 
 Presumption as to initial car- 
 rier's liability. 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. 
 Co. V. N. K. Fairbanks & 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, p. 179. 
 Presumption as to negligence. 
 Farmington Mercantile Co. v. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.. 
 (Mass.), vol. 5, p. 59. 
 Presumption as to which con- 
 necting carrier caused loss. 
 Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. ». 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 21, p. 429. 
 Presumption .that injury to bag- 
 gage occurred on last road. 
 Moore v. New York, N. H. & 
 H. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 14, p. 
 210. 
 Railroad using track of another 
 company constitutes servants 
 of latter its agents. , 
 
 Murray v. Lehigh Valley K. 
 Co. (Conn.), vol. 4, p. 210. 
 Receipt of freight charges as 
 establishing a liability for 
 damages inflicted by connect- 
 ing lines. 
 
 Taylor v. Maine Central Rail- 
 road Co. (Me.), vol. 2, p. 614. 
 Release of liability on part of 
 connecting line by person 
 traveling with live stock. 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Ashley (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 212. 
 
278 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CONNECTING CARRIERS— 
 Continued, 
 Relief from liability as common 
 carrier under special contract 
 by connecting; carrier. 
 Missouri Pacific Railway Co. 
 V. Wichita Wholesale Gro- 
 cery Co. (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 560. 
 Right to contract for liability on 
 connecting' lines. 
 Taylor v. Maine Central Rail- 
 road Co. (Me.), vol. 2, p. 614. 
 Selection of. 
 Post V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 16, p. 201. 
 Statutory liability for negli- 
 gence of connecting carrier. 
 McCann v. Eddy (Mo.), vol. 2, 
 p. 633. 
 Validity of contract requiring 
 connection with noncompet- 
 ing line, question for jury. 
 Bras V. McConnell (Iowa), vol. 
 23, p\ 127. 
 Validity of joint running ar- 
 rangements as affected by dis- 
 crimination in rates. 
 Bras V. McConnell (Iowa), vol. 
 23, p. 127. 
 Violation of duty to make con- 
 nections with other roads. 
 "Southern Ry. Co. v. Common- 
 wealth (Va.), vol. 20, p. 360. 
 Whether contract made carrier 
 agent of connecting carrier in 
 forwarding freight, liabiUty 
 for injury. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. E'oulks 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 664. 
 Whether liable for losses beyond 
 their own lines. 
 Hoffman v. Union Pac. Ry, Co. 
 (Kan.), vol. 13, p. 220. 
 Whether traffic agreement made 
 carrier agent of coUnecting 
 carrier. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Foulks 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 664. 
 
 CONNECTING SWITCHES. 
 See Railroad Commissions. 
 
 CONNECTIONS. 
 
 See Connecting Carriers, 
 Constitutional Law, 
 Street Railways, 
 
 CONSOLIDATION OF RAIL- 
 ROADS. 
 
 See Competition, 
 Railroads, 
 Taxation, 
 
 CONSOLIDATIOiSr OF "RAIL.- 
 "ROAJiS— Continued. 
 Abatement and renewal of ac- 
 tions. 
 
 Curry v, Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 763. 
 Charter authority to consolidate 
 with other roads, impairment 
 of obligation of contracts. 
 Pearsall v. Great Northern R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 503. 
 Competing lines. 
 Pearsall v. Great Northern R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 503. 
 Consolidation does not abate con- 
 demnation proceedings. 
 Day V. New York, S. & W. R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 4, p. 313. 
 Conveyance of property of one 
 company to another in con- 
 sideration of one dollar 
 effected consolidation. 
 Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co. v. 
 Ashling (111.), vol. 3, p. 549. 
 Definition. 
 
 State, Nolan, Atty. Gen., v. 
 Montana Ry. Co. (Mont.), 
 vol. 11, p. 353. 
 Effect of. 
 Tompkins v. Augusta Southern 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 587. 
 Effect of consolidation of corpo- 
 rations on limitation of action. 
 Kansas City, W. & N. W. R. 
 Co. V. Way (Kan.), vol. 13, 
 p. 363. 
 Effect of on contracts of car- 
 riage. 
 
 Tompkins v. Augusta South- 
 ern R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 587. 
 Effect on pending action. 
 Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co. v. 
 Ashling (111.), vol. 3, p. 549. 
 Exemption from taxation, effect 
 of consolidation of railroads. 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Adams 
 (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 1. 
 Expulsion of passenger travel- 
 ing on ticket of old company, 
 right of action. 
 
 Tompkins v. Augusta South- 
 ern R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 587. 
 Piling articles of consolidation. 
 State V. Chicago & E. I. R- 
 Co.(Ind.), vol. 3, p. 450. 
 General power authorizing pur- 
 chase of other roads. 
 Louisville & Nashville R. Co. 
 V. Kentucky (U. S.), vol. 3, 
 p. 525. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 279 
 
 » CONSOLIDATION OF 1RA.IL,- 
 'B.OA3L>S~Continued. 
 
 Iviabilities of consolidating- com- 
 panies. 
 
 Tompkins v. Augusta South- 
 ern R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 587. 
 Liability of new company for 
 debts of predecessor. 
 Wichita & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Quinn (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 217. 
 Pacific railroads. 
 
 Union Pacific Railway Co. v. 
 Gochenour (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 288. 
 Power to unite with other roads. 
 Louisville & Nashville R. Co. 
 V. Kentucky (U. S.), vol. 3, 
 p. 525. 
 
 Rights of new corporations. 
 Smith V. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 8, p. 
 496. 
 Street railway companies. 
 State Consolidated Traction 
 Co. V. City of Elizabeth 
 (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 514. 
 Taxation. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z*. City Coun- 
 cil of Greenville (S. Car.), 
 vol. 3, p. 450. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LA^W. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Contributory Negligence . 
 
 Due Process of Law. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 
 Fences. 
 
 Fires. 
 
 Interstate Commerce . 
 
 Ordinances. 
 
 Separate Coaches. 
 
 Statutes. 
 
 Taxation. 
 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Action to enjoin ofl&cers from 
 enforcing certain rates on the 
 ground that they are unconsti- 
 tutional is not an action 
 against the state within the 
 meaning of the eleventh 
 amendment. 
 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v. 
 Higginson (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 
 1. 
 An order of the state board of 
 transportation under the pro- 
 visions of the act of March 31, 
 1887, entitled "an act to regu- 
 late railroads and prevent 
 unjust discrimination," etc., 
 which requires a railroad com- 
 pany to surrender a portion of 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LA^W — 
 Continued. 
 
 its right of way, for an eleva- 
 tor site, to a person or corpo- 
 ration engaged in the buying 
 and shipping of grain, con- 
 templates the taking of prop- 
 erty for mere private use, 
 within the constitution, and is 
 accordingly without authority 
 and void. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 State, State Board of Trans- 
 portation (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 
 349. 
 "Anti-scalpers Act" unconstitu- 
 tional. 
 
 People, Tyroler v. Warden of 
 City Prison of New York (N. 
 Y.), vol. 14, p. 474. 
 Authority of state to establish 
 unreasonable rates. 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v.. 
 Higginson (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 
 1. 
 Competing lines, charter author- 
 ity to compete with other 
 lines. 
 
 Pearsall v. Great Northern R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 503. 
 Competing lines, compliance 
 with valid police regulations 
 and changes in corporate 
 charters are not subjects for 
 compensation. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. City of Milwaukee (Wis.), 
 vol. 9, p. 537. 
 Condemnation of railroad's right 
 of way over land of coal min- 
 ing company not an interfer- 
 ence with authorized use under 
 Missouri statute. 
 Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. North- 
 western Coal & Min. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 593. 
 Constitution and statute of Ken- 
 tucky prohibiting a greater 
 charge for short than for long 
 haul, not in conflict with fed- 
 eral constitution or statutes. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth (Ky.), vol. 22, 
 p. 356. 
 Constitutionality of employer's 
 liability act of Indiana. 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. 
 Houlihan (Ind.), vol. 21, p. 
 915. 
 Constitutionality of employer's 
 liability act of Missouri of 1897. 
 Powell V. Sherwood (Mo.), vol. 
 22, p. S3. 
 
280 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — 
 
 Continued. 
 Constitutionality of Georgia 
 statute creating railroad com- 
 mission. 
 
 Trammell v. Dinsmore (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 19, p. 468. 
 Constitutionality of Ky. St., 
 sec. 820, providing for indict- 
 ment of railroads for charging 
 more for short than long haul. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth (Ky.), vol. 23, 
 p. 326. 
 Constitutionality of Maine stat- 
 ute prohibiting the bringing 
 of intoxicating liquors within 
 state. 
 
 State V, Intoxicating Liquors 
 (Me.), vol. 20, p. 511. 
 Constitutionality of Minnesota 
 statute requiring license for 
 warehouse on railroad right of 
 way. 
 
 Cargill Co. v. Minnesota (U. 
 S.), vol. 20, p. 658. 
 Coustitutiqnality of Minnesota 
 statute requiring licenses only 
 for elevators or warehouses on 
 railroad right of way or depot 
 grounds. 
 
 Cargill Co. v. Minnesota (U. 
 S.), vol. 20, p. 658. 
 Constitutionality of Nebraska 
 statute rendering carriers of 
 passengers liable in the ab- 
 sence of negligence. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Zernecke (Neb.), vol. 17, 
 p. 76. 
 Constitutionality of Ohio stat- 
 ute providing for recovery of 
 attorney's fees as cost in ac- 
 tion for damage caused by fire. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Kreager (Ohio), vol. 18, p, 
 99. 
 Constitutionality of sec. 3, art. 
 1, ch. 72, Comp. St. of Ne- 
 braska, making railroad com- 
 panies liable for injuries to 
 passengers in absence of neg- 
 ligence. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Wolfe (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 26. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Zernecke (Neb.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 76. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute au- 
 thorizing the taking of land 
 to abolish grade crossings. ' 
 Wheeler v. New York, etc., R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 143. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW^ — 
 Continued. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute cre- 
 ating liability regardless of 
 negligence. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kice 
 (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 44. 
 Constitutionality of statute ex- 
 cluding railroads from bet^efit 
 of fire tax law. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Clark, County Treas. 
 (Kan.), vol. 16, p. 844. 
 Constitutionality of statute mak- 
 ing it unnecessary to plead 
 absence of contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. Pey- 
 ton (Ind.),vol. 23, p. 343. 
 Constitutionality of statute mak- 
 ing railroad an insurer against 
 fires. 
 , ■ Blackmore v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 360. 
 Constitutionality of statute not 
 providing for appeal from 
 award of assessors, where 
 property is condemned for 
 public use. 
 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Pos- 
 tal Tel. Cable Co. (Ga.), 
 vol, 20, p. yi7. 
 Constitutionality of statute per- 
 mitting plaintiff to omit alle- 
 gations or proof of absence of 
 contributory negligence. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 181. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute pre- 
 venting employees from waiv- 
 ing benefit of employer's 
 liability act. 
 Coley V. North Carolina R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 885. 
 Constitutionality of statute pro- 
 viding that service of process 
 on operator of railroad is suffi- 
 cient. 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ball (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 186. 
 Constitutionality of statute re- 
 quiring company to pay entire 
 cost of division fences, where 
 right of w:ay is donated. 
 Sleadd v. Southern Ry. Co. in 
 
 Kentucky (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 131. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute re- 
 quiring construction of con- 
 nections between railroads. 
 Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co. v. State 
 (Fla.), vol. 20, p. 501. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 28] 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — 
 Continued. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute re- 
 quiring- payment of excess 
 profits to state. 
 
 State V. Manchester & L. R. 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 12, p. 874. 
 Constitutionality of statute re- 
 quiring- railroad to lower cul- 
 vert without compensation. 
 Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. V. Chappell (Mich.), 
 vol. 19, p. 607. 
 Constitutionality of statute re- 
 quiring- railroads to transport 
 shippers free of charge. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Campbell (Kan.), vol. 16, 
 p. 828. 
 Constitutionality of statute re- 
 quiring track connections at 
 intersections. 
 
 Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Ja- 
 cobsontU. S.), vol. 19, p. 634. 
 Construction of clauses of South 
 Carolina constitution provid- 
 ing the employee's knowledge 
 of defect shall be no defence 
 to an action for his injury. 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Contract exempting master from 
 liability for injuries to em- 
 ployees through negligence, — 
 South Carolina constitution. 
 Johnson v. Charleston & S. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 12, p. 
 761. 
 Decision of state court as to con- 
 stitutionality of state law un- 
 der state constitution not 
 reviewable by supreme court 
 of United States. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Smith (U. S.), vol. 14, p. 
 Sll. 
 Effect of exclusion of pending 
 actions on constitutionality of 
 statute permitting plaintiff to 
 omit allegations or proof of 
 absence of contributory negli- 
 g-ence. 
 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 181. 
 Employer's liability act, consti- 
 tutionality of. 
 
 Pitt,sburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Montgomery (Ind.), 
 vol. 9, p. 792. 
 Enjoining state officer from en- 
 forcing certain rates of trans- 
 portation upon the ground that 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL L A "W — 
 Continued. 
 
 the statute prescribing them 
 is repugnant to the constitu- 
 tion of the United States. 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v. 
 Higginson (U. S.), vol. 10, 
 p. 1. 
 Exemptions from taxation, effect 
 of reserved power to amend or 
 repeal. 
 
 St. Louis County v. Duluth & 
 I. R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 
 273. 
 Federal jurisdiction where 
 freight rates fixed by state. 
 Trammell v. Dinsmore (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 19, p. 469. 
 Federal questions, constitution- 
 ality of statute authorizing 
 the taking of land to abolish 
 grade crossings. 
 Wheeler v. New York, etc., R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 143. 
 Florida constitution construed. 
 State, Lamar, Atty. Gen., v. 
 Jacksonville Term. Co. 
 (Fla.), vol. 16, p. 727. 
 Geographical position of state 
 may render certain railroads, 
 standing apart, legitimate sub- 
 ject-matter of legislation. 
 Terre Haute & 1. R. Co. v. Cox 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 19, p. 327. 
 Impairing obligation of contract 
 by requiring foreign railroad 
 corporation to become resident 
 corporation. 
 
 Com. V. Mobile & O. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 185. 
 Impairment of ol)ligation of con- 
 tracts where contract is be- 
 tween railroads and cities. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 State of Nebraska (U. S.), 
 vol. 10, p. 423. 
 Interpretation of constitutional 
 provisions. 
 
 Board of Railroad Com'rs v. 
 Market St. Ry. Co. (Cal.), 
 vol. 23, p. 21. 
 Interrogations for a discovery 
 may be propounded to defend- 
 ant railroad in civil action for 
 wrongful death, under 
 Alabama statute. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bush 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 46. 
 Invalid legislation under as- 
 sumed exercise of police 
 power. 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Smith (U. S.), voL 14, p. 
 511. 
 
282 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- 
 Continued. 
 Limitation of liability of carrier 
 to its own road. 
 Miller Grain & Elevator Co. 
 V. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 8, p. 1. 
 Mandamus to compel carrier to 
 furnish equal facilities not 
 unconstitutional. 
 State V. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 18, p. 399. 
 Missouri Laws 1897, p. 96 (em- 
 ployer's liability act) , does 
 not violate the federal constitu- 
 tion by depriving the railroad 
 company of property without 
 due process of law. 
 Powell V. Sherwood (Mo.), 
 vol. 22, p. S3. 
 Missouri Laws 1897, p. 96 
 (employer's liability act), is 
 not unconstitutional as class 
 legislation. 
 
 Powell V. Sherwood (Mo.), 
 vol. 22, p. S3. 
 Municipal Corporations. 
 Act is not unconstitutional 
 because it delegates to city 
 council authority to appor- 
 tion burden of repairing 
 viaduct among several rail- 
 road companies using via- 
 duct. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 
 V. State of Nebraska (U. 
 S.), vol.10, p. 423. 
 Nebraska act of 1893 govern- 
 ing rates to be charged by 
 railroad held unconstitu- 
 tional. 
 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v. 
 Higginson (U. S.), vol. 10, 
 p. 1. 
 
 Ownership of street railways 
 by city. 
 
 Sun Printing, etc., Ass'n v. 
 Mayor of New York (N. 
 Y.), vol. 8, p. 771. 
 Validity of ordinance amend- 
 ing former ordinance per- 
 mitting use of double tracks 
 through streets and limiting 
 rights of company to one 
 track for short distance in a 
 very crowded and narrow 
 street. 
 
 Mayor, etc., of City of Balti- 
 more V. Trust and 
 Guarantee Co. . (U. S.), 
 vol. 7, p. 624. 
 Validity of ordinance author- 
 izing construction of street 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — 
 
 Continued. 
 
 railway, constitutional ques- 
 
 J:ious. 
 
 Ruckert v. Grand Ave. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 641. 
 Order of railroad commissioners 
 requiring terminal company to 
 furnish facilities to railroad 
 company and fixing reasonable 
 rates therefor is not an 
 appropriation of such terminal 
 company's property without 
 due process of law. 
 State, Lamar, Atty. Gen., v. 
 
 Jacksonville Term. Co. 
 
 (Fla.), vol. 16, p. 727. 
 Passes, constitutional prohibi- 
 tion of acceptance of free pass 
 by public official. 
 People V. Rathbone (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 166. 
 Power of legislature to fix 
 maximum rates.' 
 Smith V. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 496. 
 Power of state to fix rates. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Tompkins (S. Dak.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 70. 
 Provision of Georgia constitu- 
 tion for compensation in con- 
 demnation proceedings, con- 
 strued. 
 Austin V. Augusta T. Rv. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 711. 
 Provision of South Carolina 
 statute as to fellow servants, 
 construed. 
 Rutherford v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 17, p. 520. 
 Railroad is a person within the 
 meaning of the fourteenth 
 amendment of the constitution 
 of the United States. 
 Smyth, Attorney General, w. 
 
 Higginson (U. S.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 1. 
 Railway in park where there is 
 a prohibition against railroads 
 in streets. 
 
 Philadelphia v. McManes 
 (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 652. 
 Rates, the basis of all calcula- 
 tions as to reasonableness of 
 rates to be charged by railroad 
 company must be a fair value 
 of the property used by it for 
 convenience of the public. 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v. 
 
 Higginson (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 283 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL L A A?V - 
 Continued. 
 
 Rates, the law of Iowa providing- 
 for the punishment of common 
 carriers for fixing discriminat- 
 ing rates is constitutional. 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 10, p. 306. 
 Repeal of act enlarging the lia- 
 bility of domestic corporations 
 to their servants by constitu- 
 tional provision declaring that 
 no foreign corporation shall 
 enjoy any greater rights or 
 privileges than those enjoyed 
 by domestic corporations. 
 Crisswell v, Montana Cent. R. 
 Co. (Mont.), vol. 3, p. 6S2. 
 Right of parties governed by 
 ■former constitution. 
 McHugh V. lyouisville Bridge 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 946. 
 Section 24, ch. 39, and sec. S7, 
 ch. 54, of the Code 1891, in 
 allowing subscriptions by 
 magisterial districts in aid of 
 railroads and other works of 
 internal improvement, are not 
 unconstitutional and such sub- 
 scriptions are valid. 
 Neale v. County Court of Wood 
 County (W. Va.), vol. 7, p. 
 252. 
 Separate coaches, police power 
 of state. 
 
 Smith V. State (Tenn.), vol. 11, 
 p. 144. 
 Separate coach statute. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth (Ky.), vol. 
 14, p. 508. ' 
 
 State cannot require railroad to 
 be operated without profits 
 within its limits, merely upon 
 the ground that the company 
 earns sufBcient on its inter- 
 state business to give it just 
 compensation in respect of its 
 entire line. 
 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v. 
 
 Higginson (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 1. 
 
 Statute allowing double damages 
 
 for injury to stock through 
 
 failure to fence. 
 
 Kingsbury v. Missouri, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 719. 
 
 Statute authorizing state board 
 
 of transportation to require 
 
 railway company to surrender 
 
 part of its land for the purpose 
 
 of building and maintaining an 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — 
 
 Continued. 
 
 elevator by private individuals, 
 held unconstitutional. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Stat? 
 
 of Nebraska, Board of Trans- 
 portation (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 157. 
 Statute imposing attorney's fee 
 in case of damage from fire 
 caused by railroad is constitu- 
 tional. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 
 Matthews (U. S.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 89. 
 Statute providing that fact of 
 communication of fire by rail- 
 road shall be prima facie 
 evidence of negligence is 
 constitutional. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Tripp (111.), vol. 14, p. 119. 
 Statutes requiring foreign rail- 
 road corporation to become 
 resident corporation not in- 
 valid as denying equal protec- 
 tion of the laws. 
 Com. V. Mobile & O. R. Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 185. 
 Statute requiring heating of pas- 
 senger cars. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 
 
 V. People of the State of 
 
 New York (U. S.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 172. 
 Statute requiring issuance of 
 mileage ticket is unconstitu- 
 tional. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Smith (U. S.), vol. 14, p. 511. 
 Stock, constitutionality of stat- 
 ute imposing a penalty of 
 double the value of stock killed 
 for failure to give notice. 
 Jolliffe V. Brown (Wash.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 254. 
 Title of statute. 
 
 State, Lamar, Atty. Gen., v. 
 
 Jacksonville Term. Co. 
 
 (Fla.), vol. 16, p. 727. 
 Validity of state statute forbid- 
 ding a railroad company from 
 entering into any agreement 
 with its employees whereby it 
 shall be held not liable for in- 
 juries to such employees, and 
 declaring such corporations 
 liable for injuries by fellow 
 servants. 
 Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 7, p. 1. 
 
284 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
 Continued. 
 
 L A "W — CONSTRUCTIVE APPROPRI- 
 ATION. 
 
 Validity of statute making' every 
 , railroad responsible in dam- 
 ages for property destroyed by 
 fire orig'inating' from its loco- 
 motives, and declaring' such 
 corporations to have an insur- 
 able interest in property along' 
 their routes. 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Mathews (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 361. 
 
 Validity of statute providing for 
 payment of attorney's fee 
 where claims against railroad 
 companies are not promptly 
 paid. 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Ellis {U. S.), vol. 6, p. 7S2. 
 
 Wages of discharg'ed employees. 
 
 St. Louts, I. M. & S. Rv. Co. 
 
 V. Paul.(U. S. ) , vol. 12,'p. 7SS. 
 
 Where constitution provides that 
 damages may be recovered for 
 death Ijy wrongful act, the 
 word damages has been held 
 to include punitory as well as 
 compensatory damages. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kelly 
 (Ky.), vol. 7, p. 165. 
 
 CONSTRUCTION. 
 
 See Railroads. 
 
 Right of Way. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 Burden of proof as to necessity 
 
 of change of route by company. 
 
 Village of Wayzata v. Great 
 
 Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 360. 
 
 Damage to laud by overflow of 
 
 water. 
 
 Parker v. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 6, p. 716. 
 Reception of persons as passen- 
 gers by conductor of construc- 
 tion train. 
 
 Chicago, Kansas & Western 
 R. Co. V. Frazer (Kan.), vol. 
 2, p. 206. 
 Surveying and locating are not 
 the beginning of construction. 
 Hodgensville & E. R. Co. v. 
 Com. (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 6SS. 
 Under law which authorizes rail- 
 road company to construct its 
 road along and over any pub- 
 lic or private way, if it shall 
 "be necessary" a practical 
 and not an absolute necessity, 
 is meant. 
 
 Village of Wayzata v. Great 
 Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 7, p. 360. 
 
 Erection of telegraph poles as 
 evidence of railroad company's 
 intention to appropriate land. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Beck (Ind.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 353. 
 
 CONTEMPT. 
 Order of court issued without 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 St. Louis, K. & S. R. Co. v. 
 Wear (Mo.), vol. 4, p. 583. 
 
 CONTINUANCE. 
 
 See Trial. 
 Stipulations. 
 Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. 
 Pavey (Kan.), vol. 5, p. 590. 
 
 CONTRACT FOR INDEM- 
 NITY. 
 Railway company may contract 
 with news company for in- 
 demnity against any loss by 
 reason of injury to latter's 
 news boys. 
 Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. 
 
 V. Southern Ry. News Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 528. 
 Right of indemnified party to 
 compromise claim. 
 Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. 
 
 V. Southern Ry. News Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 528. 
 
 CONTRACTORS. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Crossings. 
 Liens. 
 
 Liability to employee for acts of 
 contractor. 
 
 Leavitt v. Bangor & A. R. Co. 
 (Me.), vol. 7, p. 354. 
 
 Negligence of independent con- 
 tractor. 
 Sanford v. Pawtucket Street 
 
 Ry. Co. (R. L), vol. 4, p. 
 
 318. 
 
 Right to amend answer to show 
 that excavation in highway 
 causing injury was made by 
 contractor. 
 Nosier v. Coos Bay, etc., R. & 
 
 Nav. Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 719. 
 Street railway company not 
 liable for negligence of inde- 
 pendent contractor. 
 Sanford v. Pawtucket Street 
 
 Ry.Co. (R. I.),vol. 4, p. 318. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 285 
 
 CONTRACTS. 
 See Actions. 
 Evidence. 
 Foreign Cars. 
 Negligence. 
 Railroads. 
 Res Gestez. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 Ultra Vires. 
 Working Contracts. 
 Action for breach of contract 
 for hauling, uncertainty. 
 Baldwin v. Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 6, p. 777. 
 Actions on. 
 
 Stewart v. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. L,. Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 
 13, p. 28. 
 Bill for specific performance of 
 a verbal ag-reement to sell and 
 convey in fee a certain strip of 
 land for a railroad track. 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Garry (W. Va. ), vol. 6, p. 787. 
 Breach of contract as cancelling 
 deed for grant of right of way. 
 Moseley v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 R. Co. (Neb.), vol. IS, p. 426. 
 Breach of contract of employ- 
 ment. 
 
 Sax V. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Mich. ) , vol. 20, p. 653. 
 Construction of. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ches- 
 apeake & O. Ry. Co. (Ky.), 
 vol. 16, p. 539. 
 Construction of, contract for use 
 of siding. 
 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L,. Ry. 
 Co. V. Indiana H. Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 18, p. 83. 
 Construction where meaning is 
 obscure. 
 
 Ullman v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, p. 782. 
 Contract between railroad com- 
 pany and express company for 
 exemption from liability for 
 injury to express company's 
 employee. 
 
 Blank v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 16, p. 6. 
 Contracts between railroad cor- 
 porations. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 1. 
 Contracts between two street 
 railways to prevent competi- 
 tion is contrary to public pol- 
 icy and void. 
 
 South Chicago City Ry. Co. v. 
 Calumet Electric St. Ry. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 11, p. 789. 
 
 CONTRACTS— Continued. 
 Contracts not set aside for fraud 
 where party claiming fraud 
 has retained benefits. 
 Petty V. Brunswick & W. Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 840. 
 Contracts of carrier not to carry 
 for others, in order to prevent 
 competition, not enforceable. 
 Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. 
 V. Morgan's L. & T. R. Co. 
 (I/a.), vol. 13, p. 71. 
 Contracts of railroad corpora- 
 tions. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), vol. 6, 
 p.l. 
 Contract releasing railroads 
 from damages for killing 
 stock in consideration of rail- 
 road's furnishing materials for 
 fence not binding as covenant 
 running with land, where no 
 part of fence was to be on 
 railroad's land. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Web- 
 ster (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 410. 
 Effect of failure of servant to 
 make full tender of benefits 
 received under contract re- 
 leasing master. 
 Johnson v. Charleston & S. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 
 556. 
 Expiration of corporate exist- 
 ence. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 2. 
 Grant of use of track or bridge 
 to other roads. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 2. 
 Liability of carrier of live stock 
 under contract providing that 
 stock shall be unloaded with 
 shipper's assistance and at his 
 risk. 
 
 Cooper V. Raleigh & G. R. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 412. 
 Liability of connecting carrier 
 on unwarranted contract made 
 by agent of initial carrier. 
 St. Louis & S. E. R. Co. V. Os- 
 trander (Ark.), vol. 16, p. 
 197. 
 Nature of contract to procure 
 free passes. 
 
 Curry v. Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 755. 
 Operating contracts. 
 St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 S, p. 696. 
 
286 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CONTRACTS— Continued. 
 
 Power of railroads to contract 
 ■with each other. 
 St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. S, p. 696. 
 Ratification. 
 
 Richmond Union Pass. Ry. 
 Co. V. Richmond, F. & P. R- 
 Co. (Va.), vol. IS, p. 206. 
 Ratification of corporate con- 
 tract by board of directors. 
 Union \Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 3. 
 Receiver's contracts. 
 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. v. 
 Carolina, C, G. & C. Ry. Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. IS, p. 212. 
 Relief associations, validity of 
 contract for release. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Curtis 
 (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 76S. 
 Remedy for breach. 
 Moseley v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 R. Co. (Neb.), vol. IS, p. 426. 
 
 Validity. 
 
 Daniels v. Florida Cent. & P. 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 107. 
 Validity of contracts granting 
 exclusive privileges at sta- 
 tions. 
 
 Hedding v. Gallagher (N. H.), 
 vol. 17, p. 192. 
 Validity of oral contract of em- 
 ployment. 
 
 Sax V. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 653. 
 Validity of penalty contracts. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Southern 
 S. & C. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 18, 
 p. 276. 
 Verbal contract by railroad to 
 maintain switch for benefit of 
 shipper. 
 
 Warner v. Texas & P. R. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 696. 
 Verbal contract for right of way. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Scott 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 8, p. 309. 
 Verbal promise to pay for land 
 which a railroad company has 
 taken possession of for its 
 right of way with consent of 
 owner. 
 
 Fries v. Wheeling & L,. E. Ry. 
 Co. (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 489. 
 Want of mutuality. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Bagley (Kan.), vol. 13, p. 2S9. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY N B G L I- 
 GBNOE. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Children. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Coupling Cars. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Drunkenness. 
 Fires. . 
 
 Frightening Teams. 
 Imputable Negligence. 
 Interrogatories. 
 Intoxication. 
 Licensees. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 Ordinances. 
 Pleading. 
 Proximate Cause. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Street Railways. 
 Trespassers. 
 Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Cowles (Neb.), vol. 11. p. 33. 
 Absence of must be pleaded. 
 Haner v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Idaho), vol. 19, p. 628. 
 Accident on track, pedestrian 
 failing to look for trains in his 
 rear. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Barfield 
 (Ga.), vol. 19, p. 702. 
 Apparent danger destroying 
 self-possession . 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 34. 
 Application of statute making it 
 unnecessary to plead absence 
 of contributory negligence in 
 action for personal injuries. 
 Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. Pey- 
 ton (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 343. 
 As bar to recovery. 
 
 Fisher v. West Virginia P. R. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 4, p. 86. 
 As defense under Kentucky stat- 
 ute applicable to willful or 
 gross negligence. 
 Clark V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 35S. 
 Blind persons. 
 
 Florida v. Williams (Fla.), vol. 
 5, p. 696. 
 Boy was not guilty of in incur- 
 ring danger to rescue girl. 
 Becker v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 803. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 287 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NBGLI- CONTRIBUTORY NEGLI- 
 GENCE— Co«<j««ear. QENCE—Coniinued. 
 
 Burden of proof. 
 Central Texas & N. W. Rail- 
 way Co. V. Bush (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), vol. 3, p. 264. 
 Chase v. Maine Cent. R. R. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 6, p. 343. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Miller (Ind.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 684. 
 Cox V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.) vol. 12, p. 390. 
 Haner v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Idaho) , vol. 19, p. 629. 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kelly (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 444. 
 Hunter v. Montana Cent. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mont.), vol. 16, p. 615. 
 Lee V. International, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Tex.), vol. S, p. 376. 
 Leonard v. Boston & A. R. R. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 13, p. 825. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Wilson 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 97. 
 Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. Martin 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 1. 
 Burden of proof in action for 
 injuries. 
 Silcock V. Rio Grande W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 18, p. 459. 
 Care required in order to escape 
 imputation of contributory 
 negligence. 
 Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. Emmin- 
 
 ger (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 188. 
 Collision between separated sec- 
 tions of train. 
 Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Trib- 
 
 ble (Va.), vol. 3, p. 632. 
 Conflicting evidence. 
 
 Ohio Valley R. Co. v. Mc- 
 
 Kinley (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 443. 
 Constitutionality of statute dis- 
 pensing with allegations, in 
 action for personal injury. 
 , Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 628. 
 Contributory negligence must 
 be pleaded. ■ 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Davis 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 708. 
 Contributory negligence need 
 not be the sole cause of acci- 
 dent in order to bar recovery 
 in action for death at crossing. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Clark 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 407. 
 Contributory negligence no de- 
 fense where willfulness and 
 wantonness is charged. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Forshee (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 467. 
 
 Contributory negligence of pas- 
 senger in riding on platform 
 a question for jury. 
 Ward V. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, p. 322. 
 Counter claim. 
 
 Madden v. Port Royal & W. C. 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 2, p. 
 384. 
 Crossings, care to be exercised by 
 person crossing track of rail- 
 road in Street. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Cody 
 (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 479. 
 Deaf and dumb persons. 
 Beem v. Tama & T. Electric 
 Railway & Light Co. (Iowa), 
 Vol. 10, p. 610. 
 Thompson v. Salt Lake Rapid- 
 Transit Co. (Utah), vol. 10, 
 p. 563. 
 Defense of contributory negli- 
 gence "is not a confession of 
 negligence. 
 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co. 
 (Miss.), vol. 20, p. 551. 
 Defense to action for negligence. 
 Cooper V. Georgia, C. & N. Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 16, p. 12. 
 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ark), vol. 13, p. 699. 
 Defense to negligence in failing 
 to comply with statutory pro- 
 vision as to lookout. 
 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Smith (Ark.), vol. 13, p. 
 699. 
 Definition. 
 Cooper V. Georgia, C. & N. Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 16, p. 12. 
 Diminishing damages. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Fer- 
 guson (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 350. 
 Direction of verdict. 
 
 Henderson v. Detroit Citizens' 
 St. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 10, 
 p. 812. 
 Doctrine not abolished' in Ar- 
 kansas. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Leathers (Ark.), vol. 4, p. 
 260. 
 Doctrine that exercise of care 
 may be inferred from instinct 
 of self-preservation rendered 
 inapplicable by evidence. 
 Gahagan v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 23, p. 141. 
 Duty to avoid consequences of 
 another's negligence. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Fergu- 
 son (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 350. 
 
288 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY N B G L I - 
 GENCE— Continued. 
 
 Effect of. 
 
 Willing-ham v. Macon & B. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 340. 
 Evidence, harmless error. 
 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. An- 
 drews (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 756. 
 Evidence of not considered on 
 hearing of motion to dismiss. 
 Whitley v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 210. 
 Evidence of similar acts of con- 
 tributory negligence. 
 Simmons v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 466. 
 Evidence of speed at crossing 
 prohibited by company's rules, 
 admissible as tending to' show 
 absence of contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Davis V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 68. 
 Failure to use reasonable care is. 
 Stephani v. Southern Pac. R. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 14, p. S7S. 
 Fully presented by instruction 
 telling jury that plaintiff 
 could not recover if guilty of 
 negligence. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bowlds (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 553. 
 Gross negligence will defeat re- 
 covery though defendant was 
 also negligent. 
 
 Redson v. Michigan Cent. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 15, p. 687. 
 If not pleaded cannot be relied 
 on. 
 
 Ward V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 462. 
 Indigent wife leaving afflicted 
 husband unattended. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 Injury caused by an endeavor to 
 escape from an apparent dan- 
 ger. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of 
 Texas v. Rogers (Tex.), vol. 
 8, p. 141. 
 
 Instructions. 
 
 Bodiew. Charleston, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 
 818. 
 
 Central Texas & N. W. Rail- 
 way Co. V. Bush (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), vol. 3, p. 264. 
 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Spencer (Colo.), vol. 10, p. 
 536. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLI^ 
 GENCE— Continued. 
 
 East St. Louis Connecting 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Eggman (111.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 438. 
 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, p. 551. 
 
 Jones V. Charleston, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 261. 
 
 McCreery v. Ohio River R. 
 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 8, p. 755. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Wilson 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 97. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Pugh 
 (Tenn.), vol. 8, p. 756. 
 Intoxication. 
 
 Kingston v. Ft. Wayne & E. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 9, p. 
 259. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cummins (Ky. ) , vol. 21, p. 
 774. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v, Mc- 
 Glamory (Tex.), vol. 5, p. 
 696. 
 Intoxication, instructions. 
 Hord V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 23, p. 756. 
 Intoxication of trespasser on 
 track is no excuse. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Jordan (Ark.), vol. 13, p. 
 681. 
 Loss of presence of mind. 
 
 Nosier v. Coos Bay, etc., R. & 
 Nav. Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, p. 
 719. 
 
 Mitigation of Damages. 
 Contributory negligence may 
 be shown in mitigation of 
 damages for injuries par- 
 tially caused by speed in 
 violation of ordinance. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Tribble (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 
 794. 
 
 Must be proximate cause to- 
 defeat recovery. 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Must be set up in defense. 
 Hughes V. Chicago & Alton 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 284^ 
 
 Negativing contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 Chicago & E. R. Co. v. 
 
 Thomas (Ind.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 181. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 289 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NBGLI- 
 
 GW>!OE—ConHnued. 
 Neg-lig-ence and contributory 
 neglig-ence. 
 
 McGeary v. Old Colony R. 
 
 •Co. (R. I.), vol. 14, p. 764. 
 
 Neininger v. Cowan (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 492. 
 Schweinfurth v. Cleveland, 
 C, C. & St. Iv. Ry. Co. 
 (Ohio), vol. IS, p. 73. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence at crossing. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Forshee (Ala.), vol. 18, 
 p. 467. 
 Negligence of driver. 
 Clark V. Wright (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 432. 
 Pyle V. Clark (C. C. A.), vol. 
 8, p. 432. 
 No defense, in action for injury 
 to stock, if negligence was 
 proximate cause. 
 Sauls V. D. W. Alderman & 
 Sons Co. (S. Car.), vol. IS, 
 p. 558. 
 No defense under statute creat- 
 ing absolute liability for fail- 
 ure to observe statutory pre- 
 cautions to prevent accidents 
 on railroads. 
 
 Walton V. Chattanooga Rapid 
 Transit Co. (Tenn.), vol. 19, 
 , p. 436. 
 No defense where injury at 
 crossing was inflicted willfully 
 and maliciously. 
 Elgin, etc., Ry. Co. v. Duffy 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 361. 
 Nonsuit. 
 
 Plunkett V. Central of Ga. Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 860. 
 Not a defense to action by tres- 
 passer to recover for injuries 
 caused by willful negligence 
 in ejecting him. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. King 
 (111.), vol. 13, p. 829. 
 Of deaf and dumb persons. 
 Beem v. Tama & T. Elec- 
 tric Railway & Light Co. 
 (Iowa), vol. 10, p. 610. 
 Thompson v. Salt Lake Rapid 
 Transit Co. (Utah), vol. 10, 
 p. 563. 
 Opinion of witness as to what 
 constitutes, not competent. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Milliken (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 742. 
 Person in freight house to which 
 there was no step on leaving 
 the house, failed to remember 
 
 I D— 19 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLI- 
 GENCE— Continued. 
 the absence of the step : held, 
 guilty of contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Forbes (Ark.), vol. 6, p. 788. 
 Pleaded under general denial of 
 liability. 
 Kennedy v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 121. 
 Pleading. 
 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burgess (Ala.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 835. 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Roach 
 
 (Ala.), vol. S, p. 70S. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Miller (Ind.), vol.9, 
 
 p. 684. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nail 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 828. 
 Johnson v. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 2, p. 381. 
 Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. 
 
 V. Lackey (Ala. ) , vol. 7, p. 
 
 769. 
 Sirk V. Marion St. R. Co. (Ind. 
 
 App.), vol. 2, p. 381. 
 Smith V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 777. 
 Pleading, absence of. 
 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Martin (Ind.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 485. 
 Pleading and proving, absence 
 of, in federal courts. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. v. Price 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 16, p. 324. 
 Presumption. 
 
 Evansville Street Railroad Co. 
 
 V. Gentry (Ind.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 500. 
 Presumption from failure to al- 
 lege freedom from contribu- 
 tory negligence. 
 Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. Pey- 
 ton (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 343. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 where plaintiff had not shown 
 himself free from fault. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burney (Ga.), vol. 6, p. 543. 
 Presumption supporting verdict 
 where conflict between verdict 
 and special answers. 
 Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. Pey- 
 ton (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 343. 
 Prevents recovery notwithstand- 
 ing negligence, however great. 
 Bolin V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 
 
 (Wis.), vol. 19, p. 735. 
 
290 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CONTBIBUTORY NBGLI- 
 
 GETUCE— Continued. 
 Propriety of instruction that 
 contributory negligence is 
 based upon, and cannot exist 
 without negligence on defend- 
 ant's part. 
 
 Union Stock-Yards Co. v. 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 503. 
 Province of court. 
 
 Neal V. Carolina Cent. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 18, p. 51. 
 Proximate cause. 
 
 Bowen v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car..), vol. 18, p. 331. 
 Clark V. Wright (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 431. 
 Pyle V. Clark (C. C. A.), vol. 
 8, p. 431. 
 Proximate contributory negli- 
 gence is a defense to action 
 based on simple negligence. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Roach 
 (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 869. 
 Question for court. 
 Merritt v. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 775. 
 Question for jury. 
 Allen V. Boston & M. R. R. 
 
 (Me.), vol. 19, p. 729. 
 Beecher v. L,ong Island R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 295. 
 Bradley v. Second Ave. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 184. 
 Cawley v. IvaCrosse City Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 12, p. 453. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 King (C. C. A.), vol. 17, p. 
 167. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Blaul 
 
 (III.), vol. 12, p. 418. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kelly 
 
 (111.), vol. 17, p. 52, 
 Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol, 14, p. 780. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Spen- 
 cer (Colo.), vol. 18, p. 236. 
 Exton V. Central R. Co. of New 
 Jersey (N. J.), vol. 14, p. 240. 
 Johnson ». Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 11, p. 76. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Milli- 
 
 ken (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 742. 
 lyouisville & N. R. Co. v. Veach 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 24. 
 McCurrie v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 12, p. 170. 
 McTavish v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 14, 
 p. 59. 
 Munch V. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol, 12, p. 586. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NBGLI- 
 
 GENOE— Continued. 
 
 Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 14, p. 374. 
 Omaha & R. V. Co. v. phollette 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 386. 
 Walker v. Shelton (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 15. 
 Williams v. Atchison, T. & S. 
 
 F. R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 370. 
 Question for jury, riding on 
 platform. 
 Watson V. Portland & G. EJ. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Me ), vol. 11, p. 
 
 194. 
 Question for jury where evi- 
 dence is conflicting. 
 Alabama G. S. Ry. Co. ' v. 
 
 Coggins (C. C. A.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 109. 
 Question for jury where team 
 backed over excavation in 
 highway made by street rail- 
 way company. 
 Nosier v. Coos Bay, etc., R. 
 
 & Nav. Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 719. 
 
 Questions of Law and Fact. 
 
 Albion Lumber Co. v. De 
 Nobra (C. C. A.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 564. 
 Beaver v. Atchison, T. & 
 
 S. F. R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 442. 
 Blondel v. St. Paul City R. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 6, p. 272. 
 Bradley v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 728. 
 Bronsou & Oakes (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 166. 
 Carmer v. Chicago, St. P., 
 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 331. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 
 V. Isley (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 457. 
 Cookson V. Pittsburgh & W. 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 339. 
 Downey v. Pittsburgh, A. & 
 
 M. Traction Co. (Pa. St.), 
 
 vol.1, p. 276. 
 Gobleigh v. Grand Trunk 
 
 Ry. Co. (Vt.), vol. 5, p, 
 
 445, 
 Graney z>. St. Louis, I. M. 
 
 & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 187. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mizell 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 337. 
 Lewis V. President, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 2, p. 192. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 291 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLI- CONTRIBUTORY NEGLI- 
 GENCE— CowifiwMe'af. Q'EiSO'E— Continued. 
 
 Littlejohn v. Richmond & 
 D. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 9, 
 p. 873. 
 Pomponio v. New York, etc. , 
 R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 4, p. 
 259. 
 Schaeffer v. St. Louis & S. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 224. 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. Hern- 
 dou (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 124. 
 Wrig-ht V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. S, p. 559. 
 Person injured by boarding 
 train by passing over the 
 sloping part of the platform 
 instead of going down the 
 steps. 
 
 Rathgebe v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 288. 
 Thoresen v. La Crosse City 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 6, p. 101. 
 Question for jury, where ac- 
 cident occurs at crossing. 
 Strother v. South Carolina, 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 5, p. 430. 
 Question of fact. 
 
 Graham v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 149. 
 Pomponio v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 4, p. 
 259. 
 Thompson v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 651. 
 Reckless act not justified by 
 fact that others have per- 
 form^ed it. 
 
 Wherry v. Duluth, M. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, p. 
 72. 
 Riding on footboard of engine. 
 Wilcox V. San Antonio & A. 
 P. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 441. 
 Special pleas, pleading. 
 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. An- 
 drews (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 755. 
 Stop, look, and listen, failure 
 to look and listen at crossing 
 relying upon automatic sig- 
 nal. 
 
 Conkling v. Erie R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 15, p. 61. 
 To entitle one to recover for an 
 injury without showing his 
 own freedom from contrib- 
 utory fault, the injurious act 
 or omission must have been 
 purposely and intentionally 
 committed, with a design to 
 produce injury or under such 
 circumstances as that its nat- 
 
 ural and reasonable conse- 
 quence would be to injure 
 others of whose situations the 
 actor knows. 
 Conner v. Citizens' St. R. Co. 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 7, p. 287. 
 Trespasser on track. 
 Pharr v. Southern R. Co. (N. 
 
 Car.), vol. 6, p. 726. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Breadow 
 
 (Tex.), vol. 5, p. 483. 
 When recovery not barred by. 
 Gilbert v. Brie R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 15. 
 Where defendant by exercise of 
 reasonable care might have 
 avoided the injury. 
 Baker v. Wilmington & W. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car,), vol. 3, p. 650. 
 Where one injured by colliding 
 with street car 'was guilty of 
 contributory negligence, there 
 can be no recovery. 
 Brown v. Wilmington City Ry. 
 
 Co. (Del.), vol. 12, p. 440. 
 Whether riding on platform is 
 negligence per se. 
 East Omaha St. R. Co. v. Go- 
 
 dola (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 300. 
 Women. 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Lor- 
 
 entzen (U. S.), vol. 8, p. 755. 
 
 CONVERSION. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Downing v. Outerbridge (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 10, p. 861. 
 Carriers of live stock. 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 
 Fowler (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 423. 
 
 COPIES. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 CORPORATE EXISTENCE. 
 See Corporations. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 
 CORPORATIONS. 
 
 See Estoppel. 
 
 Foreign Corporations. 
 Parties. 
 Railroads. 
 Street Railways. 
 Contract with officers. 
 
 Danville, H. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Kase (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 869. 
 Estoppel to deny corporate exist- 
 ence. 
 
 Petty »- Brunswick & W. Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 840. 
 
292 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CORPORATIONS— Continued. 
 L(Oss of identity. 
 
 Orleans & J. Ry. Co. v. Jsffer- 
 son & Li. p. Ry. Co. (La.), 
 vol. 16, p. 699. 
 Pleading, allegation of corporate 
 existence. 
 
 Douglass V. Kanawha & M. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 10, p. 
 883. 
 Purchase of competing lines by 
 railroad corporation. 
 I*armers' Loan and Trust Co. 
 V. New York & N. Ry. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 7, p. 321. 
 Right to take railway property. 
 City Council of Augusta v. 
 Georgia Railroad & Banking 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 7, p. 384. 
 Transactions between corpora- 
 tions and oflBcers. 
 Danville, H. & W. R. v. Kase 
 (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 869. 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Practice. 
 Motion to have costs taxed under 
 Cal. Code Civ. Proc, sec. 1033. 
 Kishlar v. Southern Pac. R. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 948. 
 
 COTTON. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 COUNSEL. 
 
 See Arguments of Counsel. 
 Remarks of Counsel. 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 Donation of land by county to 
 
 railroad, subsequent purchase 
 
 from county with knowledge. 
 
 Roberts v. Northern Pacific 
 
 Railroad Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 106. 
 
 COUNTY. 
 
 See Highways. 
 
 COUNTY SEATS. 
 Mandamus to compel trains to 
 stop at. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. People, Jett (111.), vol. 
 14, p. 846. 
 
 COUPLERS. 
 
 Failure to furnish automatic 
 car couplers is negligence per 
 se in the master. 
 Troxler v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 711. 
 
 COUPLING- OARS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Assumption of Risk. 
 Assumption of risk from 
 defective coupling. 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ampey (Va.), vol. 5, p. 707. 
 Assumption of risk from mis- 
 matched couplings. 
 McDonald v. Norfolk & W. 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. 8, p. SS2. 
 Car loaded with rails projecting 
 over deck of car. 
 Corbin v. Winona & St. P. Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 3, p. 443. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Hollenbeck v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 
 350. 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
 Kelly (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 443. 
 Nihill V. New York, etc. , R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. S, p. 462. 
 Ditch in track from four to six 
 inches deep known to section 
 foreman. 
 
 Hollenbeck v. Missouri 
 Pacific Railway Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 3, p. 350. 
 Failure of engineer to give 
 notice to switchman. 
 Warax v. Cincinnati, N. O. 
 & T. P. R. Co. (111.), vol. 
 3, p. 657. 
 Fellow servants. 
 Young V. Boston & M. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 7, p. 776. 
 Injury owing to dimness of 
 light where employee's lan- 
 tern was filled with inferior 
 oil. 
 
 Huffman v. Michigan Cent. 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 5, p. 
 542. 
 Negligence causing injury to 
 brakeman coupling cars. 
 Hollenbeck v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 8, p. 
 277. 
 Negligent construction of cars 
 known to plaintifi^. 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
 Kelly (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 443. 
 Safe rate of speed. 
 Hollenbeck v. Missouri Paci- 
 fic Railway Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 3, p. 350. 
 
 Side track not ballasted or 
 surfaced. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Gibson (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 494. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 293 
 
 COUPLING CAB,S— Continued. 
 Switchman injured by step- 
 ping and walking before 
 moving- cars. 
 
 Smith V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 6, p. 
 78. 
 Couplings. 
 Automatic car coupler, Ne- 
 braska statute. 
 Thompson v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 
 761. 
 Defective couplings. 
 Thompson v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 
 762. 
 Duty to use self-couplers. 
 Greenlee v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 11, p. 
 . 45. 
 Use of uneven couplings or 
 deadwoods on freight cars. 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. Ebaugh 
 (Ind.), vol. 4, p. 200. 
 
 COUPONS. 
 
 See Bonds. 
 
 Preferential Claims. 
 Interest bearing. 
 Town Council of Lexington 
 V. Union Nat. Bank (Miss.), 
 vol. 9, p. 321. 
 Interest on matured coupons. 
 Fox V. Hartford & W. H. H. 
 R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 10, p. 
 456. 
 Negotiability of overdue cou- 
 pons. 
 
 Fox V. Hartford & W. H. H. 
 R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 10, p. 
 456. 
 Pledge. 
 Whether coupons pass with 
 the bond. 
 
 Fox V. Hartford & W. H. H. 
 R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 10, p. 
 456. 
 
 COUNSEL'S FEES. 
 
 See Exemplary Damages. 
 
 COURTS. 
 
 See Jurisdiction. 
 
 Questions of Law and Fact. 
 
 Trials. 
 
 Jurisdiction of court of claims in 
 
 respect to railroad property 
 
 seized by government during 
 
 war. 
 
 U. S. z". Winchester, etc., R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 4, p. 264. 
 
 CREDIBILITY. 
 See Witnesses. 
 
 CREDITORS. 
 
 See Preferential Claims. 
 Receivers. 
 Priority of supply debts. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. Carnegie 
 Steel Co., Limited (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 6, p. 420. 
 
 CREDITORS' BILLS. 
 Rights of intervening creditor 
 where there is collusion be- 
 tween mortgagor and mort- 
 gagee. 
 
 Louisville Trust Co. v. Louis- 
 ville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 15, p. 256. 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Indictments. 
 
 CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Hague (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 476. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Hyatt (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 44. 
 
 CROSS BILLS. 
 
 See Equity. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
 See Witnesses. 
 Right of, not destroyed by fail- 
 
 ure to examine in chief. 
 Mason v. Southern Ry. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 83. 
 
 Co. 
 
 CROSSINGS OP RAILROADS. 
 
 See Injunctions. ' 
 
 CROSSINGS. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Bicyclists. 
 
 Burden of Proof . 
 
 Children. 
 
 Collisions. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 Contributory Neg ligence. 
 
 Dedication. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Fences. 
 
 Frightening Horses. 
 
 Gates. 
 
 Highways. 
 
 Private Crossings. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 Trespassers, 
 
294 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 A foot passenger was about to 
 cross a street and a car stopped 
 just before reaching the cross- 
 ing, each apparently expect- 
 ing the other to wait, and they 
 both started so nearly together 
 that a collision became una- 
 voidable : held, that the ques- 
 tion of negligence was for the 
 jury. 
 
 Cleary v. Pittsburg, A. & M. 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, 
 p. 316. 
 Allowance of reasonable time to 
 company to construct crossing. 
 Alabama, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ode- 
 neal . (Miss.), vol.7, p. 770. 
 Appeal and review, action for 
 personal injuries. 
 Ivawrence v. Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 777. 
 Apportioning costs where rail- 
 road is compelled to furnish 
 interlocking devices. 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cedar Rapids, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 152. 
 'Backing train across street with- 
 out looking is negligence. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Foxworth (Fla.), vol. 13, p. 
 469. 
 Care required of company to 
 avoid accidents. 
 Green v. Erie R. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 19, p. 308. 
 Care required of motorraan at 
 crossings. 
 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 Flee. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 p. 364. 
 Care required of trainmen at 
 street crossings. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Cum- 
 mins (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 774. 
 Cattle guards. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. City of Milwaukee (Wis.), 
 vol. 9, p. S37. 
 Changing crossings to injury of 
 abutters. 
 
 Buchholz V. New York, L,. F. 
 & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 3, 
 p. 453. 
 Children. 
 
 Child asleep on track at cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Krenzer v. Pittsburgh, C, 
 
 C. &St. L. Ry. Co. (lud.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 343. 
 
 Child injured while sleeping 
 
 on track at crossing cannot 
 
 recover although company 
 
 CB.OBSniiQS>— Continued. 
 
 was negligent, unless such 
 negligence was willful or 
 wanton. 
 
 Krenzer v. Pittsburgh, C, 
 C. & St. L,. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 12, p. 343. 
 Degree of care required. 
 Goodrich v. Burlington, C. 
 R. & N. R. Co. (Iowa), 
 vol. 3, p. 620. 
 Failure to see car, speed and 
 absence of signals. 
 Consolidated City, etc., Ry. 
 Co. V. Carlson (Kan.), vol. 
 7, p. 274. 
 Injury to boy while crossing 
 in front of moving street 
 car. 
 
 Henderson v. Detroit Citi- 
 zens' St. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 10, p. 812. 
 Killing of child who was climb- 
 ing over train at crossing. 
 Carmer v. Chicago, St. P., 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 vol. 8, p. 331. , 
 Liability for injury to boy 
 induced to pass through ob- 
 structing train by statements 
 of brakeman. 
 
 Scott V. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, p. 63. 
 Collisions. 
 
 Collision at intersection, prox- 
 imate cause. 
 
 Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Lackey (Ala.), vol. 7, 
 p. 777. 
 Collision between two trains 
 at crossing, street railways. 
 Orr V. Cedar Rapids & M. 
 C. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 1, 
 p. 239. 
 Collision of two railroad trains 
 at intersection of tracks, 
 proximate cause. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Gray (Ind.), 
 vol. 8, p. 48. 
 Company not bound to higher 
 degree of care to infirm per- 
 son at crossing, where they 
 have no knowledge of his 
 infirmity. 
 
 Green v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 13, p. 511. 
 Conclusiveness of acts of rail- 
 road commission in approv- 
 ing the crossing of one rail- 
 road by another. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 688. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 295 
 
 CROSSXNGS—ConHnued. 
 
 Constitutional law, estoppel to 
 deny constitutionality of stat- 
 ute relating to farm crossing's. 
 Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Ode- 
 ueal (Miss.), vol. 3, p. 449. 
 Construction and maintenance. 
 Board of Com'rs, etc., v. Du- 
 lutb, etc., R. Co. (Miun.), 
 vol. 6, p. 779. 
 Construction of bridge by order 
 of railroad commissioners. 
 New Haven Steam Sawmill 
 Co. V. City of New Haven 
 (Conn.), vol. 16, p. 588. 
 Construction of overhead bridge 
 in street. 
 
 City of Charlottesville v. 
 Southern Ry. Co. (Va.), vol. 
 16, p. 600. 
 Construction of, over private 
 road as invitation to cross. 
 Dublin V. Taylor, B. & H. Ry. 
 Co. (Tex.), vol. 13, p. 461. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Baker v. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 9, p. 824. 
 Clark V. Wright (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 431. 
 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of 
 Canada v. Cobleigh (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 7, p. 769. 
 Highland Ave., etc., Co. v. 
 Fennell (Ala.), vol. 6, p. 
 778. 
 Hovenden v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 778. 
 Ivaib V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 8, p. ISO. 
 Lebanon & P. Turnpike 
 Road Co. V. Purdy (Ky.), 
 vol. 7, p. 777. 
 Mayes v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 6, p. 778. 
 Pyle V. Clark (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 431. 
 Sutherland v. Cleveland, C, 
 C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 8, p. 424. 
 Vreeland v. Cincinnati, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, p. 
 778. 
 Washington Southern Ry. 
 Co. V. Ivacey (Va.), vol. 6, 
 p. 778. 
 Absence of flagman as affect- 
 ing contributory negligence 
 at crossing where view is 
 obstructed. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Blaul (111.), vol. 12, p. 418. 
 
 Accident at street car crossing. 
 
 Smith V. City & Suburban 
 
 OHOSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ore.), vol. S, p. 
 
 163. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 dazzling effect of head light. 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 61. 
 Although gates were up and 
 flagman absent. 
 Walker v. Kinnare (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 6, p. 63. 
 A railroad company is not 
 responsible for injuries re- 
 ceived by a person who un- 
 successfully attempts to 
 cross the track in advance 
 of a train which he knows 
 is approaching the place of 
 crossing. 
 Burnett v. Eastern & A. R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 10, p. 469. 
 
 As affected by excessive speed 
 
 and failure to give signals. 
 
 Schneider v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 81. 
 As affected by failure to com- 
 ply with ordinance requiring 
 maintenance of gates and 
 flagman. 
 Schneider v. Northern Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 314. 
 As a matter of law. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Freeman (U. S.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 89. 
 Assumption of risk where 
 both negligence and con- 
 tributory negligence. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jack- 
 son (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 677. 
 Attempting to cross after see- 
 ing train. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Forshee (Ala.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 467. 
 Attempting to cross before 
 moving street car. 
 Blaney v. Electric Traction 
 
 Co. (Pa. ) , vol. 10, p. S60. 
 Attempting to cross in front 
 of approaching train. 
 Helm V. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 440. 
 Attempting to cross in front 
 of train moving at the rate 
 of 35 or 40 miles per hour, 
 where the road was straight 
 for a mile or more. 
 Huntress v. Boston, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 4, p. 259. 
 
296 
 
 GENERAL. INDEX 
 
 CROSSINGS— Co»«»«erf. 
 
 Attempting^ to cross street or 
 railroad crossing- after the 
 gates were raised, immedi- 
 ately in the rear of a depart- 
 ing train which obstructed 
 plaintiff's view, and he was 
 injured by a backing train 
 upon the opposite tracks. 
 Ellis V. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (Mass.), vol.. 10, p. 490. 
 Attempting to drive across a 
 street railway track before 
 a car. 
 
 McDivitt V. Des Moines St. 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 6, p. 
 106. 
 Attempting to drive in front 
 of locomotive emitting 
 steam, contributory negli- 
 gence as a matter of law. 
 Miller v. Wellington & P. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 SS7. 
 Attempting to drive over in 
 front of approaching train. 
 Green v. Erie R. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 19, p. 308. 
 Bicyclist, care required at 
 crossing. 
 
 Robertson v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 7, p. 60S. 
 Boy catching his foot between 
 improperly constructed rails 
 when attempting to cross. 
 Goodrich v. Burlington, C. 
 R. & N. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 
 vol. 10, p. 719. 
 Boy's negligence in stepping 
 before moving train while 
 avoiding an engine on other 
 track is for jury. 
 Steele v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. IS, p. 129. 
 Burden of proof in action for 
 injuries at crossing under S. 
 Car. St., sec. 1692. 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern R. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 241. 
 Burden of proving due care on 
 part of deceased. 
 Chase v. Maine Cent. R. R. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 6, p. 343. 
 Crawford v. Chicago G. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 
 628. 
 
 Care required of driver of 
 
 team. 
 
 Central R. Co. of New Jer- 
 sey V. Smaller (N. J.), vol. 
 10, p. 463. 
 
 Silcock z/.'Rio Grande W. Ry. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 18, p. 459. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Care required of highway 
 traveler. 
 Davis V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 
 (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 68. 
 Greevn v, Erie R. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 19, p. 308. 
 Care required of pedestrian. 
 Schneider v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 
 314. 
 Care required of traveler. 
 Liewis V. Long Island R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 18, p. 1. 
 Care to be exercised by person 
 crossing track of railroad in 
 street. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Cody 
 (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 479. 
 Cars obstructing view at cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Patchen (111.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 8S2. 
 
 Child injured while sleeping 
 
 on track at crossing cannot 
 
 recover although company 
 
 was negligent, unless such 
 
 negligence was willful or 
 
 wanton. 
 
 Krenzer v. Pittsburgh, C, 
 C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 12, p. 343. 
 Circumstances to be consid- 
 ered by jury. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v, 
 Stewart (Ala.), vol. 21, 
 p. 34. 
 Climbing over obstructing 
 cars, question for jury. 
 Littlejohu V. Richmond & D. 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 9, p. 
 873. 
 Closed crossing gates. 
 Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Ehlert (Ohio), vol. 19, p. 
 731. 
 Contributory negligence and 
 failure to give signals where 
 child was injured. 
 Geist V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 364. 
 Contributory negligence and 
 negligence after discovery of 
 plaintiff's peril. 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Martin (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 683. 
 
 Contributory negligence as 
 affected by failure to give 
 signals at crossing. 
 Swanson v. Central R. Co. 
 
 of New Jersey (N. J.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 624. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 297 
 
 CROSSINGS—Coniinued. 
 
 Contributory negligence at. 
 Fox V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 18, p. 198. 
 Contributory negligence at 
 crossing as affected by fail- 
 ure to give statutory signals, 
 and excessive speed. 
 Crawford v. Chicago G. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 
 
 628. 
 Contributory negligence in 
 failing to stop, look and 
 listen at crossing as affected 
 by failure to give statutory 
 signals. 
 Hunter v. Montana Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mont.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 615. 
 Contributory negligence in- 
 ferred. 
 Dotty V. Atlantic City R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 18, p. 157. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 boy whOidrove over crossing 
 without stopping, looking 
 and listening is for jury. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jones 
 
 (C. C. A), vol. IS, p. 16. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 traveler at crossing is ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 Swack V. New York, L,. E. 
 
 & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 609. 
 
 Contributory negligence per 
 se at crossing. 
 Ring V. Chicago, St. P. & K. 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 93. 
 
 Contributory negligence will 
 bar recovery though train 
 was violating ordinance as 
 to speed and there was negli- 
 gence as to signals and look- 
 out. 
 Neal V. Carolina Cent. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 18, p. 51. 
 
 Crossing before moving train. 
 
 Hanson v. Penn. R. Co. (N. 
 
 J.), vol. 12, p. 404. 
 Mott V. Detroit, G. H. & M. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 113. 
 Crossing before moving train 
 is such contributory negli- 
 gence as to prevent recovery 
 for death caused thereby, 
 even though the company 
 was negligent as to signals 
 and flagmen. 
 Hanson v. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 12, p. 404. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Coniinued. 
 
 Crossing between freight cars 
 where street crossing is 
 blocked by freight train. 
 Wherry v. Duluth, M. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, p. 
 72. 
 Crossing between train not 
 negligence per se. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Prather 
 (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 832. 
 Crossing street railways in 
 front of moving train. 
 Watson V. Mound City Street 
 Railway Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, 
 p. 385. 
 Crossing when safety gates 
 are closed is contributory 
 negligence as a matter of 
 fact. 
 
 Buckley v. Flint & P. M. R. 
 - Co. (Mich.), vol. IS, p. 1. 
 Cures failure to admit evi- 
 dence as to ordinance limit- 
 ing speed. 
 
 Sutherland jy. Cleveland, C, 
 C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 8, p. 424. 
 Deaf and dumb persons. 
 
 Phillips V. Detroit, G. H. & 
 M. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, 
 p. 319. 
 Deaf persons. 
 
 Hovenden v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 778. 
 
 Mayes v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 6, p. 778. 
 Phillips V. Detroit, G. H. & 
 M. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, p. 
 319. 
 Deceased had right to presume 
 that defendant complied 
 with ordinance requiring 
 signals and lights at cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, 
 p. 61. 
 Driving across in front of ap- 
 proaching train, question 
 for jury. 
 
 New York, S. & W. R. Co. 
 V. Moore (C. C. A.), vol. 21, 
 p. 462. 
 Driving in front of moving 
 train where absence of evi- 
 dence of having stopped 
 within reasonable distance. 
 Born V. Philadelphia & R. 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 22, p. 733. 
 Driving over while asleep. 
 Dalton V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, 
 p. 460. 
 
298 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Duty of pedestrian to look out 
 for vehicles. 
 
 McGrath v. North Jersey St. 
 Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 
 790. 
 Duty to stop and listen where 
 view of tracks is obstructed 
 to within ten feet thereof. 
 Hook V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 787. 
 Effect of absence of flagman 
 where pedestrian was ap- 
 prised of danger, 
 l/ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cummins (Ky.), vol. 21, 
 p. 774. 
 Effect of failure to give signals 
 and excessive speed at cross- 
 ing, on contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Schneider v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 11, p. 81. 
 Effect of failure to look and 
 listen where statutory sig- 
 nals were not given. 
 Chicago & E. R. Co. v. 
 Thomas (Ind.), vol. 21, p. 
 343. 
 Evidence of habits of deceased 
 as to carefulness at crossings. 
 Davis V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 68. 
 Evidence of habit of falling 
 asleep in vehicle. 
 Dalton zi. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, 
 p. 460. 
 Evidence of movements of 
 other trains, in action for 
 injury to bicycle rider at 
 crossing. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 34. 
 Evidence of similar acts of 
 contributory negligence. 
 Dalton V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, 
 p. 460. 
 Evidence that deceased was 
 careful and sober repels in- 
 ference of negligence. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Moffatt (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 
 397. 
 Failure of boy driver of cattle 
 to look and listen. 
 McGill V. Minneapolis & St. 
 L. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 
 790. 
 Failure to give signals. 
 Austin & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 McElmurry (Tex. Civ. 
 , App.), vol. 3, p. 445. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Coniinued. 
 
 Failure to give signals at 
 crossing as affecting. 
 Herbert v. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 11, p. 94. 
 Failure to look and listen. 
 Green v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 21, p. 26. 
 Failure to look and listen 
 shown by physical facts. 
 Hook v. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 787. 
 
 Failure to look and listen, 
 
 verdict not consistent with 
 
 special findings. 
 
 Schulte V. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 21, p. 356. 
 Failure to look for train. 
 
 Chicago. B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Yost (Neb.), vol. 21, p. 92. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Crockert (Miss.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 246. 
 Failure to provide crossing of 
 sufficient width for passage 
 of harvesting machine. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 
 V. Henry (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 482. 
 Going on track before moving 
 train is contributory negli- 
 gence as a matter of law. 
 Ring V. Chicago, St. P. & 
 
 K. C. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 12, p. 452. 
 Gross negligence of traveler, 
 sufficiency of evidence. 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern R. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 241. 
 
 Gross or willful negligence, 
 question for jury. 
 Strother v. South Carolina, 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 S, p. 430. 
 Habits of deceased as evidence 
 of his due care. 
 Smith V. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), VOL 19, p. 320. 
 In driving across tracks at a 
 slow trot. 
 
 Atchison, T. c& S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Shaw (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 248. 
 
 Instructions. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 34. 
 Mott V. Detroit, G. H. & M. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), voL 15, 
 
 p. 113. 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern R. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 241. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 299 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Instruction not warranted by- 
 evidence. 
 
 Philadelphia & B. C. R. Co. 
 V. Holden (Md. ) , vol. 22, 
 p. 192. 
 Intoxication. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cummins (Ky.), vol. 21, 
 p. 774. 
 Killing of bicyclist at cross- 
 ing:. 
 
 Kimball v. Friend (Va.), 
 vol. 8, p. 451. 
 Knowingly using- defective 
 bridge over crossing. 
 Evans V. Charleston & W. 
 C. Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. IS, 
 p. 200. 
 Leaving horses untied near. 
 Silcock V. Rio Grande W. 
 Ry. Co. • (Utah), vol. 18, 
 p. 4S9. 
 Liability a question for jury 
 where there was contribu- 
 tory negligence and speed 
 in violation of ordinance. 
 Hutchinson v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 
 700. 
 Liability of railroad company, 
 where it fails to give signals, 
 but deceased might have 
 seen train. 
 
 State, to Use of Price, v. 
 Cumberland & P. R. Co. 
 (Md. ) , vol. 10, p. Sll. 
 Looking and listening, special 
 iinding-. 
 
 Schulte V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, 
 p. 356. 
 Matter of law. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Miller (Ind.), 
 vol. 9, p. 684. 
 Mitigation of damages. 
 Artenberry v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. IS, p. 847. 
 Mitigation of damages in ac- 
 tion for injuries partially 
 caused by speed in violation 
 of ordinance. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Tribble (Ga.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 794. 
 
 Negligence and contributory 
 
 negligence, questions for 
 
 jury. 
 
 Kowalski v. Chicago G. W. 
 'Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, 
 p. 32. 
 No defense where injury was 
 
 OUOSStSOr^— Continued. 
 
 inflicted willfully and mali- 
 ciously. 
 
 Elgin, etc., Ry. Co. v. Duffy 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 361. 
 No recovery in action for kill- 
 ing person at crossing where 
 no evidence as to the pres- 
 ence or absence of contribu- 
 tory negligence. 
 Wieland v. President, etc., 
 of D. & H. Canal Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 130. 
 Not contributory negligence as 
 matter of law to cross tracks 
 in front of approaching- 
 street car. 
 
 Schneider v. Market St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 692. 
 Not proximate cause as matter 
 of law. 
 
 Schneider v. Market St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 692. 
 Obstruction of crossing. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cross (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 757. 
 Obstruction of crossing, pass- 
 ing around train. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Powers (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 
 757. 
 Obstruction of view at cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Walker w. Mercer (Kan.), vol. 
 18, p. 159. 
 Of child was for the jury. 
 Carmer v. Chicago, St. P. 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 vol. 8, p. 331. 
 Of driver. 
 
 Clark V. Wright (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 431. 
 Pyle V. Clark (C. C. A.), vol. 
 8, p. 431. 
 One injured at crossing where 
 he should have seen train is 
 guilty of contributory negli- 
 gence as matter of law. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Free- 
 man (U. S.), vol. IS, p. 89. 
 Passing between opening in 
 long train of cars in freight 
 yard. 
 
 Wallace v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 
 3, p. 443. 
 Passing closed crossing gates. 
 Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Ehlert tOhio), vol. 19, p. 
 731. 
 Passing over car of train ob- 
 structing crossing is. 
 Barr v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 19, p. 261. 
 
300 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSINGS— Coniinued. 
 
 Passing through obstructing 
 train relying on statements 
 of brakeman, question for 
 
 jury- 
 Scott z'. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, p. 63. 
 Pedestrian crossing railroad 
 in the street where view is 
 obstructed. 
 Berkeley v. C. & O. Ry. Co. 
 
 (W. Va.), vol. 8, p. 7S8. 
 Person standing on track wait- 
 ing for train to pass killed 
 by another section backing 
 without warning, question of 
 his contributory negligence 
 was for jury. 
 Williams v. Atchison, T. & 
 
 S. F. R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 370. 
 PlaintijEf attempting to cross 
 street stopped on defendant's 
 track, when gong was rung 
 by .an approaching train, 
 instead of crossing track, 
 stepped backwards and fell 
 into a manhole. It was held 
 that the fall was the result 
 of failure to use care. 
 Lumis V. Philadelphia Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 847. 
 Plaintiff's foot caught in hole 
 in planking between defend- 
 ant's tracks. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Anderson (C. C. A. ) , vol. 
 
 10, p. 497. 
 
 Plaintiff relieved by defend- 
 ant's default of the burden 
 of proving his intestate was 
 lawfully on track. 
 Sullivan v. New York, N. H. 
 
 &H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 108. 
 Plaintiff struck by one car 
 while trying to avoid an- 
 other. 
 Graff V. Detroit Citizens' St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. S, p. 
 
 447. 
 Presumption as to care of per- 
 son killed at crossing. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Clark (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 407. 
 Presumption as to object of 
 brakeman in attempting to 
 cross track where he was 
 killed. 
 Jones V. Flint & P. M. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 21, p. 904. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Presumption as to person hav- 
 ing seen approaching train. 
 Wood V. Penn. R. Co. (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 5, p. 672. 
 Presumption of due care by 
 person killed at crossing. 
 Crawford v. Chicago G. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 
 
 628. 
 Presumption of where deceased 
 drove on track in front of 
 approaching train which he 
 should have seen. 
 Hook V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 787. 
 Question for jury. 
 Bard v. Philadelphia & R. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 782. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 
 Isley (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 457. 
 Cookson V. Pittsburgh & W. 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 340. 
 Highland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sampson (Ala,), vol. 5, p. 
 
 719. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mizell (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 337. 
 Laib V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 (Pa. ) , vol. 8, p. ISO. 
 Mott V. Detroit, G. H. & M. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 113. 
 North Jersey St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Schwartz (N. J.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 620. 
 Philpott V. Penn. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. S, p. 471. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Harada 
 
 (C. C. A.),voL 22, p. 37S. 
 Swack V. New York, L. E. 
 
 & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 609. 
 Woehrle v. Minnesota 
 
 Transfer Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 19, p. 529. 
 Wright V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 5, p. 560. 
 Question for jury where view 
 was obstructed. 
 Elgin, etc., Ry. Co. v. Duffy 
 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 361. 
 Reliance on performance of 
 duty to give signals, ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 Smith z/." Boston & M. R. R. 
 
 (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 320. 
 Right to attempt to save vehi- 
 cle at personal risk. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. R. Co. 
 (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 759. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 301 
 
 OROSSINaS— Continued. 
 
 Right to pass between cars 
 obstructing street. 
 Burns v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 624. 
 Similar acts of contributory 
 neg-lig-euce. 
 
 Dalton V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, 
 p. 460. 
 Snowstorms. 
 Gobleigh v. Grand Trunk 
 Ry. Co. (Vt.), vol. S, p. 445. 
 Snowstorms, view obstructed. 
 Gobleigh if. Grand Trunk 
 Ry. Co. (Vt.), vol. S, p. 445. 
 Special trains. 
 Vincent v. Morgan's Iv. & 
 T. R. & Steamship Co. 
 (La. Ann.), vol. 5, p. 463. 
 Speed prohibited by company's 
 rules, evidence of admissible 
 as tending to show absence 
 of contributory negligence. 
 Davis V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 68. 
 Stop, look and listen. 
 Vincent z/. Morgan's Iv. &T. 
 R. & Steamship Co. (La. 
 Ann.), vol. 5, p. 463. 
 Stop, look and listen, question 
 for jury. 
 
 Cummins v. Chicago, R. I. 
 & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 21, p. 470. 
 
 Elston V. Del. L. & W. R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 354. 
 McCusker v. Penn. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 351. 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 
 Henavie v. N. Y. Cent. & H. 
 
 I^. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 31. 
 Moore v. Charlotte Electric 
 
 St. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 785. 
 
 Schmidt v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 95. 
 Smith V. Boston & M. R. 
 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 320. 
 Sufficiency of evidence in ac- 
 tion for injury to driver of 
 vehicle. 
 Fairbanks v. Bangor, O. & 
 
 O. Ry. Co. (Me.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 756. 
 The negligence of a foot pas- 
 senger in making such use of 
 railroad tracks while a train 
 is approaching from a short 
 distance will not excuse the 
 company if he was seen, or 
 would have been seen had 
 there been a lookout on the 
 
 OBOSSINGS— Co«ifi»««ar. 
 
 engine, in time to avoid in- 
 jury. 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Anderson (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 497. 
 Travelers charged with notice 
 of danger. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Miller (Ind.), 
 vol. 9, p. 684. 
 View of crossing obstructed by 
 cars. 
 
 Willet V. Michigan Cent. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 9, p. 18. 
 Violation of ordinance requir- 
 ing signals and lights, 
 question for jury. 
 , Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, 
 p. 61. 
 When contributory negligence 
 at does not bar recovery. 
 Gilbert v. Erie R. Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 15. 
 Where evidence showed that 
 deceased, in broad daylight, 
 without looking out for cars, 
 apparently absorbed in med- 
 itation, stepped from a 
 bridge . upon defendant's 
 track. 
 
 Stewart v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (Mass. ) , vol. 
 10, p. 520. 
 Where gates were up and flag- 
 man absent. 
 
 Walker v. Kinnare (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 6, p. 63. 
 Whether crossing before mov- 
 ing train is negligence per 
 
 Chicago & W. I. R. Co. v. 
 Ptacek (111.), vol. 10, p. 
 481. 
 Crossings of Railroads. 
 
 Chicago & Calumet Terminal 
 Railway Co. v. Whiting, 
 Hammond & East Chicago 
 Street Railway Co. (Ind. ) , 
 vol. 1, p. 181. 
 Citizens' Pass. R. Co. v. East 
 Harrisburg Pass. R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 189. 
 West Jersey R. Co. v. Cam- 
 den, G. & W. R. Co. (N. 
 X), vol. 1, p. 189. 
 Contract between railroad and 
 electric line for maintenance 
 of gates and flagmen at 
 crossings as affected by stat- 
 ute of frauds. 
 
 Richmond Union Pass. Ry. 
 Co. V. Richmond, P. & P. 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. 15, p. 206. 
 
302 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CnOSSINQS—Coniinued. 
 
 Contract between railroad and 
 electric road for maintenance 
 of gates and watchmen. 
 Richmond Union Pass. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Richmond, F. & P. 
 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. IS, p. 206. 
 Costs of crossing'. 
 
 Maine Cent. R. Co. v. Water- 
 
 ville, etc., Co. (Me.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 7S6. 
 Decision of commissioners. 
 Maine Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Waterville, etc., Co. (Me.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 757. 
 First occupant of two railroads 
 whose lines cross. 
 Kushequa R. Co. v. Pitts- 
 burg, etc., R. Co. (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 160. 
 Judicial notice of advantage 
 to railroad and electric line 
 crossing it of gates and 
 Watchmen. 
 Richmond Union Pass. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Richmond, F. & P. 
 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. IS, p. 206. 
 
 Negligence of engineer in 
 
 attempting to cross in front 
 
 of train having right of way. 
 
 Davis V. Houston & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. (L,a.), vol. 22, p. 7S1. 
 Police power with respect to 
 the extension of streets over 
 right of way. 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. City of Milwaukee 
 
 (Wis.), vol. 9, p. S37. 
 
 Railroads may be compelled to 
 
 furnish interlocking devices 
 
 under Iowa Code, sec. 2063. 
 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cedar Rapids, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Iowa) , vol. 23, p. 1S2. 
 Rights as between two inter- 
 secting railroads. 
 Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Kennedy (C. C. A.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. S09. 
 Right of priority between 
 railroads. 
 
 Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Tay- 
 lor (111.), vol. 9, p. S13. 
 Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Kennedy (C. C. A.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. S09. 
 Right of railroad to prevent 
 street railway from crossing 
 its tracks in street at grade. 
 Chester Traction Co. v. Phil- 
 adelphia, W. & B. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 12, p. 428. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Coniifiued. 
 
 Right of street railway to cross 
 other railway. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta 
 R. T. Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 
 425. 
 Right to enjoin interference 
 with other company crossing 
 at grade. 
 
 Carlisle, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 22, p. 754. 
 
 Statute requiring trains to 
 
 be stopped at crossing of 
 
 tracks. 
 
 Clark V. Chicago & Alton R. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 307. 
 Seamans v. Delaware, etc., 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 4, p. 
 260. 
 Street railways may cross 
 steam railroad without con- 
 demnation proceedings. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta 
 R. T. Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 
 42S. 
 Street railways, one road en- 
 joining another from cross- 
 ing its track at grade. 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Birmingham Ry. & EJlec. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 9, p. S02. 
 Philadelphia, W. & B. R. 
 Co. V. Wilmington City 
 Ry. Co. (Del.), vol. 9, p. 
 493. 
 Whether contract giving rail- 
 road right to cross other 
 railroad required construc- 
 tion of interlocking system 
 of crossing. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 
 
 (Wis.), vol. 23, p. S7S. 
 
 Damages, measure of damage for 
 
 construction of, over right of 
 
 way. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Town 
 of Normal (111.), vol. 13, p. 
 367. 
 
 Damages, measure of damages 
 for crossing over highway. 
 Richmond, N. I. & B. R. Co. 
 
 V. Estill County .(Ky.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 365. 
 
 Damages, railroad's right to 
 compensation where street is 
 constructed across its right of 
 way. 
 
 Paterson, N. & N. Y. R. Co. 
 V. Mayor, etc., of City of 
 Newark (N. J.), vol. 10, p. 
 182. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 303 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Death through collision of 
 trains of different roads at a 
 crossing, liability for injury 
 to passenger. 
 
 Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. 
 JRansom (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 259. 
 Degree of care to be observed 
 by railroads. 
 
 Coulter V. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 4, p. 336. 
 Discontinuance of highway 
 crossed by railroad. 
 Nickerson v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 21, p. 805. 
 Duty of company to repair 
 track. 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Anderson (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 497. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 506. 
 Duty of driver of car when ap- 
 proaching crossings. 
 Thoresen v. La Crosse City 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 261. 
 Duty of railway company and 
 traveler. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Cody 
 (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 479. 
 Duty to check speed. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. HalKGa.), vol. 18, p. 26. 
 Duty to construct and maintain 
 highway crossing where high- 
 way is laid out over railroad. 
 Commonwealth v. Louisville 
 & N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 18, 
 p. 663. 
 Duty to restore highway, stat- 
 utes, action for wrongful 
 death. 
 
 Bush V. Delaware, L. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 516. 
 Duty to stop street railway cars 
 at crossing. 
 
 Jackson Electric Ry. Light 
 & Power V. Lowry (Miss.), 
 vol. 23, p. 103. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Absence of evidence of negli- 
 gence or contributory negli- 
 gence, in action for death of 
 employee crossing tracks. 
 Elliott V. Western & A. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 889. 
 
 Admissibility of public rec- 
 ords as tending to shew a 
 public way, in action for 
 
 CROBSn^QB— Continued. 
 
 injuries received by reason 
 of defect in highway cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Nickerson v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 21, p. 806. 
 Admissions as evidence of 
 negligence in killing bicy- 
 clist. 
 
 Kimball v. Friend (Va.), 
 vol. 8, p. 451. 
 Admissions of injured plain- 
 tiff. 
 
 Payne v. Chicago & A. R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 6, p. 291. 
 As to danger of crossing. 
 English V. Southern Pac. 
 R. Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 
 63. 
 As to signals and speed. 
 Danbert v. Delaware, L. & 
 W. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, 
 p. 456. 
 Diagram of crossing in evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. ■ 
 Stafford (Ga.), vol.5, p. 
 172. 
 Evidence that highway ante- 
 dated construction of rail- 
 road. 
 
 Sutton V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Wis.),, vol. 10, p. 100. 
 
 Expert evidence as to distance 
 
 within which car may be 
 
 stopped. 
 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 
 759. 
 Habit of falling asleep in 
 vehicle. 
 
 Dalton V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, 
 p. 460. 
 Immaterial error in admis- 
 sion of evidence. 
 Atchison, T. & S. E. R. 
 Co. V. Shaw (Kan.), vol. 
 3, p. 248. 
 Nonexpert testimony as to 
 speed of train. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 
 34. 
 No recovery, for death, where 
 no evidence as to presence 
 or absence of contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Wieland v. President, etc., 
 of Delaware & H. Canal 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 130. 
 
304 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSINGS- Continued. 
 
 Of movements of other trains 
 as bearing- on the question 
 of contributory negligence, 
 in action for injury to bicy- 
 cle rider. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ala.), vol. 21, 
 p. 34. 
 Opinion evidence. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ala.), vol. 21, 
 p. 34. 
 Presumption that deceased 
 looked and listened before 
 going on track. 
 Weller v, Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 22, p. 61. 
 Evidence sufficient to sustain 
 verdict for plaintiff in action 
 for personal injuries. 
 Nashville, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Lawson (Tenn.), vol. 19, p. 
 252. 
 I Extinguishment of easement 
 reserved in grant to railroad. 
 Knowlton v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 vol. 16, p. 573. 
 Facts showing negligence. 
 Smith V. Southeastern Rail- 
 way Company (Eng. ), vol. 
 3, p. 452. 
 Failure to provide crossings of 
 sufficient width for passage of 
 harvesting machine as neg- 
 ligence. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Henry (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 p. 482. 
 Farm Crossings. 
 Action for failure to construct 
 farm crossing not barred 
 by statute of limitation. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Pittman (Ky.), vol. 18, p. 
 329. 
 Adverse possession against 
 railroad under statute. 
 Costello ,v. Grand Trunk 
 Ry. Co; (N. H.), vol. 19, 
 p. 386. 
 Care required in furnishirig. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Pittman (Ky.), vol. 23, 
 p. 55. 
 Company not entitled to 
 notice of defect in over- 
 head crossing caused by its 
 act. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Pittman (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 55. 
 
 CROSSINGS— CoM^jwa^rf. 
 Construction. 
 
 State, Stone, Atty. Gen., v. 
 Burlington, C. R. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 7, p. 
 610. 
 Damages for change of loca- 
 tion. 
 
 Costello V. Grand Trunk 
 Ry. Co. (N. H.), vol. 19, 
 p. 386. 
 Defect in petition cured in 
 action for damages for de- 
 fendant's failure to furnish 
 proper farm crossings. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Pittman (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 55. 
 Duty of railroad company a& 
 to farm crossings. 
 Czech V. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, 
 p. 374. 
 Duty of railroad to construct, 
 under contract. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Pittman (Ky.), vol. 23,. 
 p. 55. 
 Duty to close gates. 
 Mooers v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, 
 p. 753. 
 Swanson v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 17, p. 753. 
 Duty to construct farm cross- 
 ings. 
 
 State, Stone, Atty. Gen., 
 
 V. Burlington, C. R. & 
 
 N. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 7, p. 610. 
 
 Evidence of existence of 
 
 right. 
 
 Costello V. Grand Trunk 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. H.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 386. 
 
 Landowner cannot acquire 
 
 right by adverse possession 
 
 so as to be able to prevent 
 
 company from changing 
 
 crossing. 
 
 Schrimper v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 
 385. 
 Landowner could not acquire 
 prescriptive right to cross- 
 ing constructed by railroad 
 company for his benefit. 
 Atchison, T. & S. P. R. 
 Co. V. Conlon (Kan.), vol. 
 22, p. 76. 
 Location. 
 Costello V. Grand Trunk 
 Ry. Co. (N. H.), vol. 19„ 
 p. 386. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 305 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Prescriptive right to under- 
 ground. 
 Cleveland, etc., Ey. Co. v. 
 
 Munsell (111.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 579. 
 Reciprocal duty of landowner 
 and company. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 
 
 Co. V. Conlon (Kanl 
 
 App._), vol. IS, p. 19S. 
 Reservation of right to farm 
 crossing as enuring to 
 grantor's successors. 
 Knowlton v. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 573. 
 Reservation of right to farm 
 crossing in grant to rail- 
 road. 
 Knowlton v. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 573. 
 Rights of landowner. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Conlon (Kan. 
 
 App.), vol. IS, p. 195. 
 Right of tenant by curtesy to 
 maintain action for obstruc- 
 tion and removal. 
 Costello V. Grand Trunk 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. H.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 386. 
 Right to enjoin destruction 
 of underground. 
 Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Munsell (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 S79. 
 Stock killing at farm cross- 
 ings. 
 I<ouisville, N. A. & C. R. 
 
 Co. V. McAfee (Itjd.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 436. 
 
 Flagmen. 
 
 Absence of flagman as 
 afl^ecting contributory neg- 
 ligence of one at crossing 
 where view is obstructed. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Blaul (111.), vol. 12, p. 418. 
 Duty to have. 
 Hutcherson v. Louisville & 
 
 N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 846. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ey. Co. 
 
 of Texas v. Magee (Tex.),. 
 
 vol. IS, p. 186. 
 Failure to place watchman at 
 crossing where there is an 
 electric signal bell. 
 Northern Cent. Ey. Co. v. 
 
 Medairy (Md.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 526. 
 
 I D— 20 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Implied invitation to cross. 
 Woehrle v. Minnesota 
 Transfer Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 19, p. 529. 
 Foot of plaintiff's horse caught 
 in dangerous hole in roadbed 
 resulting in his being thrown 
 out of vehicle and injured. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 506. 
 Foot passengers are entitled to 
 use railroad tracks as a cross- 
 ing of an intersecting street. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. An- 
 derson (C. C. A.), vol. 10, 
 p. 497. 
 
 Frightening Horses. 
 
 Duty of company to person 
 approaching crossing. 
 Walters v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 606. 
 Engine under excessive and 
 unnecessary pressure of 
 steam. 
 Louisville N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Schmidt (Ind. ), 
 
 vol. 6, p. 571. 
 Failure to look for moving 
 cars before driving to cross- 
 ing. 
 Walters v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 
 vol. 15, p. 606. 
 Giving of statutory signals, 
 frightening horses. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Smith (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 613. 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 Flaherty 57. Harrison (Wis. ), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 176. 
 Usual movements of trains 
 does not render company 
 liable. 
 Walters v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 606. 
 
 Gatemen. 
 
 Liability of company for in- 
 jury resulting to pedestrian 
 from gateman's attempt to 
 save him from apparent 
 danger. 
 
 McAnally v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 17, p. 
 741. 
 
 Statutory immunity from 
 keeping watch at crossing 
 does not relieve the com- 
 
306 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSmGS— Continued. 
 
 pany from the exercise of 
 
 reasonable care. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart (Ark. J, vol. 20, p. 
 
 571. 
 
 Gates. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Pfuelb (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 
 738. 
 Care required in manage- 
 ment. 
 
 Smith V. Atlantic City R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 
 268. 
 Closed g'ates as warning- to 
 public. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. 
 V. Ehlert (Ohio), vol. 19, 
 p. 731. 
 Defective gates. 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Bigham (Tex.), vol. 6, 
 p. 791. 
 Defective gates as proximate 
 cause of injury. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Anderson (C. C. A.), vol. 
 S, p. 667. 
 Duty to look and listen as 
 affected by fact that cross- 
 ing gates are open, in ac- 
 tion for injury to traveler 
 struck by gate. 
 Smith V. Atlantic City R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 
 268. 
 Duty to look and listen of a 
 person struck by gate. 
 Smith V. Atlantic City R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 
 268. 
 ^Failure to have gates and 
 flagman. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Powers (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 
 757. 
 Implied invitation to cross. 
 Woehrle v. Minnesota 
 Transfer Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 19, p. 529. 
 Invitation to cross. 
 
 Fennell v. Harris (Pa.), 
 vol. 9, p. 709. 
 Negligence of gateman, ques- 
 tion for jury, in action for 
 injury to pedestrian struck 
 by gate. 
 
 Smith V. Atlantic City R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 
 268. 
 
 CHOSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Open gates an invitation to 
 cross. 
 
 Roberts v. Delaware & H. 
 Canal Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, 
 p. 664. 
 Unreasonable ordinance. 
 State V. Committee (N. J.), 
 vol. 5, p. 697. 
 Validity of ordinance com- 
 pelling railway to keep 
 watchman and gates. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 R. Co. V. Town of Crown 
 Point (Ind. ), vol. 6, p. 
 324. 
 Grade Crossings. 
 
 Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. 
 Scranton & P. Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 7, p. 537. 
 Crossing of railroad and 
 street railways. 
 Williams Val. R. Co. v. 
 Lykens & W. Val. St. 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, p. 
 718. 
 Damages for abolition of 
 grade crossing. 
 Boston & A. R. Co. v. City 
 of Worcester (Mass.), vol. 
 23, p. 679. 
 Liability of city and railroad 
 for consequential damages 
 caused by change of grade 
 crossing to overhead cross- 
 ing by order of railroad 
 commissioner. 
 New Haven Steam Saw- 
 mill Co. V. City of New 
 Haven (Conn.), vol. 16, 
 p. 588. 
 SufSciency of petition for ap- 
 pointment of grade crossing 
 commissioners. 
 In re Grade Crossing Com'rs 
 of City of Buffalo (N. Y.), 
 vol. 21, p. 746. 
 Whether avoidable is question 
 for court. 
 
 Williams Val. R. Co. v. 
 
 Lykens & W. Val. St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 718. 
 
 Highways, diity of railway as 
 
 to leaving highway in good 
 
 condition. 
 
 Sutton V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 10, p. 100. 
 
 Highways, duty to construct 
 bridge. 
 City of Charlottesville v. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. (Va.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 600. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 307 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Highways, railroad's right to 
 compensation where street is 
 constructed across its right 
 of way. 
 
 Paterson, N. & N. Y. R. Co. 
 V. Mayor, etc., of City of 
 .Newark (N. J.), vol. 10, p. 
 182. 
 Imputable negligence. 
 
 Clark V. Wright (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 431. 
 Pyle V. Clark (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 431. 
 Injury to cattle. 
 
 Bunnell v. Rio Grande, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 
 
 261. 
 Injury to street car passenger 
 at railroad crossing, concur- 
 ring negligence. 
 Washington & G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hickey (D. C), vol. 9, p. 
 
 86S. 
 Invitation to cross. 
 Fennell v. Harris (Pa.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 709. 
 Killing of stock. 
 
 Alabama Midland Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Gassett (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 607. 
 Mesic V. Atlantic & N. C. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 770. 
 Knowledge of plaintiff's dan- 
 ger. 
 Wherry v. Duluth, M. & N. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 72. 
 Iviability a question for jury, 
 unless no recovery can be had 
 upon any view which can be 
 taken ot the facts which the 
 evidence tends to establish. 
 Davis V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 
 (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 68. 
 .Liability for injury to bicyclist 
 caused by failure to keep 
 bridge in repair. 
 Sonn V. Erie R. Co. (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 389. 
 I/iability for injury to tres- 
 passer induced to pass through 
 obstructing trains by state- 
 ments of brakeman. 
 Davis V, Concord & M. R. R. 
 
 (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 68. 
 X/iability of railroad for colli- 
 sion with train of another 
 road. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Groves (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 454. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 Liability of railroad for neg- 
 ligence of independent con- 
 tractor in repairing crossing. 
 Deming v. Terminal Ry. of 
 Buffalo (N. Y.), vol. 23, p. 
 815. 
 Liability of railroad for serv- 
 ant's error of judgment in 
 sudden emergency at cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Lewis V. Long Island R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 18, p. 1. 
 Liability where contributory 
 negligence and negligence 
 after plaintiff's peril. 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Martin (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 683. 
 
 Licensees, company's duty to. 
 Devoe v. New York, O. & W. 
 Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 15, p. 
 124. 
 
 Lights. 
 Negligence in backing loco- 
 motive over crossingr with 
 no light on tender except 
 trainman's lantern. 
 Sullivan v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 vol. 20, p. 108. 
 Ordinance requiring railway 
 to light crossing. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. City of Con- 
 nersville (Ind. ),vol. 9, p. 
 195. 
 Sufficiency of finding as to 
 sufficiency of train light. 
 Sullivan v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 vol. 20, p. 108. 
 
 Lookouts. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Forshee (Ala.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 467. 
 Johnson v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 76. 
 Care required in backing train 
 ■at crossing at populous 
 place. 
 Downing v. Morgan's L. & 
 
 T. Ry. & S. S. Co. (La.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 412. 
 Duty to keep lookout on rear 
 of train. 
 Green v. Chicago & W. M. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 317. 
 
308 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Duty to look after travelers 
 near crossing, to avoid 
 frightening horses. 
 Inabnett v. St. Louis, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 590. 
 Duty to maintain lookout. 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 340. 
 Duty to maintain where 
 track is used as footpath. 
 Morgan v. Wabash R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 372. 
 Duty to station lookout while 
 switching cars at. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Fox worth (Fla. ), vol. 
 
 13, p. 469. 
 Failure of company to have 
 lookout on rear of backing 
 train is independent cause 
 of injuries of one injured 
 while going over trestle 
 habitually used as a cross- 
 ing. 
 Malmstrom v. Northern 
 
 Pac. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 329. 
 Lookout at rear of car. 
 Cookson V. Pittsburg & W. 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 339. 
 Lookout jnust be kept while 
 switching cars at crossing 
 in populous city. 
 Steele v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash. ) , vol. IS,- p. 
 
 129. 
 Lookout on rear of train. 
 Green v. Chicago & W. M. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 317. 
 Negligence, question for 
 jury. 
 Sullivan v. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 108. 
 Statutory immunity from 
 keeping watch at crossing 
 does not relieve the com- 
 pany from the exercise of 
 reasonable care. 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart (Ark.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. S71. 
 
 The negligence of a foot pas- 
 senger in making such use 
 of railroad tracks while a 
 train is approaching from a 
 short distance will not ex- 
 cuse the company if he was 
 seen, or would have been 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 seen had there been a look- 
 out on the engine, in time 
 to avoid injuring him. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Anderson (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 497. 
 Master and Servant. ■ 
 Fellow-servant rule not avail- 
 able where employee sus- 
 tained injury on crossing 
 after working hours. 
 Sullivan v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 vol. 20, p. 108. 
 Liability of company for in- 
 juries at crossing caused 
 by unauthorized use of hand 
 car by employee. 
 Branch v. International & 
 G. N. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 12, p. 378. 
 Servant at work on track at 
 crossing cannot rely on 
 rule of master requiring 
 lookout on rear of car back- 
 ing over crossing. 
 Carlson v. Cincinnati, S. & 
 M. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 14, p. 803. 
 Measure of care required of 
 railroads by sec. 1, ch. 4071, 
 Laws 1891, of Florida. 
 Morris v. Florida Cent. & 
 P. R. Co. (Fla.), vol.22, p. 
 SS9. 
 Mere fact that crossing is dan- 
 gerous does not prove negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Edwards v. Atlantic Coast 
 Line R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 23, p. 38. 
 
 Mere operation of street car at 
 crossing so as to render it 
 dangerous for person about to 
 cross not negligence. . 
 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 
 Elec. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 364. 
 
 Mutual duty of company and 
 tra%'eler. 
 
 Rafferty v. Erie R. Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. 21, p. 778. 
 Mutual duty of exercising care 
 in approaching. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Sprad- 
 ling (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 439. 
 Mutual obligations of street 
 railways and travelers to 
 avoid collision. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 
 759. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 309 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 Negligence. 
 McElroy v. Georgia, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 697. 
 Pyle V. Clark (Utah), vol. S, 
 p. 156. 
 Negligence a question for jury. 
 Philpott V. Penn. R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 471. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Forshee (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 
 467. 
 Gilbert v. Erie R. Co. (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 18, p. IS. 
 Johnson v. Great Northern 
 Ry Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 11, 
 p. 76. 
 Neininger v. Cowan (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 492. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence, question for 
 
 jury- 
 
 Johnson v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 76. 
 St. John V. New York Cent. 
 
 &H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 728. 
 Negligence a question for the 
 jury. 
 Herbert v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 11. p. 94. 
 Negligence, evidence that one 
 was killed by a train backing 
 without warning at a point 
 habitually used as a crossing 
 is suflBcient to take case to 
 jury. 
 Cox V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 390. 
 Negligence of company as to 
 obstruction of view a question 
 of fact. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of 
 
 Texas v. Rogers (Tex.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 141. 
 Negligence of servant in operat- 
 ing hand car used without 
 authority does not render 
 master liable. 
 Branch v. International & G. 
 
 N. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 378. 
 Negligence, view obstructed by 
 trees and bushes. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 
 V. Willey (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 565. 
 Notice of injury required by 
 statute must be given. 
 Nickerson v. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 806. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 Not necessarily negligence to 
 obstruct crossing by train, 
 for a few minutes in order to 
 transact business. 
 Miller v. Wellington & P. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 557. 
 Obstruction of crossing by 
 railroad, construction of stat- 
 ute imposing penalty. 
 Simon v. Baltimore & O. R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 654. 
 Opening between cars as in- 
 vitation to cross. 
 Weldon v. Philadelphia, W. 
 
 & B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 759. 
 Ordinance limiting speed ad- 
 missible in evidence. 
 Overtoom v. Chicago & E. I. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 849. 
 Overhead crossing where street 
 railway intersects with rail- 
 road. 
 Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. 
 
 Scranton & P. Traction Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 7, p. 537. 
 Permissive use by public as 
 creating. 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & C. 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 340. 
 Pleading right to pass over, 
 departure. 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & 
 
 Nav. Co. (Ore.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 624. 
 Pleading statute requiring stop- 
 ping of trains. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. Ry. , 
 
 Co. V. Gray (Ind.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 48. 
 Pleading, whether amendment 
 introduced new cause of ac- 
 tion. 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. Brad- 
 
 shaw (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 572. 
 Power of city to enact an ordi- 
 nance to compel passenger 
 cars operated by trolley or 
 electric, power to come to full 
 stop before crossing intersect- 
 ing streets. 
 Cape May, D. B. & S. P. R. 
 
 Co. V. City of Cape May 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 6, p. 329. 
 Presumption as to whether 
 opening between cars is an 
 invitation to cross. 
 Weldon v. Philadelphia, W. 
 
 & B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 759. 
 
310 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 Private Crossings. 
 
 Application of Pennsylvania 
 statute giving railroad right 
 to remove crossing on right 
 of way. 
 
 Mt. Pleasant Coal Co. v. 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 23, p. S68. 
 Care due from company at. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bar- 
 bour (Ky. ), vol. IS, p. 
 192. 
 Conveyance of right of way 
 requiring the construction 
 of suitable crossing. 
 Hamlin v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 4, p. S46. 
 Duty to maintain private 
 crossing built by company. 
 Willingham v. Macon & B. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 340. 
 Orantee not entitled to way 
 of necessity between parts 
 of his land divided by strip 
 condemned by railroad. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. 
 Co. V. Conlon (Kan.), 
 vol. 22, p. 76. 
 Implied invitation to public 
 to use private crossing 
 renders company liable for 
 injury caused by defect 
 therein. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Hooper 
 (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 752. 
 New location of right of way 
 does not extinguish cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Hamlin v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 4, p. S46. 
 Section 2220 et seq. of Civil 
 Code of Georgia not appli- 
 cable to private crossing 
 not established by law. 
 Willingham v. Macon & B. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 340. 
 Proximate cause of accident at 
 crossing obstructed by cars. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Prather 
 (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 832. 
 Question for jury whether duty 
 to keep crossing in good con- 
 dition required company to 
 cover with snow. 
 Dickey v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 258. 
 Railroad allowing a hedge and 
 grove of trees upon its right 
 
 CROSSn>!Qa— Continued. 
 
 of way to obstruct view at 
 
 crossing. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 
 V. Willey (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 565. 
 Railroad company in piling 
 cinders on public highway 
 near crossing was guilty of 
 negligence. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. GrifBn 
 
 (111.), vol. 17, p. 767. 
 Reciprocal duties of street 
 railwa3-s and drivers of ve- 
 hicles. 
 Moore v. Charlotte 'Electric 
 
 St. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 785. 
 Restoration of highway a con- 
 tinuing duty. 
 City of Charlottesville v. 
 
 Sou+hern Ry. Co. (Va.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 600. 
 Right of way at street railway 
 crossings. 
 New Jersey Electric Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Miller (N. J.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 519. 
 Right of way between train 
 and vehicle at railroad cross- 
 ing. 
 Wilson V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 4, p. 40. 
 Right of way, stationary trains 
 and highway travelers. 
 Allen V. Boston & M. R. R. 
 
 (Me.), vol. 19, p. 729. 
 Right to cross streets does not 
 confer exclusive right of 
 crossing. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Beatrice Rapid-Transit & 
 
 Power Co. (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 325. 
 
 Road not public, application of 
 Georgia Code with regard to 
 crossings. 
 
 Comers. Shaw (Ga.), vol. 5, 
 p. 697. 
 
 Signals. 
 
 Green v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal. )■, vol. 13, p. 511. 
 Harper v. Barnard (Iowa), 
 
 vol. 5, p. 697. 
 Lfouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ward (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 544. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Moffatt (Kan.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 488. 
 Schneider v. Chicago, M. 
 
 & St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 81. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 311 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 A complaint alleging a fail- 
 ure to give signals, suffi- 
 ciently alleges negligence 
 of defendant in an action for 
 injuries at a crossing; and 
 a general allegation of free- 
 dom from fault is a suffi- 
 cient denial of plaintiff's 
 contributory negligence; 
 but it must affirmatively 
 appear in the complaint 
 that the negligence of the 
 defendant was the proxi- 
 mate cause of plaintiff's 
 injury. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. R. 
 
 Co. V. Young (Ind.),vol. 
 
 6, p. 349. 
 Admissibility of evidence to 
 show failure to give statu- 
 tory crossing signals, where 
 child was killed beyond 
 crossing. 
 Mason'z;. Southern Ky. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 83. 
 A finding that the statutory 
 signals were not given at a 
 crossing, not being sus- 
 tained by the evidence, was 
 erroneous. 
 Sutton V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 100. 
 A person approaching a rail- 
 road crossing has a right 
 to presume that the com- 
 pany will give the statutory 
 signals, and if, after using 
 due care, he can neither see 
 nor hear an approaching 
 train, he is justified in pre- 
 suming that he can cross 
 in safety. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Conoyer (Ind. ), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 348. 
 Applicability of rule requir- 
 ing, to case of frightened 
 teams. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 
 of Texas v. Magee (Tex.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 186. 
 Application of Codeof Tenn., 
 sees. 1S74, 1S76, making 
 railroads absolutely liable 
 for injuries where there is 
 failure to give signals, to 
 cases where injury is in- 
 flicted after person was 
 seen to leave track. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Truett (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 823. 
 A railroad company can be 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 required to give such sig- 
 nals only of the approach of 
 trains as the legislature has 
 prescribed, unless the cross- 
 ing has some peculiarly 
 dangerous feature, occa- 
 sioned by the act of the 
 company itself in construct- 
 ing its road or buildicgs. 
 Philadelphia & N. R. Co. 
 
 V. State (N. J.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 241. 
 Burden of proof as to whether 
 they were given in action 
 for killing stock at cross- 
 ing. 
 Central v. Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Wood (Ala.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 906. 
 Character of signals re- 
 quired. 
 Tessmer v. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 
 vol. 15, p. 164. 
 Comparative weight of af- 
 firmative and negative tes- 
 timony. 
 Haun V. Rio Grande W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 370. 
 Compliance with ordinance 
 requiring signals and 
 lights, question for jury. 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 61. 
 Compliance with statute in 
 regard to signals does not 
 excuse negligence. 
 English V. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 63. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 providing penalty for fail- 
 ure to give. 
 
 State, Cass County, v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 17S. 
 Construction of statute. 
 
 State, Cass County, v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 175. 
 Contributory negligence as 
 affected by failure to give. 
 Herbert v. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 11, p. 94. 
 Country crossings. 
 Georgia R. & B. Co. v. 
 
 Cromer (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 318. 
 Duty to give signals where 
 view is obstructed. 
 Croft V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 652. 
 
312 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSlNaS—Con/inaed. 
 
 Duty where signals frighten 
 horses. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Smith (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 613. 
 Effect of failure to give sig- 
 nals at public crossing in 
 action for injury at private 
 crossing. 
 Philadelphia & B. C. R. 
 
 Co. V. Holden (Md.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 192. 
 Effect of failure to give 
 where injured person was 
 not guilty of contributory 
 negligence, under S. Car. 
 Rev. St., sec. 168S. 
 Hutto V. South Bound R. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 724. 
 Effect of failure to signal on 
 liability for killing person 
 sitting at end of cross-tie 
 between crossings. 
 McArver v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 772. 
 ' Effect of obstacle on signals 
 provable by tests made 
 under similar conditions. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Moffatt (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 488. 
 Evidence of failure to give 
 signals. 
 Lamoureux v. New York, 
 
 N. H. & H. R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 24S. 
 Evidence of other failures to 
 give inadmissible. 
 Chicago, R. & T. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Porterfield (Tex.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 383. 
 Evidence that signals were 
 maintained at other cross- 
 ings. 
 McGovern v. Smith (Vt.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 690. 
 Evidence to show they would 
 have been heard, if given. 
 Haun V. Rio Grande W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 370. 
 Failure to comply with statu- 
 tory requirements and there- 
 by frightening horse. 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Durham (Ga.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 606. 
 Failure to give, at permis- 
 sive crossing. 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 340. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Failure to give, negligence 
 per se. 
 Bowen v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 331. 
 Failure to give signals. 
 Central Texas & N. W. R. 
 
 Co. V. Nycum (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. ), vol. 3, p. 43S. 
 Faust V. Philadelphia & R. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 146. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Vittitoe (Ky.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 666. 
 Miller v. Terre Haute & I. 
 
 R. Co. (Ind.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 442. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Spradling (U. S.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 43S. , 
 
 Failure to give signal as 
 affecting contributory neg- 
 ligence of traveler. 
 Swanso v. Central R. Co. 
 
 of New Jersey (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 624. 
 Failure to give signals as 
 proximate cause. 
 Strother v. South Carolina, 
 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. S, p. 430. 
 Failure to give signal for 
 crossings where person in- 
 jured knew that train was 
 approaching not n e g 1 i- 
 gence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Penrod (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 759. 
 Failure to give signals will 
 not excuse failure to stop, 
 look and listen. 
 Gahagan v. Boston & M. R. 
 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 141. 
 Failure to give statutory 
 signals and excessive speed 
 as affecting contributory 
 negligence at. 
 Crawford v. Chicago G. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 628. 
 Failure to give statutory sig- 
 nals, as affecting contrib- 
 utory negligence in failing 
 to stop, look and listen. 
 Hunter v. Montana Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mont.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 61S. 
 Failure to look and listen at 
 crossing, relying upon au- 
 tomatic signal. 
 Conkling v. Erie R. Co. 
 
 (N. J.), vol. IS, p. 61. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 313 
 
 CROSSINGS— Cowifma^flT. 
 
 Failure to observe statutory 
 precaution at crossing caus- 
 ing- injury to person near 
 crossing. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Fox worth (Fla.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 469. 
 
 I*ailure to observe statutory 
 
 precautious causing injury 
 
 to person near crossing. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 ( V. Fox worth (Fla.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 496. 
 I'ailure to observe statutory 
 rule as to, does not render 
 company liable for killing 
 stock beyond cossing. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. New 
 (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 19. 
 i'ailure to ring bell immate- 
 rial where whistle was 
 heard. 
 
 Hutchinson v. Missouri 
 Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 20, p. 700. 
 I'ailure to sound whistle, 
 attempting to cross in front 
 of approaching train. 
 Helm V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 440. 
 Injuries to stock. 
 
 Graybill v. Chicago, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, 
 p. 178. 
 Instructions as to effect of 
 failure to give. 
 Schweinfurth v. Cleveland, 
 C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 
 (Ohio), vol. IS, p. 73. 
 In the absence of proof to the 
 contrary, the jury may infer 
 that the accident was the 
 result of the company's fail- 
 ure to give signals, and not 
 the result of negligence on 
 the part of the person 
 killed, when the evidence 
 is to the effect that the 
 latter was seen driving at 
 a trot a mile and a half 
 from the station, and was 
 then awake, as he turned 
 to one side to let a person 
 pass, and when crossing the 
 track was killed by an extra 
 train. 
 
 Lamoureux v. New York, 
 N. H. & H. R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 245. 
 I^iability of company for fail- 
 ure of servant to give. 
 State, Cass County, v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 15, p. 175. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Liability of railroad com- 
 pany which fails to give 
 statutory signals, where 
 traveler was guilty of gross 
 contributory negligence. 
 Strother v. South Carolina, 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 5, p. 431. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 which fails to give statu- 
 tory signals though de- 
 ceased was negligent. 
 McManaraee v. Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 5, p. 474. 
 Strother v. South Carolina, 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 5, p. 431. 
 Necessity of giving statutory 
 signals at farm crossings. 
 Czech V. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, 
 p. 374. 
 Negative evidence. 
 
 Mackrall v. Omaha & St. 
 L. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, 
 p. 59. 
 Negative evidence as to 
 , ' whether signals were given. 
 Edwards v. Atlantic Coast 
 Line R. Co. (N. Car.), 
 vol. 23, p. 38. 
 Negligence in backing train 
 without giving signals, 
 question for jury. 
 Hecker v. Oregon R. Co. 
 (Ore.), vol. 23, p. 33. 
 Nonsuit should not have 
 been granted where train 
 was obstructed in viola- 
 tion of ordinance and there 
 was failure to give signals 
 before starting. 
 Burns v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 624. 
 No recovery where company 
 has complied with all of the 
 statutory requirements. 
 Artenberry v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 15, p. 
 847. 
 Not intended for protection of 
 person on track for his 
 own convenience elsewhere 
 than at crossing. 
 Huff V. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 17, p. 762. 
 Omission of statutory sig- 
 nals as proximate cause of 
 injury. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Mizell (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 
 337. 
 
314 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSmJGS—Cotiiinued. 
 Overhead bridges. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 E. Co. V. Halvert (111.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 180. 
 Pleading negligence for fail- 
 ing to give. 
 Bowen v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 331. 
 Private crossings. 
 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bodine (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 SSI. 
 Proximate cause, neglect in 
 giving signal. 
 Wragge v. South Carolina 
 
 & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 639. 
 Question for jury whether 
 failure to give is negligence 
 under statute of Utah. 
 Haun V. Rio Grande W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 370. 
 Question for jury whether 
 failure to give was proxi- 
 mate cause of injury. 
 Hutto V. South Bound R. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 724. 
 Rate of speed and signals at 
 country crossings, negli- 
 gence as to, questions for 
 jury. 
 Georgia R. & B. Co. v. 
 
 Cromer (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 318. 
 Recovery of fines for failure 
 to give statutory signals. 
 Commonwealth v. Louis- 
 ville & N. R Co. (Ky.), 
 
 vol. 6, p. 61. 
 Reliance on performance of 
 duty not contributory neg- 
 ligence. 
 Woehrle v. Minnesota 
 
 Transfer Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 19, p. S29. 
 Required by statute. 
 Harper v. Barnard (Iowa), 
 
 vol. S, pp. 696, 697. 
 McManamee v. Missouri, 
 
 etc., R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 S, p. 474. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Geist (Neb.), vol. S, p. 
 
 421. 
 Strother v. South Carolina 
 
 & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. S, p. 430. 
 
 Rule of company may be con- 
 sidered by jury in determin- 
 ing necessity of signals. 
 Hecker v. Oregon R. Co. 
 (Ore.), vol. 23, p. 33. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Signals at county crossings, 
 question for jury. 
 Georgia R. & B. Co. v. 
 Cromer (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 p. 318. 
 Signals required. 
 Bowen v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 331. 
 Statutory provisions as to 
 distance at which to be 
 given. 
 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
 
 O'Neal (Tex.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 374. 
 
 Statutory provisions as to 
 
 signals is not sole measure 
 
 of duty of railroad. 
 
 Coulter V. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 
 
 4, p. 336. 
 Downing v. Morgan's L. & 
 
 T. Ry. & S. S. Co. 
 
 (La.), vol. 20, p. 412. 
 Street railway's failure to 
 sound gong at crossing not 
 negligence. 
 Stafford v Chippewa Val. 
 
 Elec. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 364. 
 Substitution of other signals 
 for statutory signals. 
 Simons v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Va.), vol. 12, p. 324. 
 Sufficiency of distance at 
 which given. 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & C. 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 340. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 giving of signals. 
 Bond V. Lake Shore & M. 
 
 5. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 23, p. 156. 
 
 "Traveled place," what is 
 under S. Car. Rev. St. 1893, 
 sec. 1685, requiring the giv- 
 ing of signals before cross- 
 ing. 
 Risinger v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 517. 
 
 Under statutory provisions 
 that on approaching every 
 crossing having a danger 
 signal, the whistle or bell 
 shall be sounded, the bur- 
 den of proof is upon the 
 plaintiff to show that the 
 danger signal had been 
 posted. 
 
 Alabama Great Southern R. 
 Co. V. McDonough 
 (Tenn.), vol. 5, p. 169. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 315 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Unmanageable team, proxi- 
 mate cause. 
 
 Stahl V. Lake Shore & M. 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 90. 
 
 Variance in action to recover 
 
 penalty for failure to give. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 , Co. V. State (Ark.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 753. 
 
 Violation of ordinance re- 
 quiring ringing of bell not 
 negligence per se. 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 Elec. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 364. 
 
 Where a railroad train is sta- 
 tionary across a highway 
 the bell must be rung and 
 the whistle blown for at 
 least half a minute before it 
 is started in order to comply 
 with the law of South Car- 
 olina, 
 lyittlejohn v. Richmond & 
 
 D. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 873. 
 Where horse was killed twenty 
 feet from public crossing a 
 charge to the jury as to 
 statutory requirements to, 
 sound whistle for public 
 crossing was reversible 
 error. 
 Sims 71. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 20,"" p. 76. 
 Whether failure to give is 
 proximate cause of accident 
 is question for jury. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 
 of Texas v. Magee (Tex.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 186. 
 Schaidler v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. lOS. 
 Whether failure to give statu- 
 tory signals is negligence 
 per se. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Conoyer (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 348. 
 Edwards v. Atlantic Coast 
 
 Line R. Co. (N. Car.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 38. 
 
 Signboards. 
 
 Failure to erect signboard 
 
 at, actionable negligence. 
 
 Lewis V. Long Island R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 18, p. 1. 
 
 Power of legislature as to cat- 
 tle guards, warning posts. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Co»;z««ear. 
 signs, etc. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 
 Co. V. City of Milwaukee 
 (Wis.), vol. 9, p. 537. 
 Speed. 
 As negligence. 
 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Patchen (111.), vol. 
 10, p. 852. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Moffatt (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 448. 
 As negligence, question for 
 
 jury- 
 Davis V. Concord & M. R. 
 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 69. 
 Swack V. New York, L. E. 
 
 & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 609. 
 Excessive speed. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ashline (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 702. 
 Running a railroad train at a 
 country crossing at the rate 
 of forty miles an hour is 
 not negligence per se. 
 Sutton V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 10, p. 100. 
 Speed at country crossing, 
 question for jurj'. 
 Georgia R. & B. Co. v. 
 
 Cromer (Ga. ), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 318. 
 Speed immaterial where 
 trains could not have been 
 stopped before reaching 
 crossing because of speed in 
 violation of ordinance. 
 Edwards v. Atlantic Coast 
 
 Line R. Co. (N. Car.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 38. 
 Speed in excess of ordinance 
 does not affect contributory 
 negligence in failing to 
 stop, look and listen at pri- 
 vate crossing. 
 Vant V. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 470. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 negligent rate of speed of 
 street car. 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 
 Elec. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 364. 
 Test of negligence in rate 
 of speed of street car. 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 
 Elec. R. Co. (Wis,), vol. 
 
 23, p. 364. 
 
316 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Whether excessive speed is 
 negligence per se. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Ashline (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 702. 
 Whether high rate of speed 
 within town constitutes 
 negligence is a question for 
 the jury. 
 
 Risinger v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 517. 
 Whether speed constituted 
 wantonness. 
 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Martin (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 683. 
 Stop, Look and Listen. 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. 
 R. Co. V. Wright (Ky.), 
 vol. 3, p. 441. 
 McCadden v. Abbot (Wis.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 6S1. 
 McCanna v. New England 
 R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 10. 
 p. 48S. 
 Seamans v. Delaware, etc., 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 4, 
 p. 260. 
 Sullivan v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol.. 
 4, p. 260. 
 I Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gen- 
 try (U. S.), vol. 4, p. 
 SS9. 
 Absence of evidence for 
 plaintiff. 
 
 Haner v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Idaho), vol. 19, 
 -p. 628. 
 As applied to street railways. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 V. Haight (N. J.), vol. 
 8, p. 90. 
 Hoelzel v. Crescent City R. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 8, p. 40. 
 At crossing in street. 
 Berkeley v. C. & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 8, -p. 
 757. 
 Burden of proof. 
 Steele v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 15, 
 p. 129. 
 Care required in looking. 
 Hecker v. Oregon R. Co. 
 (Ore.), vol. 23, p. 33. 
 Care required of track re- 
 pairer. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Peterson (Ind. ), vol. 20, 
 p. 887. 
 
 CROSSlBGa— Continued. 
 
 Care to be employed by em- 
 ployee crossing master's 
 road. 
 
 Weiss V. Bethlehem Iron 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 12, 
 p. 305. 
 Contributory negligence and 
 absence of negligence. 
 Work V. Chicago, etc,, Ry. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 20, p. 
 636. 
 Contributory negligence, a 
 question of law. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Holland (Kan.), vol. 
 12, p. 476. 
 Contributory negligence in 
 driving upon track where 
 view is obstructed, question 
 for jury. 
 
 Cook V. 'Lios Angeles & P. 
 Electric Ry. Co. (Cal. ), 
 vol. 23, p. 69. 
 Contributory negligence in 
 failing to. 
 
 Gilbert v. Erie R. Co. (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 18, p. 15. 
 Contributory negligence in 
 failing to look immediately 
 before crossing street rail- 
 way tracks. 
 
 Merritt v. Eoote (Mich.;, 
 vol. 23, p. 43. 
 Contributory negligence in 
 failing to stop and look a 
 question of law. 
 Pyle V. Clark (Utah), vol. 
 5, p. 156. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 boy driving who failed to 
 stop, look and listen was 
 for jury. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Jones (C. C. A.), vol. IS, 
 p. 16. 
 Contributory negligence, 
 question for jury. 
 Gobleigh v. Grand Trunk 
 R. Co. (Vt.), vol. 5, p. 
 445. 
 
 Credibility of plaintiff's testi- 
 mony as to stopping, look- 
 ing and listening. 
 Payne v. Chicago & A. R. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 6, p. 291. 
 Crossing track at station to 
 board train without look- 
 ing and listening. 
 Beecher v. Long Island R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 295. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 317 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Description of crossing and 
 admissibility of opinion 
 evidence as to the relative 
 dangers of places to stop, 
 look and listen. 
 Cookson V. Pittsburg & W. 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 340. 
 Direction of verdict for de- 
 fendant. 
 Gahagan v. Boston & M. 
 
 R. R. (N. H.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 141. 
 Driver approaching crossing 
 with reins loose and with- 
 out attempting to stop or 
 slacken speed until horse 
 was about to cross track. 
 Chase v. Maine Cent. R. 
 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 6, p. 343. 
 Driver's failure to do so im- 
 putable to his passenger. 
 Bush V. Union Pac. R. Co. 
 
 (Kan.), vol. 20, p. 798. 
 Driving in front of moving 
 train where absence of evi- 
 dence of having stopped 
 within reasonable distance. 
 Born V. Philadelphia & R. 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 723. 
 Duty of bicyclist to dismount 
 before crossing where view 
 is obstructed. 
 Law V. Lake Shore & M. 
 
 S. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 95. 
 Duty of one driving to look 
 and listen. 
 Silcock V. Rio Grande W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 459. 
 Duty of passenger crossing 
 track at station to stop, look 
 and listen. 
 Atlantic City R. Co. v. 
 
 Goodin.(N. J.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 291. 
 Betts V. Lehigh Val. R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 299. 
 Graven v. MacLeod (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 30S. 
 Duty of pedestrian to look 
 out for trolley cars. 
 McGrath v. North Jersey 
 
 St. Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 790. 
 Duty of pedestrian to look 
 out for vehicles. 
 McGrath v. North Je-sey 
 
 St. Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 790. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Co«/«««erf. 
 Duty of traveler. 
 
 Guhl V. Whitcomb (Wis.), 
 vol. 20, p. 520. 
 Duty to. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Forshee (Ala.), vol. 
 18, p. 467. 
 Duty to look and listen. 
 
 Conkling v. Erie R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. IS, p. 61. 
 Duty to look and listen inap- 
 plicable to street railways. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 
 759. 
 Duty to look for cars where 
 vision obstructed. 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia, W. 
 & B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 
 20, p. 172. 
 Duty to look more than once. 
 Sandberg v. St. Paul & D. 
 R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 18, 
 p. 763. 
 Failure of cattle driver to 
 look and listen. 
 McGill V. Minneapolis & St. 
 L. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 20, p. 790. 
 Failure of driver to stop and 
 listen at crossing where 
 view is obstructed, con- 
 tributory negligence per se. 
 Blackburn >. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 12, p. 
 461. 
 Failure to as affected by 
 speed in violation of ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 Peterson v. St. Louis, I. 
 M. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 18, p. 161. 
 Failure to as affecting recov- 
 ery. 
 
 Hearn v. New York, P. & 
 N. R. Co. (Md.), vol. 
 IS, p. 54. 
 Failure to contributory neg- 
 ligence per se. 
 Ritzman v. Philadelphia & 
 R. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 12, 
 p. 444. 
 Failure to give signal will 
 not excuse failure to stop, 
 look and listen. 
 Gahagan v. Boston & M. 
 R. R. (N. H.), vol. 23, 
 p. 141. 
 Failure to look. 
 Cole V. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 
 18, p. 383. 
 
318 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 CROSSINGS— Coniinued. 
 
 Failure to look and listen at 
 crossing. 
 Clark V. Wright (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 431. 
 Conkling v. Erie R. Co. 
 
 (N. J.), vol. IS, p. 61. 
 Pyle V. Clark (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 8, p. 431. 
 Failure to look and listen at 
 crossing relying upon au- 
 tomatic signal. 
 Conkling v. Erie R. Co. 
 (ST. J. ), vol. IS, p. 61. 
 Failure to look and listen at 
 street crossing not negli- 
 gence per se where there 
 is watchman and gates, 
 and gates are up. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Hoover (Ind. Ter. ), vol. 
 23, p. 73. 
 Failure to look and listen, 
 contributory negligence 
 per se. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 
 Co. V. Holland (Kan.), 
 vol. 12, p. 476. 
 Cawley v. La Crosse City 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 12, 
 p. 4S3. 
 Failure to look and listen is 
 contributory negligence. 
 Conkling v. Erie R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. IS, p. 61. 
 Failure to look and listen 
 not contributory negligence 
 as matter of law. 
 Smith V. Boston & M. R. 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 
 320. 
 Failure to look and listen 
 where injury was caused by 
 "wild train." 
 
 Bush V. Union Pac. R. Co. 
 (Kan.), vol. 20, p. 798. 
 Failure to look at certain 
 place, question for jury. 
 Hecker v. Oregon R. Co. 
 (Ore.), vol. 23, p. 33. 
 Failure to look for cars. 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia W. 
 & B. R. Co. (Del.)v vol. 
 20, p. 172. 
 Failure to look for electric 
 street car. 
 
 Cowdeu V. Shreveport Belt 
 Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 23, 
 p. 355. 
 
 Failure to look precluding 
 
 recovery for death. 
 
 Kallmerten v. Cowen (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 23, p. 352. 
 Failure to not contributory 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 negligence as matter of 
 
 law. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 16. 
 Failure to stop and listen, 
 contributory negligence. 
 Bond V. Lake Shore & M. 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 447. 
 Failure to stop and look as 
 contributory negligence. 
 Coppuck V. Philadelphia, 
 
 W. & B. R. Co. (Pa.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 68. 
 Failure to stop and look at 
 street railway crossing 
 where view is obstructed is 
 contributory negligence. 
 Darwood v. Union Traction 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 474. 
 
 Failure to stop and look be- 
 fore crossing track. 
 Coppuck V. Philadelphia, 
 W. /& B. R. Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. IS, p. 68. 
 Failure to stop and look be- 
 fore driving over street rail- 
 way track where view is 
 obstructed. 
 
 Darwood v. Union Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 12, 
 p. 474. 
 Failure to stop at certain 
 point not negligence per se. 
 Cookson V. Pittsburg & W. 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 339. 
 
 Failure to stop horse when 
 train approaching from 
 short distance is not con- 
 tributory negligence as 
 matter of law. 
 Smith V. Boston & M. R. 
 R. (N. H,), vol. 19, p. 
 320. 
 
 Failure to stop, look and 
 listen at crossing. 
 Bond V. Lake Shore & M. 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 447. 
 Ritzman v. Philadelphia 
 
 & R. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 444. 
 
 Failure to stop, look and lis- 
 ten at crossing not contribu- 
 tory negligence as a matter 
 of law. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (C. C. A.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 16. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 319 
 
 CKOSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 E'ailure to stop, look and lis- 
 ten, relying on railroad 
 company to ring bell. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 R. Co. V. L,ewis (Ky.), 
 vol. 6, p. 333. 
 Failure to stop not negligence 
 per se. 
 
 Lewis V. Long Island R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 18, p. 1. 
 Failure to submit to the jury 
 whether a failure to look or 
 listen under the facts stated 
 constitutes negligence. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 of Texas v. Rogers (Tex.), 
 vol. 8, p. 141. 
 Infallibility of sight and 
 hearing not requirer". 
 Steele v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. IS, p. 
 129. 
 Instructions as to duty of 
 traveler. 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Crabtree (Ark.), vol. 
 20, p. 923. 
 Look and listen. 
 Central R. Co. of New 
 Jersey v. Smalley (N. J.), 
 vol. 10, p. 463. 
 Central Texas & N. W. Ry. 
 Co. V. Bush (Tex. Civ. 
 App. ), vol. 3, p. 264. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Miller (Ind.), 
 vol. 9, p. 684. 
 Pyle V. Clark (Utah), vol. 
 5, p. 1S6. 
 Look and listen rule not ap- 
 plicable to street railways. 
 Fairbanks v. Bangor, O. & 
 O. Ry. Co. (Me.), vol. 22, 
 p. 7S6. 
 Look and listen, whether a 
 question of law or fact. 
 Pyle V. Clark (Utah), vol. 
 5, p. 156. 
 Looking and listening by pe- 
 destrian not always sufB- 
 cient care. 
 
 Burke v. Central R. Co. of 
 New Jersey (N. J. ), vol. 
 19, p. 258. 
 Negligence in failing to. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 
 Co. V. Willey (Kan.), vol. 
 IS, p. 847. 
 Negligence per se in driving 
 across street railway tracks 
 in covered wagons. 
 Tacoma Ry. & Power Co. 
 V. Hays (C. C. A.), vol. 
 23, p. 58. 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 Obstructed view. 
 
 Philadelpkia & B. C. R. 
 Co. V. Holden (Md.), 
 vol. 22, p. 192. 
 Obstructed view at, duty of 
 traveler. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & p. Ry. J,. 
 Williams (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 p. 336. 
 Obstruction of view. 
 
 Leitch V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 6, p. 777. 
 
 Obstruction of view b3' cars. 
 
 Willet V. Michigan Cent. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 18. ^ 
 
 Passage of extra train no 
 
 excuse where failure to look 
 
 and listen. 
 
 McGill V. Minneapolis & 
 St. L. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 20, p. 790. 
 Pedestrian not required to 
 stop before crossing. 
 Judson V. Central Vermont 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. IS, 
 p. 7. 
 Place where person should 
 look for cars. 
 
 Winter v. New York & L. 
 B. R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 23, 
 p. 359. 
 Plaintiff's testimony that he 
 stopped, looked and lis- 
 tened, held unworthy of 
 credit in view of the fact 
 that the train would have 
 been plainly visible for a 
 long distance. 
 Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. 
 Medairy (Md. ), vol. 7, 
 p. 526. 
 
 Presumption that deceased 
 looked and listened before 
 going on track. 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 61. 
 
 Proximate cause where per- 
 son near crossing failing to 
 look and listen is injured 
 by failure of company to 
 observe statutory precau- 
 tions. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Foxworth (Fla. ), vol. 
 
 13, p. 469. 
 Question for jury. 
 Hecker v. Oregon R. Co. • 
 
 (Ore.), vol. 23, p. 33. 
 Mackrall v. Omaha & St. L. 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, 
 
 p. S9. 
 
320 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 OKOSSINGS—Coniinued. 
 
 Question for jury whether 
 contributory negligence to 
 fail to look or listen. 
 Davis V. Concord & M. R. 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 
 68. 
 Speed in excess of ordinance 
 ' does not affect contributory 
 negligence in failing' to 
 stop, look and listen at pri- 
 vate crossing. 
 Vant z/. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 12, p. 
 470. 
 Stop, look and listen rule not 
 applicable to street rail- 
 ways. 
 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 
 7S9. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of con- 
 tributory negligence. 
 Sullivan v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 vol. 20, p. 108. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to 
 shew failure to look. 
 Olson V. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, p. 
 3S2. 
 Sufficiency of negative evi- 
 dence of care in looking 
 for car. 
 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 
 Electric R. Co. (Wis.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 364. 
 
 What will excuse diversion 
 
 of traveler's attention. 
 
 Bush V. Union Pac. R. Co. 
 
 (Kan.), vol. 20, p. 798. 
 Guhl jy. Whitcomb (Wis.), 
 vol. 20, p. S20. 
 Whether negligence per se to 
 drive upon track where view 
 is obstructed, without look- 
 ing or listening, immedi- 
 ately before going upon 
 track. 
 
 Kelly V. Wakefield & S. St. 
 Ry. Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, 
 p. 67. 
 
 Street railways, apportionment 
 of expenses of providing 
 safety appliances between 
 street railways under Mich. 
 Act 1893, No. 171, g S, con- 
 ferring authority upon rail- 
 road commissioner. 
 Detroit, etc., Ry. v. Commis- 
 sioner of Railroads 
 (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 732. 
 Street railways, care to be 
 
 CItOSStNGS—ConHnued. 
 
 exercised towards pedes- 
 
 trians. 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 
 Scott (N. J.), vol. 4; p. 371. 
 
 Streets cannot be opened across 
 
 railroad without entitling- 
 
 company to compensation. 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gordon (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 S61. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 whether engineer should 
 have foreseen plaintiff's neg- 
 ligence. 
 Gahagan v. Boston & M. R. 
 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 23, p. 141. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of neg- 
 ligence and contributory neg- 
 ligence. 
 Moore v. Charlotte Electric 
 
 St. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 785. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of neg- 
 ligence of motoneer. 
 Cowden v. Shreveport Belt 
 
 Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 355. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of will- 
 fulness and malice. 
 Elgin, etc., Ry. Co. v. Duffy 
 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 361. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to show 
 willful negligence on part of 
 trainmen. 
 Olson V. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, p. 352. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to 
 support verdict for plaintiff 
 in action for personal in- 
 juries at crossing. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Tribble (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 794. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence to sus- 
 tain verdict. 
 
 Ellis j7. Erie R. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 22, p. 629. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence to sus- 
 tain verdict for plaintiff. 
 Rafferty v. Erie R. Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. 21, p. 778. 
 Train behind time, negligence. 
 Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. 
 Medairy (Md.), vol. 7, p. 
 526. 
 
 Unwarranted panic of traveler 
 does not render company lia- 
 ble. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Forshee (Ala.), vol. 18,. 
 
 p. 467. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 321 
 
 CROSSINGS— Continued. 
 
 Use of railroad crossings by 
 the public. 
 
 In re Railroad Crossing- in 
 Town of Old Orchard (Me. ) , 
 vol. 10, p. 870. 
 Vigilance and care to be used 
 by railroad at public cross- 
 ings in populous places. 
 English V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 4, p. 63. 
 Wanton and willful negligence. 
 Krenzer v. Pittsburg, C, C. 
 & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 12, p. 343. 
 Wantonness or willful negli- 
 gence in obstructing cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Prather 
 (Ala.), vol.a4, p. 832. 
 Whether a street crossing ex- 
 ists where one street termi- 
 nates at point of intersection. 
 Schneider v. Market St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 692. 
 Whether maintenance of ob- 
 structions to view is negli- 
 gence was question for jury. 
 Walker v. Mercer (Kan.), vol. 
 18, p. 159. 
 Whether negligence to fail to 
 remove cuts and other ob- 
 structions to traveler's view 
 at crossing. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Breeden (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 131. 
 
 CULVERTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Damages. 
 Fences. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 
 Duty of Hudson River Railroad 
 Company to construct passes 
 to give access to river. 
 People ,v. New York Cent., 
 
 etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 175. 
 Liability for failure to provide 
 culvert able to withstand 
 extraordinary flood. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kuhn (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 324. 
 
 CUSTOMS AND USAGES. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 Judicial Notice. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Measure of Damages. 
 Usages anc( Customs, 
 
 I D— 21 
 
 CUSTOMS AND USAGES— 
 Continued. 
 
 Admission of evidence as to 
 customary construction of 
 switches. 
 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 660. 
 Benefit arising from extra 
 facilities of transit on rail- 
 road privilege. 
 
 Lyon V. Hammond & B. I. R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 337. 
 Effect of servant's customary 
 violation of rule. 
 Pluhrer v. Lake Shore & M. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 18, p. 153. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Incidental expenses. 
 
 Chicago «& A. R. ' Co. v. 
 City of Pontiac (111.), 
 vol. 9, p. 382. 
 Ligare v. Chicago, M. & N. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 52. 
 Province of jury. 
 
 Davis V. Northwestern El. 
 Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 452. 
 Speculative damages. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 City of Pontiac (111.), 
 vol. 9, p. 382. 
 
 CUSTOM DUTIES. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 See Abutters. 
 Appeals. 
 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Children. 
 
 Comparative Negligence. 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Dependence. 
 Ejectment. 
 Electric Railways. 
 Elevated Railways. 
 Em,inent Domain. 
 Evidence: 
 
 Exemplary Damages. 
 Fences. 
 
 Fires Set by Locomotives. 
 Frightening Teams. 
 Husband and Wife. 
 Insurance. 
 
 Measure of Damages. 
 Pleading. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Release. 
 
322 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 HAMAGES—Coniinued. 
 
 See Sleeping Car Companies. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Streets and Highways. 
 Street Railways. 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 Accidents on Track. 
 Excessive verdict. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Creighton (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 
 713. 
 3?right, incidental fright where 
 party is injured. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 Lambertson (N. J.), vol. 6, 
 p. 793. 
 Right to punitive damages 
 where collision between 
 street car and vehicle. 
 Nashville St. R. R. v. 
 O'Bryan (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 p. 902. 
 Aggravation of ill health. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Reagan (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 433. 
 Arguments of counsel. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Car- 
 roll (C. C. A.), vol. 9, p. 7S9. 
 Attorney's fees. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 387. 
 
 Avoiding- removal to federal 
 
 court, harmless error in 
 
 instruction. 
 
 Procter v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 426. 
 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Measure of damages in action 
 for breach of contract to 
 carry funeral party. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Mar- 
 shall (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 82. 
 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 
 By a special contract the price 
 of the goods at the point of 
 shipment may be made the 
 measure of damages for their 
 subsequent loss through the 
 carrier's negligence, and the 
 fact that ntf invoice price was 
 made out and agreed upon at 
 the time the goods were 
 shipped is immaterial. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 10, p. 88. 
 
 Damages for nondelivery of 
 freight. 
 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Bogard 
 (Miss.), vol. 18, p. 410. 
 
 DAMAGE S— Continued. 
 
 Expenses incurred in seeking 
 delayed goods. 
 Swift River Co. v. Fitchburg 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 
 S12. 
 Interest. 
 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. South- 
 ern S. & C. Co. (Tenn.), 
 vol, 18, p. 276. 
 Measure of damages for delay 
 in carriage of goods. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Southern 
 S. & C. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 
 18, p. 276. 
 Swift River Co. v. Fitchburg 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 
 S12. 
 Measure of damages for injury 
 to goods by fire while negli- 
 gently delayed by carrier. 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 Millsaps (Miss.), vol.17, 
 p. 269. 
 Measure of damages for loss 
 of goods. 
 
 Downing v. Outei-bridge (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 10, p. 861. 
 Measure of, for breach of 
 contract to furnish cars. 
 Baxley v. Tallassee, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 170. 
 Measure of in action for 
 breach of contract for car- 
 riage of goods. 
 Bigelow V. Chicago, B. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 341. 
 Remittitur. 
 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 17, p. 363. 
 
 Carriers of Live Stoclc. 
 
 Damages for depreciation in 
 value of stock caused by de- 
 lay in furnishing cars. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Law (Ark.), vol. 18, p. 
 286. 
 
 Damages recoverable under 
 
 Missouri statute for injury 
 
 to live stock in transit. 
 
 Paddock v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. (Mo.), vol. 17, p. 310. 
 
 Delay in transportation of live 
 stock. 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Truskett (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 618. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Edwards (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 402. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 323 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 Elements of, in action tore- 
 cover for delay in transpor- 
 tation of live stock. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Truskett (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 17, p. 273 ; vol. 19, p. 618. 
 Evidence of value of trotting- 
 horse. 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. I,. 
 Ry. Co. V. Sheppard(Ohio), 
 vol. 6, p. S28. 
 Interest. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Truskett (Ind. Ten), vol. 
 
 _ 17, p. 273. 
 
 Opinion evidence of owner as 
 
 to damages to live stock in 
 
 transit. 
 
 Milam v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 253. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Action by passeng-ers for 
 wrongful ejection. 
 Spink V. touisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 86. 
 Action ex contractu for ejec- 
 tion of passenger. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Spirk (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 205. 
 Anxiety and physical injury 
 caused by exposure to 
 weather may be elements of 
 damage in action for carry- 
 ing passenger beyond her 
 destination. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Quick (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 25. 
 Apportionment under Georgia 
 statute in action by passen- 
 ger against carrier, where 
 negligence is concurrent. 
 Alabama G. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 Coggins (C. C. A.), vol. 12, 
 p. 109. 
 Compensation and not punish- 
 ment in action for injury to 
 passenger. 
 
 Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co. 
 V. French (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 
 365. 
 Conduct of female passen- 
 g-er may be considered in 
 fixing damages for insult- 
 ing remark. 
 
 Strother v. Aberdeen & A. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 
 122. 
 Ejected passenger's duty to 
 avoid increasing-. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hine (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 
 382. 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 Ejected passenger's separation 
 from bagg-age. 
 Procter v. Southern Califor- 
 nia Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 77. 
 Ejection. 
 
 Charleston & S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Varnadore (Ga.), vol. .2, p. 
 
 162. 
 Cox V. Los Angeles Term. 
 
 R. Co. (Cal.), vol. 2, p. 162. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 
 Sparger (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 161. 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Huffman (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 162. 
 Schmitt V. Milwaukee St. 
 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 161. 
 Zagelmeyer v. Cincinnati, S. . 
 
 & M. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 161. 
 Elements of damages for car- 
 rying sleeping passenger 
 beyond destination. 
 Airey v. Pullman Palace 
 
 Car Co. (La.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 836. 
 Elements of recovery for ejec- 
 tion of passenger. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hine (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 382. 
 Evidence of extent and profits 
 of passenger's business. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry, Co. 
 
 V. Posten (Kan.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 138. 
 Excessive damages. 
 
 Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Bell 
 
 (Miss.), vol. 21, p. ISS. 
 Atchison, Topeka & Sante 
 
 Fe R. Co. V. Hughes 
 
 (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 248. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Hausman (Ky.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 237. 
 Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co. 
 
 V. French (Neb.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 365. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Keller (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 90. 
 Louisville & Nashville R. 
 
 Co. V. McEwan (Ky.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 438. 
 Rudiger v. Chicago, St. P., 
 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 197. 
 Storrs V. Los Angeles Trac- 
 tion Co. (Cal.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 704. 
 
324 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 Excessive damages for ejec- 
 tion. 
 
 Chamberlain v. Lake Shore 
 & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 17, p. 241. 
 Zion V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 167. 
 Excessive damages for threats 
 of ejection. 
 
 Mueller v. Chicago, B. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 12, 
 p. 137. 
 Excessive verdict for assault 
 on passenger by conductor. 
 Birmingham Ry. & Electric 
 Co. V. Baird (Ala.), vol. 22, 
 p 909. 
 Excessive verdict for breach 
 of contract to carry funeral 
 party. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Mar- 
 shall (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 82. 
 Excessive verdict for carrying 
 passengers beyond station, 
 Ivouisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Guy (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 774. 
 Excessive verdict for ejection 
 of passenger. 
 
 Wenz V. Savannah, F. & W. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. IS, p. 
 844. 
 Excessive verdict for personal 
 injuries to passenger. 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Mar- 
 tin (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 301. 
 Excessive verdict, $500 not ex- 
 cessive for arrest of pas- 
 senger. 
 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Kuhn (Miss.), vol. 19, p. 
 466. 
 Exemplary damages for vfan- 
 tonly backing train and 
 injuring alighting passen- 
 ger. 
 
 Appleby v. South Carolina 
 ' & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 20, p. S81. 
 Exemplary damages not re- 
 coverable by passenger for 
 illegal arrest caused by con- 
 ductor, if made through mis- 
 take, not through malice. 
 Claiborne v. Chesapeake & 
 O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 14, p. 217. 
 Failure to carry passenger, 
 elements of damage. 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Spinks (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 48. 
 Fright. 
 Tuttle V. Atlantic City R. 
 Co. (N. J. ) , vol. 22, p. 876. 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 Good name of ejected female 
 passenger. 
 
 Procter v. Southern Califor- 
 nia Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 19, 
 p. 77. 
 Illegal arrest for riding beyond 
 station does not entitle pas- 
 senger to punitive damages. 
 Cone V. Central R. Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. 12, p. 278. 
 Implied malice in ejection of 
 passenger as ground for ex- 
 emplary damages. 
 Cowen V. Winters (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 16, p. 107. 
 Inability to attend to business 
 in action for injuries to 
 passengers. 
 
 Storrs V. Los Angeles Trac- 
 tion Co. (Cal.), vol. 22, 
 p. 704. 
 Instructions in action for car- 
 rying passenger beyond sta- 
 tion. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bryant 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 1S9. 
 Instruction in action for ejec- 
 tion of passengers. 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Sar- 
 gent (N. H.), vol. 21, p. 
 336. 
 It was not error to instruct 
 that a plaintiff, injured while 
 a railroad passenger, should 
 be given damages only suffi- 
 cient to compensate her for 
 her injury.; but that her suf- 
 fering in the past and prob- 
 able suffering in the future 
 and the probability of the 
 permanency of her injuries 
 and also any expense to 
 which she had been put in 
 the way of obtaining relief, 
 should be allowed her. 
 Smedley v. Hestonville, M. 
 & F. Pass. Ry. Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 9, p. 649. 
 
 Measure of damages for loss of 
 passenger's property by 
 sleeping car company. 
 Cooney v. Pullman Palace- 
 Car Co. (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 
 587. 
 
 Mental suffering occasioned to 
 passenger through agent 
 selling her a ticket by wrong 
 route. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Arm- 
 strong (Tex.), vol. 14, p. 
 256. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 325 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. ___ 
 
 Of purchase of clothing- in ac- 
 tion for loss of trunk. 
 Drake v. Yazoo & M. V. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 141. 
 Passenger recovering- for 
 worry incident to delay. 
 Turner v. Great Northern 
 R. Co. (Wash.), vol. S, p. 
 238. 
 Passenger wrongfully-ejected 
 must not increase damages. 
 Bader v. Southern Pac. R. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 17, p. 60. 
 Price of clothing required by 
 ejected passenger. 
 Procter v. Southern Cali- 
 fornia Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 
 19, p. 77. 
 Punitive damages discretion- 
 ary with jury. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bizzell (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 615. 
 Punitive damages for ejection 
 of passenger. 
 
 Baltimore, C. & O. Ry. Co. 
 V. Kirby (Md.), vol. 18, p. 
 248. 
 Punitive damages for injury 
 to passenger. 
 
 Glover v. Charleston & S. 
 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 102. 
 
 Punitive damages for injury 
 
 to passenger caused by gross 
 
 negligence. 
 
 Felton V. Holbrook (Ky.), 
 vol. 17, p. 146. 
 Punitive damages for insult- 
 ing passenger signaling 
 street car at crossing. 
 Jackson Electric Ry., Light 
 & Power Co. v. "LiO-vity 
 (Miss.), vol. 23, p. 103. 
 Recovery for inconvenience to 
 passenger who voluntarily 
 returns to his destination on 
 a freight train after having 
 been carried beyond it. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Power (Ark.), vol. 16, p. 
 1. 
 Keco-^ery for insults of conduc- 
 tor and other passengers. 
 Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Anderson (Ark.), vol. 18, 
 p. 37. 
 Ridicule not an element unless 
 approximate upon the 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 wrong, in action for ejec- 
 tion of passengers. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hine (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 382. 
 Vexation, anxiety and physical 
 injury suffered in conse- 
 quence of being carried 
 beyond destination, are 
 proper elements of damage. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Quick (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 25. 
 Wrongful ejection. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Blair (Tenn.), vol. 17, p. 
 159. 
 Child may recover wages lost, in 
 an action for personal injuries 
 by his father as his guardian 
 ad litem. 
 
 Lieberman v. Third Ave. R. • 
 Co. (N. Y.),vol. 12, p. 858. 
 Children. 
 Death of child under South 
 Carolina statute. 
 Mason v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 83. 
 Disability of child during 
 minority. 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Johnson (Tex.), vol. 11, p. 
 291. 
 Earnings and expenses during 
 infancy. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Waren (Ark.), vol. 13, 
 p. 729. 
 For death of., 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Creighton (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 713. 
 impairment of earning capac- 
 ity during minority. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Davis (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 710. 
 In action for death of minor 
 son. ' 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cross (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 758. 
 Injury to minor. 
 Burke v. EUis (Tenn.), vol. 
 19, p. 695. 
 Instruction as to damages 
 where there is a joint action 
 by parent and child. 
 Gulf, C. & S. P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Johnson (Tex.), vol. 11, p. 
 291. 
 Loss of time in action for in- 
 juries to minor. 
 Burke v. Ellis (Tenn.), vol. 
 19, p. 695. 
 
326 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 Measure of damages for death 
 of child. 
 Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Hyatt (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 397. 
 Goodrich v. Burling-ton, C. 
 
 R. & N. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 3, p. 620. 
 I<ouisviUe & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Creighton (Ky.), vol. 15, 
 
 p. 713. 
 Measure of damag-es for loss 
 of leg by infant seven years 
 old. 
 Berry v. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 654. 
 
 Mental suffering of parents 
 
 caused by death of child 
 
 cannot be recovered for. 
 
 I<ouis7ille & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Creighton (Ky.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 713. 
 
 Minor's right to recover for 
 impairment of earning ca- 
 pacity during minority. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Johnson (Tex.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 664. 
 
 Of earning capacity of child 
 injured on track. 
 Jeffries v. Seaboard A. L. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.) , vol. 23, p. 
 
 339. 
 
 Parent's right of recovery for 
 death of son. 
 Middle Georgia & A. Ry. 
 
 Co. zi. Barnett (Ga.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 532. 
 
 Reversal in action for injuries 
 to children. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Johnson (Tex.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 291. 
 
 Value of child's service is 
 question for jury. 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 829. 
 Comparative negligence. 
 Macon & I. S. Elec. St. Ry. 
 Co. V. Holmes (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 p. 385. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Watson 
 (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 839. 
 Consequential damages onlv 
 may be recovered in action 
 for failure to make connection 
 with train. 
 
 Fowlks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Va.), vol. 14, p. 250. 
 Constitutionality of statute al- 
 lowing double damages when 
 
 TtAM-AGr^B— Continued. 
 
 stock is injured on track be- 
 cause of failure to fence. 
 Kingsbury v. Missouri, etc.^ 
 Ry, Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 
 720. 
 Contributory negligence in mit- 
 . igation of damages. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Foxworth (Fla.), vol. 13, p. 
 469. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Pugh 
 (Tenn.), vol. 8, p. 756. 
 Contributory negligence may be 
 shown in mitigation of dam- 
 ages for injuries partially 
 caused by speed in violation 
 of ordinance. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Tribble (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 794. 
 Costs. 
 Kishlar v. Southern Pac. R^ 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 948. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Consequential damages for in- 
 juries caused by change of 
 grade of crossing by order 
 of railroad commission. 
 New Haven Steam Sawmill 
 Co. V. City of New Haven 
 (Conn.), vol. 16, p. 588. ■ 
 Excessive verdict. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Hall (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 26. 
 Damages on amounts super- 
 seded, on affirmance on appeal. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Elliott (C. C. A.), vol. 18,. 
 p. 715. 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Allegations of pecuniary loss- 
 in action by widow not nec- 
 essary. 
 
 Haug V. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 12, p. 26. 
 ' Amount recoverable for death 
 by wrongful act. 
 Rudiger z/. Chicago, St. P., 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.),, 
 vol. 12, p. 197. 
 As to decedent's morality. 
 Ivipscomb V. Houston, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 23, 
 p. 401. 
 
 As to savings of decedent. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 York (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 470. 
 
 Death by wrongful act, basis 
 for recovery. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Moffatt (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 397. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 327 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 Distribution of damages for 
 death by wrongful act. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Oyster (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 65S. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Stevens (Va. ), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 468. 
 Domestic conduct as evidence, 
 upon question of pecuniary 
 injury. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Sternberger (Kan.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 745. 
 Elements of recovery for 
 death of husband and par- 
 ent. 
 Walker v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 738. 
 Evidence as to dependents 
 in computation of damages. 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 383. 
 Evidence of family rela- 
 tions. 
 Grouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 780. 
 Evidence that deceased left 
 no estate. 
 Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Wiggins (Ga. ), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 588. 
 Evidence that widow was 
 supported by deceased. 
 St. Louis, P. & N. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Dorsey (111.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 280. 
 Excessive damages. 
 Denver & R. G.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Spencer (Colo. ), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 536. 
 Eluhrer v. Lake Shore & 
 
 M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 463. 
 Excessive verdict for con- 
 scious suffering in action 
 for wrongful death. 
 St. Ivouis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Dawson (Ark.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 30. 
 Excessive verdict in action 
 for death by wrongful act. 
 L/Ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Scott (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 261. 
 Forty thousand dollars exces- 
 sive for death of husband 
 and parent. 
 Walker v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 738. 
 
 HAMKO^Q— Continued. 
 
 Funeral expenses. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Cov- 
 
 enia (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 551. 
 Grief of beneficiaries. 
 
 Stuckey v. Atlantic Coast 
 
 Line R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 771. 
 Instructions as to measure of. 
 Malott V. Shimer (Ind. ), 
 
 vol. 15, p. 774. 
 Instructions in action to re- 
 cover for wrongful death. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kelly (111.), vol. 17, p. 52. 
 Instruction overlooking ex- 
 pectation of widow's life, 
 minority of children, mar- 
 riage of daughter, and de- 
 ceased's earning capacity. 
 Rouse V. Detroit Electric 
 
 Ry. (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 650. 
 Life expectancy. 
 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. z). 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 383. 
 Loss of life, $7,500 not exces- 
 sive. 
 
 Thompson v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 421. 
 Loss of moral and intellec- 
 tual training, in action for 
 death of father in absence 
 of evidence that he was a 
 fit person to train his chil- 
 dren. 
 St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Townsend (Ark.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 123. 
 Measure of damages for death 
 by wrongful act. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Clark (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 408. 
 Measure of damages for death 
 of parent. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Spencer (Colo.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 236. 
 Measure of damages in ac- 
 tion for death by wrongful 
 act. 
 
 Louisiana Western Exten- 
 sion Ry. Co. V. Carstens 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App. ), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 782. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Brown (Ala.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 794. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Taafe (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 693. 
 
328 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DAMAGES — Continued. 
 
 Measure of, in action by 
 widow for wrongful death. 
 Schaidler v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. lOS. 
 Measure of, in action for 
 death of husband. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Bond (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 757. 
 Pleading in action to recover 
 damages for wrongful 
 death. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Stevens (Va.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 468. 
 Presumption that they were 
 sustained in action for 
 death of husband and 
 father. 
 Chicago & E. R. Co. v. 
 
 Thomas (Ind.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 343. 
 Proof of husband's circum- 
 stances and financial con- 
 dition, in action for death 
 of wife. 
 Thoresen v. L,a. Crosse City 
 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 102. 
 Punitive damages for wrong- 
 ful death recoverable under 
 Alabama statute. 
 MaGhee v. McCarley (C. 
 
 C. A.),, vol. 19, p. 216. 
 Punitive damages, harmless 
 error in instruction where 
 verdict for only compensa- 
 tory damages. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Edmonds (Ky. ), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 481. 
 Punitive damages not recov- 
 erable for killing of child 
 and injury of person at- 
 tempting to rescue, through 
 failure to keep lookout. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Creighton (Ky.), vol. 15, 
 
 p. 713. 
 Receipt of money on life in- 
 surance policies. 
 Lipscomb v. Houston, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 401. 
 Recovery by collateral heirs 
 in action for wrongful 
 death. 
 Burk V. Areata & M. R. R. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 15, p. 769. 
 Recovery in action by admin- 
 istratrix for personal in- 
 
 DAMAGES—Coniinued. 
 juries to deceased. 
 McCafferty v. Pennsylva- 
 nia R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, 
 p. 122. 
 Recovery of punitive dam- 
 ages in action for wrongful 
 death under Alabama stat- 
 ute. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Lansford (C. C. A.), vol. 
 18, p. 697. 
 Second marriage of widow. 
 Philpott v. Penn. R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. S, p. 471. 
 Setting aside an excessive 
 verdict for death by wrong- 
 ful act. 
 
 Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 8, p. 200. 
 Sufferings of deceased. 
 Stuckey v. Atlantic Coast- 
 Line R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 20, p. 771. 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 
 Alabama Min. R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. IS, p. 
 752. 
 The question of whether 
 damages are excessive is 
 determined from evidence. 
 Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 8, p. 200. 
 Under Me. St. 1891, ch. 124, 
 damages for death cannot 
 be punitive. 
 
 Oakes v. Maine Cent. R. 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 22, p. 
 190. 
 Verdict not excessive. 
 Malott V. Shimer (Ind.), 
 vol. 15, p. 774. 
 Where death results from in- 
 juries recovery cannot be 
 had both for benefit of de- 
 cedent's estate on account 
 of such injuries and for 
 loss to decedent's heir b5' 
 reason of the death. 
 Sweetland v. Chicago & G. 
 T. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 11, p. 613. 
 Where plaintiff dies from an- 
 other cause before trial. 
 Atchison, T. & S. P. Ry. 
 Co. V. Chance (Kan.), 
 vol. 4, p. 328. 
 $5,000 verdict for death by 
 . wrongful act cannot be held 
 to be the result of passion 
 or prejudice. 
 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, 
 p. 61. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 329 
 
 'DA'M.A.G^B— Continued. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Admissibility in conciemna- 
 tion proceedings of evi- 
 dence of sales of similar 
 property. 
 
 Snouffer v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 11, p. S71. 
 Damages where right of way 
 has been condemned for 
 telegraph line. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. 
 (Miss.), vol. 18, p. 364. 
 Excessive damages. 
 Cobb V. St. Louis & H. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, 
 p. 632. 
 Improvements made by rail- 
 road company lawfully on 
 land before condemnation 
 will not be considered in 
 estimating damages. 
 Charleston & W. C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Hughes (Ga. ), 
 vol. 11, p. 541. 
 In condemnation proceedings, 
 prospective location of 
 plaintiff's depot may be 
 considered in estimating 
 market value of laud. 
 Snouffer v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 11, p. 571. 
 Interest. 
 
 St. Louis, O. H. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Fowler (Mo.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 405. 
 
 Speculative damages where 
 
 right of way hap been 
 
 condemned for telegraph 
 
 line. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. 
 (Miss.), vol. 18, p. 364. 
 Succeeding company liable 
 for compensation. ' 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Hood 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 166. 
 Evidence of physician as to 
 necessity of surgical opera- 
 tion to relieve injured wife. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Robinson (Ind. ), vol. 23, 
 p. 628. 
 Exaggeration of to confer juris- 
 diction. 
 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., Lim- 
 ited, V. Glover (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 21, p. 272. 
 Excess i ve ' Verd ict . 
 
 Masterson v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 14, p. 395. 
 
 X>KM.A.G^S>— Continued. 
 
 $2,500 for injury for rendering 
 plaintiff a permanent crip- 
 ple. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bowlds (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 553. 
 False Imprisonment. 
 Excessive damages. 
 
 Atchison, Topeka, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Henry (Kan.), vol. 
 2, p. 418. 
 Fires. 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 as to cost of building new 
 house, in action for de- 
 struction of property by 
 fire. 
 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 909. 
 
 Fire set by locomotives, 
 
 opinion as to value of 
 
 property. 
 
 Matthews v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, 
 p. 673. 
 Injuries to orchards by fire 
 from railroad engine. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 
 Co. V. Emmerson (Kan.), 
 vol. 8, p. 663. 
 Measure of, in action for loss 
 caused by fire. 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 Falk (Ohio), vol. 17, p. 
 751. 
 Recovery in action for dam- 
 ages caused by fire set by 
 engine limited to diminu- 
 tion in value of realty. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 
 Co. V. Hays (Kan. App.), 
 vol. 11, p. 654. 
 Recovery of attorney's fees 
 in action for loss by fire. 
 St. Louis' & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Ludlum (Kan.), vol. 
 23, p. 851. 
 Right of defendant- to com- 
 plain that damages were 
 inadequate. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Trammell (Ga.), vol. 23, 
 p. 856. 
 General and special damages. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Roller (C. C. A.), vol. 18, 
 p. 595. 
 Ground for reviewing on ap- 
 peal. 
 
 Parker v. Norfolk & C. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 
 844. 
 
3 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 H KM. A.G1^B— Continued. 
 Injuries to Property. 
 
 Alleging permanent injuries 
 from construction of electric 
 power house. 
 
 Chicago North Shore St. 
 Ry. Co. V. Payne (111.), 
 vol. 23, jj. 706. 
 Damages to abutting property 
 from proximity of tracks 
 is question for jury. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. 
 V. Moats (Ky. ), vol. IS, 
 p. 645. 
 Damages to lapd from over- 
 flow of water. 
 Parker v. Norfolk & C. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 6, p. 
 716. 
 Elements of, for injury to 
 adjacent property from rail- 
 road in street. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 
 V. Smith (Ky.), vol. IS, 
 p. 641. 
 Elevated railroads. 
 L(ake Roland Elevated R. 
 Co. V. Webster (Md.), 
 vol. 1, p. 360. 
 Evidence as to measure of 
 damages in action against 
 railroad company to re- 
 cover for gravel removed. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 LeBlanc (Miss.), vol. 
 H, p. 838. 
 Evidence in action for in- 
 juries to property by rail- 
 road in street. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Lersch (Ohio), vol. 14, 
 p. 835. 
 Excessive damages. 
 
 Guinn v. Ohio River R. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 
 437. 
 Expenses incurred in pre- 
 venting recurrences of in- 
 jury from overflow of land. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 
 528. 
 Failure to allege negligence 
 in action for damages from 
 construction of electric 
 power house. 
 
 Chicago North Shore St. Ry. 
 Co. V. Payne (111.), vol. 
 23, p. 706. 
 
 Harmless error in admitting 
 evidence. 
 
 Kishlar v. Southern Pac. R. 
 '■ Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 948. 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 In action for diverting stream 
 defendant should be per- 
 mitted to show cost of 
 restoring it to former chan- 
 nel. 
 Sweeney v. Montana Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mont.), vol. 
 
 22, p. S40. 
 Liability of grantee of right 
 of way for injury to abut- 
 ting property from con- 
 struction and operation of 
 road. 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. 
 
 V. Ball (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 186. 
 I/imitation of action for in- 
 juries to property by rail- 
 road in street. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Lersch (Ohio), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 835. 
 Measure of damages for 
 trespass upon inclosure. 
 Pollock V. Maysville & B. 
 
 5. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 14, 
 p. 821. 
 
 Measure of damages to land 
 by overflow cif water. 
 Parker v. Norfolk & C. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 716. 
 Measure of damages where 
 
 street is extended over de- 
 pot grounds. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 City of Naperville (111.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 702. 
 Measure of, in action for in- 
 . jury to property by railroad 
 in street. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Lersch (Ohio), vol. 14, p. 
 
 835. I 
 
 Obstruction of a drain by 
 railroad. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Anderson (Ark.), vol. 
 S, p. 637. 
 
 Personal annoyance caused 
 abutting owner by railroad 
 in street, 
 lyouisville Southern R. Co. 
 
 V. Hooe (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 808. 
 
 Pleading and proof in action 
 for injuries from construc- 
 tion of electric power 
 house. 
 Chicago North Shore St. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Payne (111.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 706. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 331 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 Refusal to permit testimony 
 to be given by tenant as 
 to a reduction of rent 
 due to the building- of the 
 railroad. 
 
 Birch V. Lake Roland, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Md.), vol. S, p. 
 640. 
 Rights of purchaser at fore- 
 closure sale to damages to 
 land from construction of 
 railroad. 
 
 St. Louis, K. & S. W. R. 
 Co. V. Nyce (Kan.), vol. 
 16, p. 798. 
 Right to damages for injury 
 to property under prayer for 
 general relief. 
 McHugh V. Louisville 
 Bridge Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, 
 p. 946. 
 Sickness caused by stagnant 
 pools of water formed near 
 plaintiff's house. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Richards (Tex.), vol. 
 1, p. 668. 
 Speculative damages based 
 upon alleged inability to 
 grow crops, in action for 
 injury to property caused 
 by overflow. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 
 528. 
 Value of dog killed a ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 
 Jones V. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 14, p. 
 839. 
 Interest must be claimed in 
 complaint in action for neg- 
 ligence. 
 
 Haner v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Idaho), vol. 19, p. 628. 
 Interest on damages recovered 
 under penal statute. 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 10, p. 306; 
 vol. 17, p. 363. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Acceptance of benefits from 
 relief fund as release of 
 claim for damages. 
 Beck V. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. IS, p. 
 851. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to payment of hospital ex- 
 penses, in absence of allega- 
 tion respecting them. 
 Mickelson v. New East 
 Tintic Ry. Co. (Utah), 
 vol. 20, p. 855. 
 
 "DAMAXje^^— Continued. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 wages in another employ- 
 ment. 
 Grimmelman v. Union Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 321. 
 Capacity of injured brake- 
 man to earn wages. 
 Wimber v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 
 
 476. 
 Damages for injury to brake- 
 man. 
 HoUenbeck v. Missouri 
 
 Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 277. 
 Element of damages in action 
 by employee for injuries. 
 Bussey v. Charleston & W. 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 474. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Woods (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 872. 
 Evidence as to previous earn- 
 ings in action for injury to 
 employee. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 Z". Perkerson (Ga.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 63. 
 Hearsay evidence tending to 
 enhance damages, in action 
 for injury to empWee. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. '(Iowa), vol. 
 
 21, p. 391. 
 Liability for second injury to 
 switchman injured through 
 negligence of engineer in 
 backing train. ^ 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 874. 
 Measure of damages in action 
 for breach of contract re- 
 leasing claim for personal 
 injuries in consideration of 
 future employment. 
 Rhoades v. Chesapeake & 
 
 O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 283. 
 Punitive damages could not 
 be recovered of master for 
 wanton or malicious act 
 of servant. 
 Haver v. Central R. Co. of 
 
 N. J. (N. J.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 490. 
 Recovery of punitive damages 
 from master for malicious 
 acts of servant under Colo- 
 rado statute. 
 Ristine v. Blocker (Colo.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 139. 
 
332 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DAMAGES— Co«ifj«««rf. 
 
 May be diminished because of 
 contributory negligence. 
 Western & A. E. Co. v. Fer- 
 guson (Ga. ), vol. 22, p. 
 350. 
 Mental suffering. 
 Chicago City Ry. Co. v. 
 Taylor (111.), vqI. 9, p. 
 513. 
 
 Personal Injuries. 
 
 Action for personal injuries, 
 measure of damages. 
 Chicago City Ey. Co. v. 
 Taylor (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 513. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to size of family in action 
 for personal injury. 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. E. Co. (S. 
 Car.), vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 compromise -with persons 
 having similar claims. 
 St. Louis, etc., Ey. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ark.), vol. 20, 
 p. 571. 
 
 Age of injured person to be 
 considered in an action for 
 permanent injuries. 
 Taylor v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ey. Co.- (Wis.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 788. 
 
 Annual value of plaintiff's 
 labor. 
 Boston & Albany Eailroad 
 
 Co. V. O'Reilly (U. S.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 377. 
 Anticipation of future pay- 
 ments in compensating for 
 loss of earning capacity. 
 Goodhart v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 364. 
 
 Burden on plaintiff, in action 
 for personal injuries, to 
 show extent of damages. 
 Texas & P. Ey. Co. v. 
 
 Barrett (U. S.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 867. 
 Computation of earnings. 
 Goodhart v. Pennsylvania 
 
 E. Co. (Pa.),' vol. S, p. 
 
 364. 
 
 Considering prospect of in- 
 creased earnings and dim- 
 inution of capacity to 
 earn. 
 Atlanta Consolidated St. 
 
 Ey. Co. V. Owings (Ga.), 
 
 vol. 5, p. 2. 
 
 DAMAGES— Co«/«««frf. 
 
 Damages for future suffering 
 from mental shock. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Roller (C. C. A.), vol. 
 18, p. 595. 
 Damages for personal injuries 
 as part of cost of mainte- 
 nance. 
 
 l/ouisville Ik N. R. Co. v. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ey. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 539. 
 Diminished earning capacity. 
 Texas & P. E. Co. v. Bow- 
 lin (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 2, p. 387. 
 Disfigurement injuring mar- 
 , riage prospects. 
 Smith V. Pittsburg & W. 
 Ey. Co. (Ohio), vol. 13, 
 p. 716. 
 Doctor's bill. 
 Parker v. South Carolina 
 & G. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 6, p. 731. 
 Error in instructing that 
 • there could be recovery for 
 loss of capacity to perform 
 the kind of labor for which 
 plaintiff was fitted. 
 Macon 7). Paducah St. 
 Ey. Co. (Ky.), vol. 22, 
 p. 614. 
 Evidence as to existence of 
 internal injuries. 
 Bodie V. Charleston, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 22, p. 818. 
 
 Evidence as to wages re- 
 ceived before and after 
 accident admissible under 
 allegations. 
 Palmer v. Winona Railway 
 
 & Light Co. (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 696. 
 
 Evidence as to whether plain- 
 tiff appeared to suffer. 
 Cicero & P. St. Ey. Co. v. 
 
 Priest (111.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 694. 
 
 Evidence of earnings of em- 
 ployee outside of employ- 
 ment admissible. 
 Wilkie V. Raleigh & C. F. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 295. . 
 
 Excessive Verdict. 
 
 Chicago & A. E. Co. v. 
 
 Blaul (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 418. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. 
 
 V. Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 491. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 333 
 
 DAMA.G'EiS—ConHnued. 
 
 Jackson v. St. Louis S.' 
 W. Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 
 18, p. 444. 
 Nashville St. R. R. ». 
 O'Bryan (Tenn. ), vol. 
 22, p. 902. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Waren (Ark.), 
 vol. 13, p. 729. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v Daw- 
 son (Va.), vol. 18, p. 
 592. 
 Example of excessive dam- 
 ages for personal injuries. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Mattingly (Kv. ), vol. 8, 
 p. 319. 
 Excessive verdict for perma- 
 nent injuries. 
 Taylor v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. IS, 
 p. 788. 
 Injury to spine of plaintiff's 
 wife. 
 
 International & G. N. R. 
 Co. V. MuUiken (Tex. 
 Civ. App. ), vol. 2, p. 
 387. 
 Instance of excessive dam- 
 ages for injury to ankle. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. 
 V. Priel (Ky.), vol. 8, 
 p. 126. 
 Loss of a portion of foot. 
 Elliott V. Newport St. R. 
 Co. (R. L), vol. 2, p. 
 388. 
 Loss of eye. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Bow- 
 lin (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 2, p. 387. 
 Loss of leg. 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 p. 642. 
 Permanent injury to ankle. 
 St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. 
 v. Hedge (Neb.), vol. 2, 
 p. 38?. 
 Severe personal injury caus- 
 ing epilepsy. 
 
 Gideonsen v. Union Depot 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 388. 
 Verdict for paralysis of one 
 arm and loss of leg. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. 
 Johnson (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), vol. 3, p. 434. 
 Verdict for S14,S00 for loss 
 of brakeraan's leg reduced 
 to $8,000. 
 
 Wimber v. Iowa Cent. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 23, p. 476. 
 
 'DAMAG'ES—Coniinued. 
 
 $8,000 not excessive dam- 
 ages for loss of foot and 
 toes of other foot. 
 Wood V. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 11, 
 p. 525. 
 $15,000 for permanent in- 
 juries to leg reduced to 
 $10,000. 
 
 Chitty V. St. Louis, I. 
 M. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 23, p. 829. 
 Expectation of life. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 McGlamory (Tex.), vol. 
 3, p. 434. 
 Expenses. 
 
 Goodhart v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 364. 
 Expenses for treatment, etc. 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. 
 V. McGlamory (Tex.), 
 vol. 3, p. 434. 
 Expenses of medical attend- 
 ance. 
 
 Louisville & Nashville R. 
 Co. V. McEwan (Ky. ), 
 vol. 2, p. 438. 
 Wilson V. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Utah,) vol. 4, p. 40. 
 Expert testimony as to earn- 
 ing power. 
 , Goodhart v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. S, p. 
 364. 
 Fees for medical services 
 recoverable though they 
 have not been paid. 
 Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Emminger (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 p. 188. 
 Eor future loss of time must 
 be pleaded. 
 
 Scott V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 884. 
 Future injuries. 
 Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. Em- 
 minger (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 p. 188. 
 Future mental suffering. 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 p. 642. 
 Future pain and suffering, 
 excessive damages. 
 Becker v. Albany Ry. (N. 
 Y.), vol. 12, p. 853. 
 Harmless error in instructing 
 jury to find nominal dam- 
 ages where verdict for sub- 
 stantial damages. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Head (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 
 302. 
 
334 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 'DKM.A.G^S— Continued. 
 
 Impaired ability to labor 
 because of loss of leg's. 
 Wimber -v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 
 476. 
 Impairment of earning abil- 
 ity. 
 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia, W. 
 & B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 
 20, p. 172. 
 Impairment of health need 
 not be specially pleaded in 
 action for injury to serv- 
 ant. 
 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. R. Co. (S. 
 Car.), vol. 20, p. 622. 
 In action for personal in- ' 
 juries to wife. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. 
 V. Robinson (Ind. ), vol. 
 23, p. 628. 
 In case of collisions where 
 track used in common. 
 Central Trust Co. of New 
 York V. Denver, etc., R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 513. 
 Instructions. 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, 
 p. 241. 
 Instructions as to elements 
 of. 
 
 Beath v. Rapid" Ry. Co. 
 
 (Mich.), vol. IS, p. 793. 
 
 Instruction as to measure of. 
 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. 
 
 zi. Bryant (Ga.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 817. 
 
 Instruction as to measure of 
 
 damages. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Johnston (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 286. 
 
 Instruction as to punitive 
 
 damages where such are not 
 
 recoverable. 
 
 Claiborne v.' Chesapeake & 
 O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 
 vol. 14, p. 217. 
 Instruction as to total disa- 
 bility, where plaintiff still 
 earns salary as postmaster, 
 is error. 
 
 Goodhart v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. S, p. 
 
 364. 
 
 Instruction failing to limit in 
 
 action for personal injuries. 
 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 628. 
 
 Interest on probable loss of 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 earnings and expenses. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Waren (Ark.), 
 vol. 13, p. 729. 
 Lex loci controls in distribu- 
 tion of. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Humble (C. C. A.), vol. 
 17, p. 83. 
 Z/ife tables. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 21, p. 391. 
 L/oss of leg. 
 
 Sloniker v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, 
 p. 819. 
 Smith V. Pittsburgh & W. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. Ohio), vol. 
 13, p. 716. 
 Loss of married woman's 
 earning capacity, in action 
 in her own name. 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Humble (U. S.), vol. 
 20,. p. 821. 
 Loss of memory or impaired 
 mental constitution, 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 
 Co. V. Willey (Kan.), 
 vol. 6, p. S6S. 
 Loss of probable earnings. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Hoover (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 23, p. 73. 
 Loss of profits from partner- 
 ship business, evidence of, 
 admissible. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Scheinkoenig (Kan.), 
 vol. 19, p. 232. 
 Loss of services of married 
 women. 
 
 Southern Kan. Ry. Co. 
 V. Pavey (Kan.), vol. S, 
 p. 591. 
 Loss of time. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Buck- 
 alew (Tex. Civ. App. ), 
 vol. 3, p. 433. 
 Loss of time and wages. 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia, W. 
 & B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 
 20, p. 172. 
 Measure of damages. 
 Brown v. Wilmington City 
 Ry. Co. (Del.), vol. 12, 
 p. 440. 
 Measure of damages, instruc- 
 tions of court as to injury 
 to feelings, etc. 
 Georgia, R. & B. Co. v. 
 Keating (Ga.), vol. S, 
 p. 331. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 335 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 Measure of, in action for 
 personal injuries. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Waren (Ark.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 729. 
 Medical expenses in action 
 for personal injuries. 
 Cobb v. St. Louis & H. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 632. 
 Mental disturbance. 
 
 Lambertson v. Consolidated 
 
 Traction Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 753. 
 Mental suffering-. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Chance (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 328. 
 Bamford v. Pittsburg & B. 
 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 798. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Sanders (Ky.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 528. 
 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Marpole (Va.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 291. 
 Texarkana & F. S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Anderson (Ark.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 37. 
 Method of estimating in 
 action for personal in- 
 juries. 
 Rooney v. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 425. 
 Miscarriage. 
 Butler V. Manhattan R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 386. 
 Mitigation of damages, dis- 
 cretion of court. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ferguson (Ga. ), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 350. 
 Mitigation of damages where 
 there is contributory neg- 
 ligence. 
 Artenberry v. Southern 
 
 Pac. Ry. Co. (Tenn.), 
 
 vol. 15, p. 84. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Pugh, 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. 8, p. 756. 
 Mortality tables. 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Moore (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 3.';5. 
 Nursing and attendance. 
 Goodhart v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 364. 
 Opinion of trial court as to 
 
 DAMAGES— Con/inuecl. 
 
 whether verdict was exces- 
 sive. 
 Galveston H. & H. R. Co. 
 
 V. Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 491. 
 Pain and suffering. 
 Schenkel v. Pittsburgh & 
 
 B. Traction Co. (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 904. 
 Pain not an independent item 
 of damages. 
 Goodhart v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 364. 
 Past pain and suffering. 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia, W. 
 
 & B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 172. 
 Permanent disability. 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Conway (111.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 7. 
 Permanent disability, in- 
 structions. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Conway (111.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 7. 
 Personal injuries, harmless 
 error in instructing as to 
 elements. 
 Coley V. North Carolina R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 891. 
 Physical and mental suffer- 
 ing. 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Brown (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 930. 
 Hall V. Cedar Rapids, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 316. 
 Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. Em- 
 
 minger (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 188. 
 Pleading special damages. 
 Macon v. Paducah St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 614. 
 Postponement of marriage as 
 an element of, in action for 
 personal injuries. 
 Beath v. Rapid Ry. Co. 
 
 (Mich.), vol. IS, p. 793. 
 Prospective loss from perma- 
 nent disability. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Robinson (Ind. ), vol. 
 
 23, p. 628. 
 Province of court as to 
 amount of verdict. 
 Smith V. Pittsburgh & W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. Ohio), vol. 
 
 13, p. 716. 
 
336 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DAMAGES -Continued. 
 
 Punitive damag'es may be 
 allowed where gross neg- 
 ligence is shown. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, 
 p. 874. 
 Punitive damages, verdict 
 will be disturbed as exces- 
 sive, when they are allowed, 
 onlj' in extreme cases. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, 
 p. 874. 
 Recovery by married woman. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Humble (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 83. 
 Recovery for loss of eye. 
 
 Shaw V. Chicago & G. T. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 131. 
 Recovery for phj'sical injury 
 from mental shock. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Hayter (Tex.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 46. 
 Recovery may be had for in- 
 juries from mental shock. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Roller (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 18, p. S9S. 
 
 Recovery of earnings and 
 expenses l,imited to life 
 expectancy. 
 St. Ivouis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Waren (Ark.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 729. 
 Recovery of expenses in 
 action for personal injuries 
 limited to reasonable ex- 
 penses and to those set out 
 in petition. 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
 
 Rowell (Tex.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. S97. 
 Reduction of excessive verdict 
 by trial court. 
 Kalfur V. Broadway F. & 
 
 M. Ave. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 850. 
 
 Release of claims for dam- 
 ages, whether it covers un- 
 known injuries. 
 Seeley v. Citizens' Traction 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 790. 
 Remittitur. 
 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 476. 
 Smith V. Pittsburgh & W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. Ohio), vol. 
 
 13, p. 716. 
 
 DAMAGES— Cbwftwa^rf. 
 
 Remittitur not granted where 
 right to recover is not free 
 from doubt. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Waren (Ark.), 
 vol. 13, p. 729. 
 Remittitur, province of 
 court. 
 
 Chitty V. St. Louis, I. M. & 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 23, p. 829. 
 Review, where it is claimed 
 that verdict is excessive. 
 Scheukel v. Pittsburgh & B. 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 22, p. 904. 
 Separate recovery for succes- 
 sive injuries. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 875. 
 Shame and mortification as 
 elements of, in action for 
 personal injuries. 
 Beath v. Rapid Ry. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. IS, p. 793. 
 Sick benefits not received 
 from company not to be con- 
 sidered by jury. 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. 
 Co. V. Baer (Md.), vol. 
 22, p. 662. 
 
 SufiBciency of evidence of 
 married woman's earning 
 capacity. 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Humble (U. S. )., vol. 20, 
 
 p. 821. 
 
 SufiBciency of evidence tO' 
 sustain instruction per- 
 mitting recovery for medi- 
 cal expenses. 
 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Unnecessarily harsh and 
 annoying conduct of defend- 
 ant's physician. 
 Goodhart v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 
 364. 
 
 Value of time lost. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 
 Co. V. Chance (Kan.), 
 vol. 4, p. 328. 
 Verdict for loss of leg not 
 excessive. 
 
 Kalfur V. Broadway F. & 
 
 M. Ave. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 850. 
 
 Verdict for $15,000 for loss of 
 
 both legs will not be set 
 
 aside as excessive where 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 337 
 
 DAMAGES— Continued. 
 
 punitive damages were au- 
 thorized. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, 
 p. 874. 
 Where a female passenger 
 through the maltreatment 
 of the employee of a rail- 
 way company was com- 
 pelled to expose her person 
 to the weather and to a 
 number of men and received 
 injuries which together 
 with her excitement resulted 
 in her having a miscar- 
 riage, a verdict of $2500.00 
 is not so excessive as to 
 create the belief that the 
 jury were misled by pas- 
 sion, prejudice, or igno- 
 rance. 
 
 McKeon v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 vol. 8, p. 219. 
 Wife's loss of sleep. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. 
 V. Robinson (Ind.), vol. 
 23, p. 628. 
 Wife's services as nurse. 
 Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 p. 780. 
 Plaintiff cannot claim or re- 
 cover damages upon grounds 
 of negligence other than those 
 alleged in his petition. 
 Brown v. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 11, 
 p. 408. 
 Pleading in action by one com- 
 pany against another to re- 
 cover damages paid by the 
 former to passenger, and 
 alleged to have been caused 
 by negligence of the latter. 
 Cincinnati, New Orleans, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Louisville 
 & Nashville R. Co. (Ky.), 
 vol. 2, p. 409. 
 Pleading recovery for wages of 
 deceased employee not claimed 
 in declaration. 
 
 Freeman v. Illinois Cent. 
 
 R. Co; (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 49. 
 
 Punitive damages, evidence as 
 
 to defendant's wealth where 
 
 punitive damages are claimed. 
 
 Nashville St. R. R. v. 
 
 b'Bryan (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 902. 
 
 ID— 22 
 
 DAMAGES— Co«/j««ecf. 
 Receivers. 
 
 Allowance of, on claims 
 against receiver for negli- 
 gence, within discretion 
 of court. 
 Central Trust Co. of New 
 
 York V. Denver, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 513. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 
 Co. V. Billings (Kan.), 
 vol. 10, p. 740. 
 Damages recoverable under 
 Missouri statute for injuries 
 to live stock in transit. 
 Paddock v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 17, p. 
 310. 
 Evidence of value of stock. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Calhoun (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 334. 
 
 Interest. 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Brown (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 
 107. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Calhoun (Ga.), vol. 11, 
 p. 334. 
 Interest on value of stock 
 killed. 
 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Chambliss (Tex.), vol. 
 18, p. 204. 
 Killing stock, measure of 
 damages. 
 
 Grand Island & W. C. R. 
 
 Co. V. Swinbank (Neb.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 870. 
 
 Testimony as to groans not 
 
 objectionable as declarations 
 
 in own favor. 
 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Priest (111.), vol. 22, p. 694. 
 Value of dog killed a question 
 for jury. 
 
 Jones V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 (Miss,), vol. 14, p. 839. 
 
 DANGEROUS PREMISES. 
 See Children. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 DEAD "WOODS. 
 
 See Coupling Cars. 
 
 DEAF AND DUMB PERSONS. 
 
 See Contributory Negligence. 
 Street Railways. 
 
338 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DEATH BY WRONGFUL 
 ACT. 
 
 See Accidents on Track, 
 Actions. 
 
 Burden of Proof. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Conflict of Laws. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings. 
 Damages. 
 Electric Railroads. 
 Evidence. 
 Executors and Adtninis- 
 
 trators. 
 Fellow Servants. 
 Jurisdiction. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Trespassers. 
 Action by widow under Florida 
 statute. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Foxworth (Fla.), vol. 13, p. 
 469. 
 Act of widow without consent of 
 child cannot prevent its recov- 
 ery for injuries and death of 
 father. 
 
 Pittsburg-, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Hosea (Ind.), vol. 14, 
 p. 692. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Moore (Ind.), vol.14, 
 p. 678. 
 Administrator's authority, pre- 
 sumption. 
 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern R. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 13, p. 5S7.' 
 Alabama statute. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Graham (Ala.), vol. 3, p. 433. 
 Amendment of declaration con- 
 stituting departure so as to 
 render action barred by limita- 
 tations. 
 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Hurd 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 674. 
 Application to express company 
 of Texas statute giving right 
 of action for d,eath. 
 Lipscomb v. Houston & T. C. 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 23, p. 
 401. 
 
 Assets within county of railroad, 
 sufificieucy of evidence in ac- 
 tion by administrator. 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Hurd 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 675. 
 Assumption of risk 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Soder- 
 burg (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 761. 
 Basis of recovery of damages. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mof- 
 fatt (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 397. . 
 
 DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued. 
 
 Burden of proving conscious 
 suffering in action for benefit 
 of estate. 
 
 Sweetland v. Chicago & G. T. 
 R. Co. (Mich ), vol. 11, p. 613. 
 Burden of proving negligence. 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Townsend (Ark.), vol. 22, p. 
 123. 
 Burden of proving negligence 
 was on plaintiff in action for 
 death on railroad track. 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Townsend (Ark.), vol. 22, p. 
 123. 
 Common-law limitation of ac- 
 tions. 
 
 "Western & A. R. Co. v. Bass 
 (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 608. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Burden of proving contribu- 
 tory negligence. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 V. Hone (N. J.), vol. 9, p. 
 249. 
 Heckle v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. IS, p. 584. 
 Schneider v. Market St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 692. 
 Deceased getting upon track 
 when he must have seen ap- 
 proach of train. 
 McManamee v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 5, p. 
 474. 
 Deceased killed by locomotive 
 running backwards through 
 street. 
 
 Brunswick & W. A. Co. v. 
 Gibson (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 
 441. 
 Deceased sitting on brake- 
 wheel. 
 
 Wilson V. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 491. 
 Instructions ignoring absence 
 of knowledge. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 224. 
 No defense under Massachu- 
 setts statute providing for 
 the punishment of railroads, 
 unless true cause of injury. 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Hurd 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 674. 
 Presumption as to care on 
 part of person killed in ab- 
 sence of evidence. 
 Cameron v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 12, 
 p. 520. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 339 
 
 DEATH BY "WRONGPTJL ACT DEATH BY -WRONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued. — Continued. 
 
 Presumption as to contribu- 
 tory negligence, in action 
 for death of employee. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Milliken (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 742. 
 Presumption of contributory 
 negligence where deceased 
 drove on track in front of 
 approaching train which he 
 should have seen. 
 Hook V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 787. 
 Presumption where deceased 
 stepped from one street car 
 in ample jiime to have 
 crossed parallel track and 
 and to have avoided another 
 car coming in opposite di- 
 rection. 
 Evansville Street R. Co. v. 
 
 Gentry (Ind.), vol. S, p. 
 
 SOO. 
 Question for jury. 
 Walker v. Shelton (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. IS. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 parents. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Dawson (Ark.), vol. 18, p. 
 30. 
 Damages. - 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Lang (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 779. 
 Green v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 13, p. Sll. 
 May V. West Jersey & S. R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 13, p. 517. 
 Strother v. South Carolina 
 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. S, p. 
 
 430. 
 Walker v. Lake Shore, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 779. 
 Action by collateral heirs. 
 Burk V. Areata & M. R. R. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. IS, p. 769. 
 Ascertainment of damages 
 for death. 
 Jackson v . Consolidated 
 
 Traction Co. (N. J.),vol. 
 
 5, p. 697. 
 Benefit accruing to adult 
 children from decedent's 
 life. 
 Chicago & W. I. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ptacek (111.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 481. 
 Damages for benefit of dece- 
 dent's children. 
 Felton V. Spiro (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 86S. 
 
 Damages which a , minor re- 
 covers for his father's death. 
 Tyler S. E. Railway Co. v. 
 
 Rasberry (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 376. 
 Elements of damage. 
 Green v. Southern Pac. Co.- 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 13, p. Sll. 
 Elements of damages, earning 
 capacity under Me. St. 1891, 
 ch. 124. 
 Oakes v. Maine Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (Me.), vol. 22, p. 190. 
 Elements of damages in action 
 by widow. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Foxworth (Pla.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 469. 
 Evidence as to family of de- 
 ceased. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. in Ken- 
 tucky V. Evans (Ky.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 809. 
 Evidence of decedent's earn- 
 ing capacity in action by 
 administrator. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Ala.) , vol. 23, p. 
 
 224. 
 Evidence of dependence. 
 Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. 
 
 V. Woolridge (111.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. SOI. 
 Evidence of dependency of 
 intestate's mother. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 224. 
 
 Evidence that deceased did 
 
 not contribute to support of 
 
 next of kin. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Ryan (Kan.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 684. 
 Excessive damages. 
 
 English V. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 63. 
 May V. West Jersey & S. R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 13, p. 517. 
 Tyler S. E. Ry. Co. v. Ras- 
 berry (Tex. ) , vol. 3, p. 376. 
 Excessive verdict in favor of 
 next of kin. 
 Rafferty v. Erie R. Co. (N. 
 
 J.), vol. 21, p. 778. 
 Exemplary damages. 
 Garrick v. Florida Cent. & 
 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 541. 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern R. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 557. 
 
340 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT 
 
 — Continued. 
 
 Expectation of pecuniary ben- 
 efit by next of kin. 
 Boyden v. Fitchburgr R. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 10, p. 523. 
 Funeral expenses, construction 
 of statute. 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 Hone (N. J.), vol. 9, p. 249. 
 I4OSS of moral and intellectual 
 trainings in action for death 
 of father, in absence of evi- 
 dence that he was a fit per- 
 son to do such training'. 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Townsend (Ark. ) , vol. 22, 
 p. 123. 
 Measure of Damages. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., Ry. Co. 
 V. Lang- (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 
 779. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Brown (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 
 794. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Clark (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 408. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Creighton (Ky.), vol. IS, 
 p. 713. , 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Kelly (Ky.), vol. 7, p. 165. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Taafe (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 693. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Tucker (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 876. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Ward (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 
 544. 
 Southern Ry. Co. in Ken- 
 tucky V. Evans (Ky.), 
 vol. 21, p. 809. 
 "Walker v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 6, p. 779. 
 Action by administrator. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 224. 
 Evidence of wages received. 
 Oakes v. Maine Cent. R. 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 22, p. 190. 
 In action by widow. 
 Schaidler v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 15, p. 105. 
 In action for death of hus- 
 band. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Bond (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 757. 
 
 DEATH BY ■WRONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued. 
 In .Colorado. 
 Denver & R. G. • R. Co. v. 
 Spencer (Colo.), vol. 10,. 
 p. 536. 
 Sums expended for support 
 of mother and sister. 
 LouisviUe & N. R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 226. 
 Where a constitution pro- 
 vides that damages may 
 be recovered for death by 
 wrongful act, the word 
 damages has been held to 
 include punitory, as well 
 as compensatory damages. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Kelly (Ky.), vol. 7, p. 165. 
 Mental suffering of parents 
 could not be recovered for. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Creighton (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 
 713. 
 Nominal damages for death. 
 Cox V. Chicago & N. W. Rv. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 604. ' 
 Pecuniary injury. 
 
 Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. 
 V. Woolridge (111.), vol. 13, 
 p. 501. 
 Persons entitled to recover. • 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Ryan (Kan.), vol. 2l, p. 
 684. 
 Physical suff'ering of deceased 
 or grief of beneficiary are 
 not elements of damages, 
 under Me. St. 1891, ch. 124. 
 Oakes v. Maine Cent. R. Co. 
 (Me.), vol. 22, p. 190. 
 Presumption that they were 
 sustained in action for death 
 of husband and father. 
 Chicago & E. R. Co. v. 
 Thomas (Ind.), vol. 21, p. 
 343. 
 
 Recovery for benefit expected 
 of minor child after he 
 should reach majority. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Wilder (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 520. 
 Right of adult children to re- 
 cover damages for the negli- 
 gent killing of their father, 
 who made them a yearly al- 
 lowance not affected by 
 fact that they inherited his 
 estate. 
 
 Stabler w. Philadelphia & R. 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 
 815. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 341 
 
 DEATH BY "WRONGFUL ACT 
 
 — Continued. 
 
 Right of brothers and sisters 
 to recover. 
 
 Brown v, Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 603. 
 
 Rig-ht to recover death loss 
 
 must be clearly given by 
 
 statute. 
 
 Brown v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 13, p. 
 603. 
 Statutory right to recover not 
 exclusive. 
 
 Brown v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 13, p. 
 603. 
 While jury may consider prob- 
 able personal expenses of 
 decedent, the failure to so 
 instruct the jury was not 
 error. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. in Ken- 
 tucky V. Evans (Ky.), vol. 
 21, p. 809. 
 $5,000 verdict cannot be held 
 to be the result of passion 
 and prejudice. 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, 
 p. 61. 
 Deceased killed by locomotive 
 running backward through 
 street without lookout. 
 Brunswick, etc., R. Co. v. Gib- 
 son (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 441. 
 Determination of amount recov- 
 erable. 
 
 Rudiger?/. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 12, 
 p. 197. 
 Directing verdict. 
 
 Erouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Vittitoe (Ky.), vol. S, p. 
 
 666. 
 
 Directing verdict where absence 
 
 of evidence as to cause of 
 
 death of man found on track. 
 
 Stidham v. Chesapeake & O. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 162. 
 
 Double remedy under laws of 
 
 Michigan. 
 
 Dolson V. Lake Shore, etc. , Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 387. 
 
 Effect in statutory action by 
 
 widow and son for wrongful 
 
 death of stipulation in pass on 
 
 which deceased was traveling 
 
 limiting carrier's liability. 
 
 Adams v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. IS, p. 784. 
 
 DEATH BY "WRONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued. 
 
 Effect of release executed before 
 death. 
 
 Hill V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 229. 
 Enforcement of foreign statute, 
 • in action for. 
 Nicholas v. Burlington, C. R. 
 & N. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 16, p. 341. 
 Engineer killed by rock falling 
 on track, negligence of com- 
 pany question for jury. 
 Clune V. Ristine (C. C. A.), 
 vol. IS, p. 761. 
 Error in granting nonsuit. 
 Griflfin V. Brunswick & W. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 808. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 husband's subsequent mar- 
 riage in action for death of 
 wife. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Younger (Tex.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 84. 
 As to number of children adj 
 missible in action for. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Davis 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 708. 
 As to who constituted de- 
 ceased's next of kin, judicial 
 discretion in admitting after 
 arguments and instructions. 
 Indiana, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hen- 
 
 drian (111.), vol. 22, p. 392. 
 
 Burden of proving negligence 
 
 in action for wrongful death. 
 
 St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Townsend (Ark.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 123. 
 Declarations of person as to 
 , his symptoms, made to phy- 
 sician or surgeon, not for 
 purpose of treatment, but 
 for purpose of leading phy- 
 sician or surgeon to form 
 opinion to which he may tes- 
 tify as witness for declar- 
 ant, in suit brought by him 
 for personal injuries, are not 
 admissible in evidence at 
 instance of declarant. 
 Lambertson v. Consolidated 
 
 Traction Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 3SS. 
 Evidence as to names and 
 ages of children of deceased. 
 English V. Southern Pac. 
 
 R. Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 
 
 63. 
 
342 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued. 
 
 Of circumstances of surviv- 
 ing parent in action for 
 death of parent. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Younger (Tex.), vol. 
 8, p. 84. 
 Of surviving family. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Taafe (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 693. 
 Subsequent unchaste con- 
 duct of widow, in action for 
 wrongful death of husband. 
 Kolb V. Union R. Co. (R. 
 I.), vol. 21, p. 811. 
 That deceased left no estate. 
 Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. 
 Wiggins (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 
 V 588. 
 
 To show number of children 
 of deceased. 
 
 Felton V. Spiro (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 10, p. 865. 
 Exemption from liability for 
 death Of messenger. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Mahony (Ind.), vol. 
 8, p. 441. 
 Extraterritorial effect of Mis- 
 souri statute giving right of 
 action for. 
 
 Matheson v. Kansas City, Ft. 
 S. & M. R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 
 17, p. 738. 
 Federal jurisdiction to enforce 
 penal statute as to. 
 Perkins v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co. (C. C. Mass.), vol. 13, 
 p. 601. 
 Improper width of trucks in 
 action for killing person 
 near track. 
 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & 
 Nav. Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, 
 p. 655. 
 In action to recover for death 
 of person found dead, after 
 a collision, in footpath hab- 
 itually used by the public, 
 as the company had notice, 
 the question of negligence 
 was for the jury. 
 Washington v. Missouri, K. & 
 T. Ry. Co. of Texas (Tex.), 
 vol. 11, p. 829. 
 Inspection of tracks. 
 / Cox V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. 
 ' Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 604. 
 Instantaneous killing of per- 
 son on track, statutory cause 
 of action. 
 
 Matz V. Chicago & A. R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 592. 
 
 DEATH BY W^RONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued. 
 Instruction as to ' measure o-f 
 damages erroneous because 
 I overlooking expectation of 
 widow's life, minority of 
 children, marriage of daugh- 
 ter, and deceased's earning 
 capacity. 
 Rouse V. Detroit Elettric 
 
 Ry. (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 650. 
 Insurance money, deduction 
 from damages. 
 Tyler S. E. Railway Co. v.. 
 
 Rasberry (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 376. 
 Joinder of causes of action. 
 McVeay v. Illinois Central 
 
 Railroad Co. (Miss.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 371. 
 Judicial knowledge of laws of 
 sister state. 
 Ex parte Northeastern R. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 100. 
 In reMayo's Estate (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 100. 
 Jurisdiction of Ohio courts 
 where death occurred in 
 Indiana. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Fox (Ohio), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 690. 
 Jurisdiction where death was 
 inflicted in foreign state, ex- 
 istence of similar foreign 
 statute. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Fox (Ohio), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 690. 
 Killing bicyclist at crossing. 
 Kimball v. Friend (Va. ), vol. 
 
 8, p. 451. 
 Killing licensee on track. 
 Adams v. Southern Ry. Co.. 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 9, p. 747. 
 Liability for intentional kill- 
 ing by employee guarding 
 property. 
 Lipscomb V. Houston & T. 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 401. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for personal injury to ship- 
 per's employee resnltiug in 
 death, where it had furnished 
 a defective car for freight. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Booth (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 612. 
 Limitations of actions. 
 
 Bachman v. Philadelphia & 
 
 R. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 563. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v^ 
 
 Kelley (Ky.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 568. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 343 
 
 DEATH BY ■WRONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued. 
 Clare v. New York & N. E. 
 
 R. Co. (Mass.),' vol. 13, p. 
 
 569. 
 Glover v. Savannah, F. & W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 S66. 
 Hoover v. Chesapeake & O. 
 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 573. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Bass 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 608. 
 Limiting liability in pass on 
 which deceased was travel- 
 ling as affecting statutory 
 action by widow and son. 
 Adams v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 784. 
 Petition in action for, must 
 show that beneficiary had a 
 pecuniary interest. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Young (Neb.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 343. 
 Plaintiff cannot recover in an 
 action for damages for the 
 negligent killing of his intes- 
 tate where it appears from 
 the evidence that the death 
 ma3' have resulted from one of 
 several possible causes, some 
 of which were irreconcilable 
 with the possibility of negli- 
 gence on the part of defend- 
 ant. 
 Kenneson v. West End St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 445. 
 Pleading. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bond (Neb.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 759. 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern R. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 13, p. 557. 
 Pleading negligence in action 
 for wrongful death. 
 Sims V. Western & A. E. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 756. 
 Presence of wife and children 
 at trial in action for death by 
 wrongful act. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kelly_(Ky.), vol. 7, p. 165. 
 Presumption as to cause of 
 death. 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. 
 
 Swope (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 856. 
 Presumption of due care on 
 part of deceased. 
 Cameron v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol.. 12, 
 
 p. 520. . 
 
 DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued. 
 
 McVey v. Chesapeake & O. 
 
 Ry. Cd. (W. Va.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 788. 
 Presumption of negligence. 
 Augusta Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 McDade (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 548. 
 Gammage v. Atlanta, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. S, p. 709. 
 Sims V. Western & A. R. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 756. 
 Strom V. Georgia, R. & B. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 849. 
 Presumption of negligence in 
 action for death of servant. 
 Augusta Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 McDade (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 548. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 where deceased was killed by 
 train. 
 St. Louis & S. P. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Townsend (A.rk.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 123. 
 Presumption that deceased ex- 
 ercised ordinary care. 
 Dalton V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 
 460. 
 Proof of husband's circum- 
 stances. 
 Thoresen v. La Crosse City 
 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 102. 
 Punitive damages. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Lansford (C: C. A.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 697. 
 Punitive damages recoverable 
 under Alabama statute. 
 McGhee v. McCarley (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 19, p. 216. 
 Recovery for conscious suffer- 
 ing. 
 St. Louis C& S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Dawson (Ark.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 30. 
 Release by widow in consid- 
 eration of benefits from relief 
 department no bar to action 
 by administrator. 
 Cowen V. Ray (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 531. 
 
 Remedy. 
 
 State V. Maine Cent. R. Co. 
 (Me.), vol. 8, p. 758. 
 Repeal of Kentucky statute as 
 to wilful negligence. 
 Clark V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 8," p. 355. 
 
344 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued. 
 Res judicata, whether recovery 
 by personal representative of 
 a wife for her wrongful 
 death bars an action by the 
 husband. 
 Ivouisville & N. E. Co. v. Mc- 
 
 Elwain (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 309. 
 Right of action. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Oyster (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 6SS. 
 McVey v. Illinois Cent. Rail- 
 road Co. (Miss.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 371. 
 Right of action by parent for 
 killing of son. 
 Killian v. Southerly Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 22, p. 639. 
 
 Right of action for death of 
 
 husband and father survives 
 
 in widow and heirs. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Elliott (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 
 14, p. S87. 
 Right of railroad to object to 
 appointment of an executor 
 or administrator. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ben- 
 nett's Estate (Kan.), vol. 
 
 7, p. S34. 
 Statutory right of action. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Williams (Ala.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 252. 
 Statutory right of action as an 
 asset of estate. 
 Ex parte Northeastern R. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 99. 
 In re Mayo's Estate (S. 
 
 Car.), vol. 21, p. 99. 
 . Survival of right of action 
 for. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Elliott (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 715. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Dawson (Ark.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 30. 
 Survival of right of action un- 
 der Mich. Comp. Laws, 1897, 
 sec. 10, p. 427. 
 Dolson V. Lake Shore, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 387. 
 Whether departure in pleading 
 in reply, in action for death 
 on track. 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & 
 
 Nav. Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 655. 
 
 DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT 
 
 — Continued. 
 Whether judsre of relief depart- 
 ment's certificate was an 
 assignment of widow's right 
 of action. 
 
 Cowen V. Ray (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 21, p. 531'. 
 Who May Recover. 
 
 Chattanooga Electric Ry. 
 Co. V. Johnson (Tenn.), 
 vol. 8, p.. 758. 
 Action by next of kin. 
 Boyden v. Fitch burg R. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 10, p. 523. 
 Action by representative. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. 
 Co. V. Young (Neb.), vol. 
 14, p. 343. 
 Ean V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 9, p. 475. 
 Action by widow. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mills (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 
 770. 
 Gross V. Electric Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 780. 
 Action for death of wife, 
 proper plaintiff. 
 Chattanooga Electric Ry. 
 Co. V. Johnson (Tenn.), 
 * vol. 8, p. 758. 
 Administrator of minor, neg- 
 ligence of father. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 V. Hone (N. J.), vol. 5, 
 p. 679. 
 Administrator's right to 
 maintain suit where coUnty 
 court set aside an order 
 admitting a will to probate 
 has been set aside by an 
 agreement of all of the 
 parties in interest. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 "Sander (Ky. ), vol. 10, p. 
 528. 
 Capacity of New Hampshire 
 administrator of person who 
 had resided in Massachu- 
 setts to sue, statutes. 
 Boston & M. Ri R. v. Hurd 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 
 674. 
 
 Mother's right of action for 
 death of mingr son where 
 she has been abandoned by 
 her husband. 
 
 Amos V. Atlanta Ry. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 857. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 345 
 
 DEATH BY "WRONGFUL ACT 
 — Continued, 
 
 Next of kin, construction of 
 Tennessee statute. 
 Freeman v. Illinois Cent. 
 
 R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 49. 
 Next of kin, statute. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Ryan (Kan.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 684. 
 No action at common law by 
 father lies for instantaneous 
 death of minor son. 
 Bligh V. Biddeford & S. R. 
 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 22, p. 805. 
 No survival of action under 
 Illinois statute. 
 Malott V. Shimer (Ind. ), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 774. 
 ■ Parent must show her depend- 
 ence on deceased child in 
 order to recover for his 
 death. 
 Augusta Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 McDade (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 SW. 
 Parent's right of action for 
 death of minor where de- 
 ceased was serving penal 
 sentence at time of injury. 
 Amos V. Atlanta Ry. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 857. 
 Parent's right of recovery for 
 death of minor servant. 
 Middle Georgia & A. R. Co. 
 
 V. Barnett (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 532. 
 Personal repesentative'sjright 
 of action. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L,. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Hosea (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 692. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Moore (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 678. 
 Wife's right of action where 
 husband has released 
 claims for his injury. 
 Hill V. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 229. 
 
 DECLARATIONS. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Evidence. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Res Gestce. 
 Conductor. 
 Barker v. St. Louis, I. M. & 
 S. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 
 157. 
 Louisville & Nashville R. 
 Co. V. Ellis (Ky. ), vol. 2, 
 p. 132. 
 
 DECLARATIONS— CV7«««»erf. 
 Evidence of declaration of de- 
 ceased agent. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Byrne (Ind. Ter.), vol. 13, 
 p. 17. 
 If the judge is satisfied that 
 the declarations of the de- 
 ceased police officer were 
 made in good faith they are 
 admissible in action for il- 
 legal arrest of passenger. 
 Dixon V. New England R. 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 10. 
 Self-disserving declaration of 
 decedent, in action to recover 
 for injury alleged to have 
 caused his death, is not con- 
 clusive against plaintiff. 
 Camden & A. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (N. J. App.), vol. 11, 
 p. 600. 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 See Highways. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 Dedication of railroad land to 
 public use. 
 Prankford, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Philadelphia (Pa. St.), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 265. 
 Implied dedication of cross- 
 ing over railway in street. 
 Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. 
 
 State, Town of Ft. Branch 
 
 (Ind.), Tol. 11, p. 278. 
 Right of railroad company to 
 hold land by dedication. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Milam County (Tex.), vol. 
 
 7, p. 780. 
 Where a person who dedicates 
 land to public use as a high- 
 way, in such dedication, re- 
 serves to himself and his 
 assigns the right to construct 
 and operate a railroad therein, 
 the public takes the highway 
 cum onere. 
 Tallon V. Mayor, etc., of 
 
 City of Hoboken (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 545. 
 Whether railroad can acquire 
 land by dedication. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Standi- 
 
 ford (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 154. 
 Whether the leaving of strips 
 of land on either side of the 
 depot open to the public, 
 amounts to a dedication. 
 City of Chicago v. Chicago, 
 
 Rock Island, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 1, p. 1. 
 
346 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DEEDS. 
 
 See Conditions. 
 Evidence. 
 Right of Way. 
 Deeds of correction and con- 
 firmation. 
 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. h. 
 Ry. Co. V. Beck (Ind. ), 
 vol. 13, p. 353. 
 Description of premises. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Beck (Ind.), vol. 
 13, p. 353. 
 Parol evidence to explain in- 
 tent of. 
 
 Abraham v. Oregon & C. R. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 17, p. 250. 
 Provisions construed to be cov- 
 enants and not conditions, 
 subsequent. 
 
 King V. Norfolk & W. Ry. 
 Co. (Va.), vol. 23, p. 701, 
 Sufficiency of description of 
 land. 
 
 Douisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Webster (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 p. 410. 
 
 DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES. 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 DEFECTS. 
 
 See Bridges. 
 
 Burden of Proof . 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 DEFENDANTS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Pleading. 
 
 DEFENSES. 
 Defense eliminated from case 
 by changing its theory, in 
 action for ejection from train. 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Violation of interstate com- 
 merce law, if a defense, must 
 be pleaded. 
 
 Missouri, K. & t. Ry. Co. 
 V. Bagley (Kan.), vol. 13, 
 p. 259. 
 
 DELAY IN SHIPMENT OP 
 GOODS. 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 DELEGATION OF POWER. 
 Power of railroad company to 
 delegate its charter rights. 
 Sanford v. Pawtucket Street 
 Ry. Co. (R. I.), vol. 4, p. 
 318. 
 
 DELIVERY. 
 See Baggage. 
 
 Bills ^Lading. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Cotton destroyed by fire. 
 Amory Mfg. Co. v. Gulf, C. 
 & S. F. Ry. Co. (Tex.), 
 vol. 8, p. 472. 
 Payment of freight charges 
 advanced to connecting car- 
 riers on another shipment as 
 condition precedent to deliv- 
 ery. 
 
 Robinson v. Dover, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 753. 
 Proper point of delivery, ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bernheim (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 
 754. 
 
 DEMURRERS. 
 See Evidence. 
 Pleading. 
 Declaration in action to recover 
 for injuries to live stock, 
 defective in not averring 
 compliance with condition 
 precedent in contract. 
 Baxter v. Louisville, N. A. 
 & C. Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 6, 
 p. 618. 
 Demurrer to evidence, deceased 
 killed on track where em- 
 ployees could have seen him 
 for 2,000 feet. Conflicting 
 evidence as to signals, de- 
 murrer to evidence overruled. 
 Chamberlain v. Missouri Pa- 
 cific Railway Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 3, p. 401. 
 Effect of. 
 Kird V. New Orleans, etc., 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 20, p. 930. 
 Effect of demurrer to special 
 plea in which contract is set 
 up as defense on admissibility 
 of contract under general 
 issue. 
 
 Blank v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 16, p. 6. 
 In action for negligence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hine (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 382. 
 Motion to dismiss in effect a 
 demurrer. 
 
 Whitley v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 210. 
 Sufficiency of demurrer to evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Artenberry v. Southern Ry. 
 , Co. (Tenn.), vol. IS, p. 847. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 347 
 
 DEPARTURE. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 DEPENDENCE. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 DEPOSITIONS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 DEPOTS. 
 
 See Fences. 
 Stations. 
 
 DERAILMENT. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 Snow slid;. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Pilgrim (Colo.), vol. 8, p. 
 249. 
 
 DERRICKS. 
 
 Derrick rope falling on track. 
 E'orrest v. Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 4, p. 
 256. 
 
 DIAGRAMS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT 
 RULE. 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 
 DIRECTION OF VERDICT. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 Haner v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Idaho), vol. 19, p. 628. 
 Contributory negligence. 
 Henderson v. Detroit Citi- 
 zens' St. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 10, p. 812. 
 Credibilitj' of evidence, ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 
 Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 21, p. 429. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 34. 
 Death by wrongful act. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Vittitoe (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 666. 
 Discretion of court. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Mar- 
 tin (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 
 449. 
 Krror in giving peremptory 
 instructions. 
 
 Dick V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. ( Ky.), vol. 23, p. 71. 
 Federal courts' rule. 
 Hodges v. Kimball (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 19, p. 7SS. 
 
 DIRECTION OF VERDICT - 
 Continued. 
 
 Injury from surface water. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Williams (Ind. Ter. ), vol. 
 
 19, p. 361. 
 Peremptory instruction should 
 be refused where evidence is 
 conflicting. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Quick (Ala. ), vol. 20, p. 
 
 2S. 
 Plaintiff's testimony that he 
 stopped, looked and listened, 
 held unworthy of credit in 
 view of the fact that the 
 train would have been plainly 
 visible for a long distance. 
 Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Medairy (Ind.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 S26. 
 Properly refused. 
 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., Lim- 
 ited, v. Glover (C.C. A.), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 272. 
 Truth of evidence. 
 
 Coley V. North Carolina R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 885. 
 Verdict should not be directed 
 when there are disputable 
 questions upon which the 
 verdict may depend. 
 Black v. Middle Georgia & 
 
 A. Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 569. 
 Verdict was properly directed 
 for master where employees' 
 contributory negligence in 
 unnecessarily cleaning en- 
 gine at end of trip without 
 waiting for inspection was 
 proximate cause of injury, 
 and master was not negli- 
 gent. 
 Patton V. Texas & Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 48. 
 Waiver of objection to refusal 
 to take case from jury. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Md. ), vol. 23, p. 
 
 528. 
 
 DIRECTORS. 
 
 See Officers. 
 Government directors. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 3. 
 Ratification of corporate con- 
 tract by board of directors. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. (U. 'S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 3. 
 
348 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 DISCHARGE LIST. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 DISCHARGING PASSEN- 
 GERS. 
 See Stations and Depots. 
 
 DISCRETIONARY PO"WBRS. 
 
 See Municipal Officers. 
 
 DISCRETION OF COURT. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 Separate Trials. 
 Story V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 90. 
 
 DISCRIMINATION. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Express Companies. 
 Foreign Cars. 
 
 DISEASED CATTLE. 
 
 See Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Federal Questions. 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 
 , DITCHES. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Authority of county commis- 
 sioners as to construction of. 
 Northern Ohio Ry. Co. v. 
 Com'rs (Ohio), vol. 18, p. 
 767. 
 
 DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP. 
 
 See furisdiction. 
 
 DIVISION FENCES. 
 See Fences. 
 
 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 
 See Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission. . 
 
 DOGS. 
 
 See Animals. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Gregory v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 6, p. 
 
 774. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for killing- dogs. 
 Richardson v. Florida Cent. 
 
 & P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 57S. 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Stan field (Ark.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 115. 
 
 DRAINS. 
 Obstruction of drain by a rail- 
 road. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Anderson (Ark.), vol. S, p. 
 637. 
 Right of railway. 
 
 Beach v. Wilmington & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 9, p. 
 158. 
 
 DRAINS AND SEWERS. 
 See Railroad Right of Way. 
 
 DRA"WEE. 
 
 See Pay Checks. 
 
 DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Contributory negligence. 
 
 Kingston v. I't. Wayne & E. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 9, p. 
 259. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Glamory (Tex.), vol. 5, 
 p. 696. 
 Trumbull v. EJrickson (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 17, p. 93. 
 Injury to third person through 
 ejection of drunken person 
 from station. 
 
 Gray v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 481. 
 Liability for injury to drunken 
 trespasser on track. 
 Price V. Philadelphia, W. & 
 B. R. Co. (Md.), vol. 7, p. 
 lis. ' 
 Liability of company for death 
 of intoxicated passenger after 
 expulsion from train. 
 Louisville & Nashville R. 
 Co. V. Ellis (Ky.), vol. 2, 
 p. 132. 
 
 DUB PROCESS OF LAW. 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 Due notice to the owner of con- 
 demnation proceedings and 
 his appearing in court and 
 'defending such proceedings 
 do not show that such con- 
 demnation was held by due 
 process of law, due process 
 of law requiring compensa- 
 tion for private property 
 taken for public use. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 City of Chicago (U! S.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 26. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 349 
 
 DUE PROCESS OF LA'W— 
 Continued, 
 
 Elevators. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. State 
 of Nebraska, Board of 
 Transportation (U. S. ), vol. 
 6, p. 157. 
 Meaning of the term. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Slate, City of Omaha 
 (Neb.), vol. 3, p. 573. 
 Nominal compensation. 
 
 qhicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 City of Chicago (U. S.), 
 vol. 7, p. 26. 
 
 DWELLING HOUSE. 
 
 Condemnation of dwelling 
 house. 
 State V. Mayor of New 
 
 Brunswick (N. J.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 170. 
 
 DYNAMITE. 
 
 See Vice Principals. 
 EASEMENTS. 
 See Contracts. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Railroads in Streets, 
 Right of Way. 
 Street Railways. 
 Right of railway to drainage. 
 Beach v. Wilmington & W. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 9, p. 158. 
 Rig-ht of subsequent grantee. 
 Lyon V. Hammond & B. I. R. 
 
 Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 337. 
 Rathbuu v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 9, p. 
 333. 
 Right to lay water pipes on land 
 of grantor. 
 
 Montana Ore Purchasing Co. 
 V. Boston & M. Consol. Cop- 
 per & Silver Min. Co. 
 (Mont.), vol. 10, p. 754. 
 Use of railroad embankment as 
 reservoir dam. 
 
 Montana Ore Purchasing Co. 
 V, Boston & M. Consol. Cop- 
 per & Silver Min. Co. 
 (Mont.), vol. 10, p. 754. 
 Verbal contract by railroad to 
 maintain switch for benefit of 
 shipper. 
 
 Warner v. Texas & P. R. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 696. 
 
 EJECTION. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers, 
 Damages, 
 Right of Way. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Trespassers. 
 
 EJECTMENT. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Real Estate. 
 Right of Way. 
 Damages recoverable in eject- 
 ment against railroad com- 
 pany. 
 
 Fish V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Minn.), vol. 23, p. 409. 
 Issues. 
 
 Gray v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 21, p. 252. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 
 location of plaintiff's premises 
 
 in action in ejectment against 
 
 railroad company. 
 
 Fish V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. 23, p. 409. 
 
 ELECTION. 
 
 Eminent domain. 
 
 Fries v. Wheeling & L. E. Ry^ 
 Co. (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 489. 
 
 ELECTRICITY. 
 
 Care required in using. 
 
 Macon v. Paducah St. Ry. Co. 
 , (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 614. 
 
 ELECTRIC RAILWAYS. 
 See Abutters. 
 Crossings. 
 Gross Negligence. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Street Railways. 
 Wires. 
 
 Abutting owners, erection of 
 poles in street. 
 State (Roebling, Prosecutrix) 
 
 V. Trenton Passenger Rail- 
 way Co., Consolidated (N. 
 
 J.), vol. 4, p. 392. 
 Acquiescence of municipality in 
 change of motive power. 
 Potter V. Scranton Traction 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 4, p. 307. 
 Care required of company in 
 construction and operation of 
 appliances for use of electric- 
 ity. 
 McAdam v. Central Ry. & 
 
 Electric Co. (Conn.), vol. 5,. 
 
 p. 7. 
 Care to be exercised by electric 
 railway company to isolate 
 their wires. 
 Atlanta Consol. St. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Owings (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 1. 
 
 Change of motive power does 
 
 not per se create additional 
 
 easement. 
 
 State (Roebling, Prosecutrix), 
 
 V. Trenton Passenger Ry. 
 
 Co., Consolidated (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 392. 
 
3S0 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 ELECTRIC RAILWAYS— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 Dangerous wires, instructions as 
 to negligence. 
 
 Atlanta Consolidated St. Ry. 
 Co. V. Owings (Ga.), vol. S, 
 p. 1. 
 Death caused' by contact of 
 company's wire with wire of 
 another corporation. 
 Atlanta Consolidated St. Ry. 
 Co. V. Owings (Ga. ) , vol. S, 
 p. 1. 
 Duty of motorman. 
 
 Galbraith v. West End St. R. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 628. 
 Hall V. Ogden City St. Ry. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 4, p. 77. 
 Electric railway a "railroad." 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. An- 
 chors (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 
 657. 
 Evidence of negligence of mo- 
 tormp,n. 
 
 Thompson v. Salt Lake Rapid 
 Transit Co. (Utah) , vol. 10, 
 p. 563. 
 Evidence of previous breakages 
 of trolley wire. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. Rogers (Va.), 
 vol. 3, p. 653. 
 Law of the road. 
 Galbraith v. West End St. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 628. 
 Liability for injuries by con- 
 tact with wires. 
 City Electric Street Ry. Co. v. 
 Couery (Ark.), vol. 3, p. 
 365. 
 Obstruction of track of street 
 railroad by carriage. 
 Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Pres- 
 ton (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 616. 
 Paramount right of street rail- 
 way company to use of street. 
 Potter V. Scranton Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 4, p. 307. 
 Right of company to use elec- 
 tricity as motive power. 
 Green v. City Suburban Ry. 
 Co. (Md.), vol. 1, p. 198. 
 Right to cross tracks. 
 Galbraith v. West End St. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 628. 
 Speed of train. 
 
 Galbraith v. West End St. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 628. 
 Where person is burnt upon 
 foot by an electric current 
 and falls to the ground, his 
 death may be asserted to oc- 
 
 ELBCTRIC RAIL"WAYS— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 
 cur from the electric current. 
 Atlanta Consolidated St. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Owings (Ga.), vol. 5, 
 
 p. 1. 
 
 ELEVATED RAILROADS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Abutters. 
 
 Hunter v. Manhattan Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 366. 
 Lake Roland Elevated R. Co. 
 V. Webster (Md.), vol. 1, 
 p. 360. 
 Consent of abutting owners to 
 construction of road. 
 White V. Manhattan Rail- 
 way Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 
 351. 
 Right to compensation. 
 
 Philips V. Philadelphia & R. 
 T. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 
 706. 
 Rights of abutters. 
 
 Metropolitan W. S. El. R. 
 
 Co. V. Springer (111.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 731. 
 
 Action for personal injuries by 
 
 broken bolt falling from 
 
 structure. 
 
 Volkmar v. Manhattan R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 453. 
 Assessment of stock. 
 Robbins v. Magoun (Iowa), 
 vol. 7, p. 783. 
 Boarding crowded car. 
 
 Graham v. Manhattan R. Co. 
 (N. Y.),vo]. 4, p. 260. 
 Care due persons boarding car. 
 Barth v. Kansas City El. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 281. 
 Compensation to municipality 
 for use of streets. 
 Mayor, etc., v. Manhattan Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 409. 
 Condemnation of alley. 
 Metropolitan W. S. El. R. Co. 
 V. Springer (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 731. 
 Consent given to construction of 
 road in street by one member 
 of firm. 
 
 White V. Manhattan Ry. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 351. 
 Construction and operation. 
 Doane v. Lake St. El. R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 781. 
 Construction of Pennsylvania 
 act authorizing railroads to 
 elevate or depress tracks. 
 Potts z/. Quaker City Elevated 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 401. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 351 
 
 ELEVATED RAILROADS— ELEVATED RAILROADS- 
 Continued. — Continued. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 
 Garrett v. Lake Roland Ele- 
 vated Ry. Co. (Md.), vol. 1, 
 p. 385. 
 
 Hunter v. Manhattan Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. l,p. 366. 
 
 In re Metropolitan El. R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 349. 
 
 Oberfelder v. Metropolitan 
 El. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, 
 p. 348. 
 
 Philips V. Philadelphia & R. 
 T. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 
 706. 
 
 Tudor V. Chicago & South- 
 side Rapid Transit R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 1, p. 340. 
 Grant to corporation unauthor- 
 ized to maintain railroad. 
 Potts V. Quaker City Elevated 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 401. 
 
 Injunction. 
 
 Absence of actual damages. 
 O'Reilly v. New York El. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 3, p. 432. 
 Injunction by abutting owner. 
 Doane v. Lake St. El. E. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 781. 
 Measure of damages. 
 
 Hunter v, Manhattan Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 366. 
 
 Lake Roland El. R. Co. v. 
 
 Webster (Md.), vol. 1, p. 360. 
 
 Municipal authority to grant 
 
 right of way, restriction upon 
 
 company. 
 
 Tudor V. Chicago & Southside 
 Rapid Transit R. Co. (111.), 
 vol. 1, p. 340. 
 Noncompliance with conditions 
 of New York rapid transit act. 
 In re Atlantic Ave. El. R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 364. 
 Nuisances. 
 
 Garrett v. Lake Roland Ele- 
 vated R. Co. (Md.), vol. 1, 
 p. 385. 
 Open gates as an invitation to 
 the public. 
 
 Barth v. Kansas City El. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 281. 
 
 Release by abutting owner. 
 
 Wood v'. Metropolitan El. Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 6, p. 788. 
 
 Resulting benefits. 
 
 Sutro V. Manhattan R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 374. 
 Use of streets. 
 Doane v. Lake St. El. R. Co. 
 (Ill,), vol. 7, pp. 781,782. 
 
 Whether street railroads. 
 
 Freiday v. Sioux City R. T. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 1, p. 408. 
 Potts V. Quaker City El. R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 401. 
 
 ELEVATORS. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Fires. 
 
 Local Assessments. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 An order of the state board of 
 transportation under the pro- 
 visions of the act of March 
 31, 1887, entitled "an act to 
 regulate railroads and pre- 
 vent unjust discrimination," 
 etc., which requires a rail- 
 road company to surrender 
 a portion of its right of way, 
 for an elevator site, to a per- 
 son or corporation engaged 
 in the buying and selling of 
 grain, contemplates the tak- 
 ing of property for mere 
 private use, within the pro- 
 hibition of the United States 
 constitution, and is accord- 
 ingly without authority and 
 void. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 State Board of Transpor- 
 tation (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 349. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. State 
 of Nebraska ex rel. Board 
 of Transportation (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 157. 
 Due process of law. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. State 
 of Nebraska ex rel. Board of 
 Transportation (U. S.), vol. 
 6, p. 157. 
 Eminent domain. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. z/. State 
 of Nebraska ex rel. Board of 
 Transportation (U. S.), vol. 
 6, p. 157. 
 Injuries to employee through 
 
 defective elevator. 
 / MdNee v. Coburn Trolley 
 Track Co. (Mass.), vol. 10, 
 p. 765. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for loss by fire of grain in 
 elevator. 
 
 Cox V. Vermont Cent. R. Co, 
 (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 591. 
 Watchman. 
 Cox V. Vermont Cent. R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 591. 
 
352 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 See Abutters. 
 
 Consolidation of Rail- 
 roads. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Damages. 
 Railroads. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Right of Way. 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 Abandonment of Condemnation 
 Proceedings. 
 Fischer v. Catawissa R. Co. 
 (Pa. St.), vol. 4, p. 310. 
 After award of damag^es. 
 Bellingham Bay & British 
 Columbia R. Co. v. Strand 
 (Wash.), vol. 3, p. 171. 
 Waiver of. 
 Bellingham Bay & British 
 ' Columbia R. Co. v. Strand 
 (Wash.), vol. 3, p. 171. 
 Abutters. 
 Action by abutter for damages 
 from construction of rail- 
 way. 
 
 Taylor v. Bay City Street 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 
 16S. 
 Measure of damages in action 
 by abutter. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Kobs (Ky.), vol. 1, p. 64. 
 
 Griffin v. Jacksonville T. & 
 
 K. W. R. Co. (Fla.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 64. 
 
 Johnson v. Old Colony R. 
 
 Co. (R. I.), vol. 1, p. 63. 
 Maysville & B. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 Conner (Ky.), vol. 1, p. 63. 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 Ingram (Ky.), vol. 1, p. 63. 
 Wolff V. Georgia & F. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 1, p. 64. 
 Right of abutting owner where 
 railroad is in streets. 
 Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Davidson (Kan.), vol. 1, 
 p. 61. 
 Right of landowner in con- 
 demnation proceedings. 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Phipps (Kan. App.), vol. 
 5, p. 698. 
 
 Acquiescence in void condemna- 
 tion proceedings. 
 Allen V. Colorado Cent. R. Co. 
 (Colo.), vol. 3, p. 446'. 
 Additional Servitude. 
 Additional servitude, test of. 
 Gustason v. Hamm (Minn), 
 vol. 1, p. 43. 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Cow^'rf. 
 Change of motive power does 
 not per se create additional 
 easement. , 
 
 State (Roebling, Prosecu- 
 trix), V. Trenton Passen- 
 ger Ry. Co., Consolidated 
 (N. J.), vol. 4, p. 392. 
 Distinction between misuse 
 and appropriation. 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Foley 
 (Colo.), vol. 1, p. 62. 
 Electric street railroads. 
 
 Cumberland Telegraph & 
 Tel. Co. V. United El. Ry. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 1, p. 29S. 
 Green v. City & Suburban 
 R. Co. (Md.), vol. 1, p. 323. 
 Limburger v. San Antonio- 
 R. T. Co. (Tex.), vol. 1, 
 pp. 323, 324. 
 State V. Mayor, etc., of Jer- 
 sey City (N. J.), vol. 1, p. 
 322. 
 Texas P. Ry. Co. v. Rosedale 
 St. Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 1, 
 p. 323. 
 West Jersev R. Co. v. Cam- 
 den G. '& W. Ry. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 1, p. 322. 
 Private steam railway in. 
 street. 
 
 Gustafon v. Hamm (Minn.), 
 vol. 1, p. 45. 
 Public street, compensation. 
 Willamette Iron Works v^ 
 Oregon Ry. & Navigation 
 Co. (Ore), vol. 1, p. 36. 
 Public streets, what is an 
 additional servitude. 
 Willamette Iron Works v. 
 Oregon Ry. & Navigation 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 1, p. 36. 
 Trolley poles and wires as ele- 
 ments of additional servi- 
 tude. 
 
 West Jersey Co. v. Camden 
 G. & W. R. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 1, p. 325. 
 Whether carrying freight by 
 street railroads is an addi- 
 tional servitude. 
 Montgomery v. Santa Ana & 
 W. R. Co. (Cal.), vol. 1, p. 
 44. 
 Alien Stoclcholders. 
 Exercise of right by copora- 
 tion whose stock is owned 
 by aliens. 
 
 Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn. ) , vol. 13, p. 
 449. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 353 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— CowifW. EMINENT IDOMAIN— Cont'd. 
 
 Amendment of pleading. 
 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.) I 
 vol. 7, p. 771. 
 Amount of damages, province of 
 jury. 
 
 Davis V. Northwestern El. 
 Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 452. 
 Appeal. 
 
 Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Butts (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 30. 
 Conclusivenes of confirmation 
 of commissioner's reports. 
 Matter of Southern Boule- 
 vard R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 3, p. 30. 
 Conclusiveness of judgment. 
 Atchison & N. R. Co. v. 
 Boerner(Neb.),vol. 3, p. 135. 
 Conclusiveness of report of 
 commissioners. 
 C. G. L,arned Mercantile 
 Real Estate & Live Stoch 
 Co. V. Omaha, Hutchison & 
 Gulf R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 3, 
 p. 23. 
 Conclusiveness of verdict. 
 Saginaw T. & H. R. Co. v. 
 Bordner (Mich.), voU 3, p. 
 29. 
 Conclusiveness of verdict in 
 fixing damages. 
 New Orleans, Ft. J. & G. I. 
 R. R. V. McNeeley (La.), 
 vol. 3, p. 135. 
 Form of judgment on appeal. 
 Florence E. D. & W. V. R. 
 Co. V. Lilley (Kan.), vol. 
 3, p. 31. 
 From order dismissing pro- 
 ceedings to condemn lands. 
 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. 
 Co. V. Adams (Fla.), vol. 
 3, p. 30. 
 Review of decision by com- 
 missioners as to their au- 
 thority to make award. 
 Matter of Southern Boule- 
 vard R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 3, 
 p. 31. 
 United States supreme court, 
 review by of determination 
 of state court as to what 
 constitutes a taking of land. 
 Marchant v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (U.S.), vol. 3, p. 31. 
 Appointment of city commis- 
 sioners by circuit judge. 
 City of Terre Haute v. 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co. 
 (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 760. 
 Appointment of commissioners. 
 State V. Ocean City R. Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. 10, p. 421. 
 
 ID— 23 
 
 Appropriation of land by consent 
 of owner. 
 
 Fries v. Wheeling & L- E. R. 
 Co. (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 489. 
 Appropriation of land devoted to 
 prior public use. 
 Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. 
 V. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, p. 449. 
 Appropriation of land devoted to 
 prior public use cannot be 
 made unless necessity there- 
 for is shown. 
 
 Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. 
 V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, p. 450. 
 Attack on corporate existence. 
 Wellington & P. R. Co. v. 
 Cashie & C. R. & L. Co. 
 (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 29. 
 Attendance of circuit judge, 
 Michigan statute. 
 Railway Co. v. Dunlap (Mich.), 
 vol. 3, p. 135. 
 Averment of ownership of land. 
 Thomas v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 8, p. 760. 
 Benefits. 
 
 Metropolitan West Side El- 
 evated Ry. Co. V. Stickney 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 147. 
 Benefits arising from extra 
 " facilities of transit or rail- 
 road privilege. 
 Lyon V. Hammond & B. I. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 337. 
 Benefits to railroad at high- 
 way crossings. 
 Hook V. Chicago & A. R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 447. 
 General benefits. 
 
 Metropolitan West Side El- 
 evated Ry. Co. V. Stickney 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 147. 
 Set off of benefits against 
 damages. 
 
 Lake Shore & Michigan 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Balti- 
 more & Ohio & Chicago R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 3, p. 57. 
 Metropolitan West Side El- 
 evated Ry. Co. V. Stick- 
 ney (111.), vol. 3, p. 147. 
 Special benefits. 
 Lake Shore & Michigan 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Balti- 
 more & Ohio & Chicago R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 3, p. 57. 
 Metropolitan West Side 
 Elevated Ry. Co. v. 
 Stickney (111.), vol. 3, p. 
 147. 
 
354 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Co«rrf. EMINENT DOMAIN— Cora^'rf. 
 
 Special benefits, what are. 
 St. Louis, O. H. & C. By. 
 Co. V. Fowler (Mo.), vol. 
 10, p. 405. 
 Bridges, license to road to build 
 piers on land. 
 
 Pennsylvania, Poughkeepsie, 
 etc., E. Co. V. Trimmer (N. 
 J.), vol. 3, p. 137. 
 Bridges, unauthorized con- 
 struction by predecessor of 
 piers for bridge, value of 
 such piers as element of dam- 
 ages. 
 
 Pennsylvania, Poughkeepsie, 
 etc., R. Co. 7/. Trimmer (N. 
 J.), vol. 3, p. 137. 
 Canadian railway act. 
 
 Atlantic & N. W. E. Co. v. 
 
 Wood (Ont. App. ), vol. 
 
 3, p. 135. 
 
 Company may determine 
 
 necessity of exercising the 
 
 power to appropriate land 
 
 under Sand. & H. .Dig. | 
 
 6175. 
 
 McKennon v. St. I/Ouis, I. M. 
 & S. Ey. Co. (Ark.), vol. 
 21, p. 527. 
 Complete railroad, additional 
 condemnation. 
 
 Crandall v. Des Moines, N. & 
 W. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 
 420. 
 Condemnation for prospective 
 necessities. 
 
 State V. National Docks, etc., 
 E. Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 26. 
 Condemnation of land of cor- 
 poration. 
 
 American, etc., Nav. Co. v. 
 N. Y., etc., E. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 8, p. 759. 
 Condemnation of property 
 devoted to public use for sec- 
 ond public use. 
 
 City of Terre Haute v. Evans- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 8, p. 760. 
 Condemnation of right of way 
 for telegraph line, burden of 
 proof as to necessity for tak- 
 ing. 
 
 Savannah, etc., Ey. Co. v. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. (Ga. ) , 
 vol. 20, p. 917. 
 Cohdemnation of tracts. 
 
 Foster v. Chicago, E. I. & T. 
 
 Ey. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 1. 
 
 Consideration for donation of 
 
 land by county. 
 
 Eoberts v. Northern Pac. E. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 106. 
 
 Consolidation does not abate 
 condemnation proceedings. 
 Day V. New York, S. & W. E. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 4, p. 313. 
 Consolidation of railroads as 
 affecting limitation of action 
 in condemnation proceed- 
 ings. 
 
 Kansas City, W. & N. W. E. 
 Co. V. Way (Kan.), vol. 13, 
 p. 363. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 Constitutionality of Califor- 
 nia statute allowing costs on 
 new trial on failure to ob- 
 tain greater compensation. 
 Los Angeles P. & G. E. 
 Co. V. Rumpp (Cal. ), vol. 
 3, p. 136. 
 Constitutionality of Florida 
 act. 
 
 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. 
 R. Co. V. Adams (Fla.), 
 vol. 3, p. 27. 
 Constitutionality of Florida 
 act of Feb. 12, 1887. 
 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. 
 .R. Co. V. Adams (Fla.), 
 ' vol. 3, p. 24. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 authorizing the taking of 
 land to abolish grade cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Wheeler v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 20, 
 p. 143. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 not providing for appeal 
 from award of assessors. 
 Savannah, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 917. 
 Legislative power to amend 
 charter does not authorize 
 confiscation of property. 
 In re Opinion of the Jus- 
 tices (N. H.), vol. 3, p. 
 447. 
 Costs. 
 
 Cost of taking out letters of 
 administration. 
 In re Lloyd (Eng.), vol. S, 
 p. 698. 
 Costs on new trial. 
 Los Angeles P. & G. R. 
 Co. V. Rumpp (Cal.), 
 vol. 3, p. 137. 
 
 Recovery of expenses of liti- 
 gation. 
 Andrus v. Bay Creek Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 780. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 35S 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Cont'd. EMINENT DOMAIN— CowifW. 
 
 County road over right of way. 
 G^lf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Milam County (Tex.), vol. 
 7, p. 780. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Crossing by one railroad 
 over another. 
 
 Union Terminal R. Co. v. 
 Board of R. Commis- 
 sioners (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 72. 
 Highway crossing, measure 
 of damages. 
 
 Richmond N., I. & B. R. 
 Co. V. Estill Co. (Ky.), 
 vol. 13, p. 365. 
 Railroad's right to compensa- 
 tion where highway con- 
 structed across its railway. 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 
 Co. V. City of Milwaukee 
 (Wis.), vol. 9, p. 537. 
 Paterson N. & N. Y. R. Co. 
 z>. Mayor, etc., of City of 
 Newark (N. J.), vol. 10, 
 p. 182. 
 Street crossing through sec- 
 tion house on right of way. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Town of Normal (111.), 
 vol. 13, p. 367. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 City of Terre Haute v. 
 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 760. 
 L,ake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Comm'rs (Ohio), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 765. 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 of cost of burning grass 
 from right of way caused 
 by erection of telegraph 
 poles, in action for condem- 
 nation of railroad right of 
 . way for telegraph line. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 
 Utah V. Oregon S. Iv. 
 
 R. Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 
 
 273. 
 Admissibility of report of 
 commissioners where reas- 
 sessment. 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. 
 
 V. McElroy (Mo.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 397. 
 Arc to be assessed as of the 
 date of the proceedings. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Hopson (Miss.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 256. 
 
 Ascertainment of market 
 value. 
 
 Becker zi. Philadelphia & 
 R. T. R. Co. (Pa. St.), 
 vol. 6, p. 174. 
 Assessment of damages. 
 Becker v. Philadelphia & 
 R. T. R. Co. (Pa. St.), 
 vol. 6, p. 174. 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. 
 
 Dak.), vol. 7, p. 771. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Shafer (Neb.), vol. S, p. 
 698. 
 Ellsworth V. Chicago & I. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 3, p. 5. 
 Assumption that damages 
 will be nominal. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. 
 Southern Ry. Co. (C. 
 C. N. Car.), vol. 13, p. 
 417. 
 Blocks separated by streets 
 and used as a whole for a 
 common purpose. 
 Union Elevator Co. v. Kan- 
 sas City Sub. Belt R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 165. 
 Compliance with valid police 
 regulations and changes in 
 corporate charters are not 
 subjects for compensation. 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 
 Co. V. City of Milwaukee 
 (Wis.), vol. 9, p. 537. 
 Condemnation of right of 
 way for telegraph line. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. 
 (Miss.), vol. 18, p. 364. 
 Condemnation of right of 
 way for telegraph line, 
 speculative damages. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Pos- 
 tal Tel. Cable Co. (Miss. ), 
 vol. 18, p. 364. 
 Condemnation of right of 
 way, instruction as to dam- 
 ages. 
 
 Kansas City & N. C. R. Co. 
 V. Shoemaker (Mo.), vol. 
 20, p. 496. 
 Consequential damages for 
 street crossing railroad. 
 Morris & E. R. Co. v. City 
 of Orange (N. J.), vol. 
 16, p. 631. 
 Consideration of benefits. 
 Metropolitan W. S. El. R. 
 Co. V. Clancy (111.), vol. 
 3, p. 164. 
 
356 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Coni'd. EMINENT HOM AIN—Coni'd. 
 
 Cost of gates, sign boards, 
 etc., -where street is laid 
 across railroad. 
 Morris & E. R. Co. v. City 
 
 of Orange (N. J.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 631. 
 Damages awarded in eminent 
 domain proceedings will not 
 be disturbed where the evi- 
 dence is conflicting. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 City of Naperville (111.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 702. 
 Damages for running county 
 ditch across right of way. 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Comm'rs (Ohio), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 765. 
 Danger from fire. 
 
 Hamilton v. Pittsburgh B. 
 
 & h. E. R. Co. (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 376. 
 Kay V. Glade Creek & R. 
 
 R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 69S. 
 Elements for entry and con- 
 struction of railroad. 
 Reiber v. Butler & P. R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 23, p. 421. 
 Elements of. 
 Chicago, R. X. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. O'Neill (Neb.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 371. 
 Galesbury & G. E. R. Co. 
 
 V. Milroy (111.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 277. 
 Hamilton v. Pittsburgh B. 
 
 & Li. E. R. Co. (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 376. 
 Error in instruction as to 
 damages. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. 10, p. 867. 
 Evidence of benefit to plain- 
 tiffs from construction of 
 road. 
 Hamilton v. Pittsburgh B. 
 
 & Iv. E. R. Co. (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 376. 
 Evidence of plans for future 
 use of lands. 
 Union Term. R. Co. v. Peet 
 
 Bro. Mfg. Co. (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 851. 
 For interruption of business. 
 Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 City of Naperville (111.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 702. 
 Georgia constitution con- 
 strued. 
 Austin V. Augusta T. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 711. 
 
 Improvement by condemning 
 company as element of dam- 
 ages. 
 
 Bellingham Bay & British 
 Columbia R. Co. v. Strand 
 (Wash.), vol. 3, p. 171. 
 Incidental expenses. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 City of Pontiac (111. ), vol. 
 
 9, p. 382. 
 
 Injury by change of roadbed 
 to well on land not con- 
 demned. 
 Sheldon v. Boston & A. 
 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 390. 
 'Injury to part of tract not 
 taken. 
 Union Term. R. Co. v. 
 
 Peet Bros. Mfg. Co. 
 
 (Kan.), vol. 13, p. 851. 
 Instruction as to determina- 
 tion of market value of 
 land. 
 Snouffer v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 571. 
 Interest on award. 
 Becker v. Philadelphia & 
 
 R. T. R. Co. (Pa. St.), 
 
 vol. 6, p. 174. 
 Bellingham Bay & British 
 
 Columbia R. Co. v. Strand 
 
 (Wash.), vol. 3, p. 171. 
 National Docks & N. J. J. 
 
 C. R. Co. V. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 169. 
 St. Louis O. H. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Fowler (Mo.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 405. 
 Market value. 
 
 Rock Island & P. Ry. Co- 
 
 V. Eeisey Brewing Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 13, p. 340. 
 Measure of. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. z/. 
 
 City of Pontiac (111.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 382. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 City of Chicago (U. S.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 27. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 
 
 z-. O'Neill (Neb.), vol.13, 
 
 p. 371. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Sturey (Neb.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 849. 
 Davis V. Northwestern El. 
 
 Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 452. 
 Hunter v. Manhattan R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol.1, p. 366. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 357 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Cont'd. 
 Metropolitan W. S. El. R. 
 
 Co. V. Springer (111.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 731. 
 National Docks & N. J. J. 
 
 C. R. Co. V. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 
 131. 
 
 Orleans & J. Ry. Co. z.. 
 
 Jefferson & I,. P. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Iva.), vol. 16, p. 699. 
 Struthers v. Philadelphia & 
 
 D. C. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 4, p. 207. 
 
 Measure of, condemnation of 
 land for street purposes. 
 Chicago & Northwestern 
 R. Co. V. Town of Cicero 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 206. 
 Measure of, construction of 
 road without condemnation 
 or consent. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Cowan 
 (Ala.), vol. 22, p. ISl. 
 Measure of damages for con- 
 demnation of railroad right 
 of way for telegraph line. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 Utah V. Oregon S. L. R. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 
 273. 
 Measure of damages for de- 
 preciation in the market 
 value of land. 
 Omaha, Hutchinson & Gulf 
 R. Co. V. Doney (Kan.), 
 vol. 3, p. 144. 
 Measure of damages for land 
 not taken. 
 
 Galesburg & G. E. Co. v. 
 Milroy (111.), vol. 19, p. 
 277. 
 Measure of damages, noise 
 and smoke. 
 
 Omaha, Hutchinson & Gulf 
 R. Co. V. Doney (Kan.), 
 vol. 3, p. 144. , 
 Measure of damages, prox- 
 imity of road to house. 
 Omaha, Hutchinson & Gulf 
 . R. Co. V. Doney (Kan.), 
 vol. 3, p. 144. 
 Measure of damages, rever- 
 sionary interest. 
 Chicago West Division Rail- 
 way Co. V. Metropolitan 
 West Side Elevated R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 45. 
 Measure of damages, right to 
 damages for land having no 
 market value. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City 
 of Chicago (111.), vol. 3, p. 
 181. 
 
 EMINENT 'DOMA.IN— Cont'd. 
 Measure of damages, special 
 instruction modifying gen- 
 eral instruction. 
 Atchison & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Boerner (Neb.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 132. 
 Measure of damages to land 
 not taken. 
 Mahaffey v. Beech Creek R. 
 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 3, p. 165. 
 Metropolitan West Side Ele- 
 vated Ry. Co. V. Stickney 
 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 147. 
 Measure of damages to land 
 not taken equal to value of 
 whole tract before taking.- 
 Metropolitan W. S. El. R. 
 
 Co. V. Clancy (111.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 165. 
 Measure of damages to land 
 not taken, general princi- 
 ples. 
 Allmon V. Chicago, P. & M. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 3, p. 164. 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. 
 
 V. Thurman (Ga.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 164. 
 Spring City G. L,. Co. v. 
 
 Penn. S. V. R. Co. (Pa. 
 
 St.), vol. 3, p. 164. 
 Measure of damages to land 
 not taken, lots of land con- 
 sidered as separate parcels. 
 Wellington v. Boston & M. 
 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 165. 
 Measure of damages to land 
 not taken, necessity of 
 decrease in value. 
 Metropolitan W. S. El. R. 
 
 Co. V. Clancy (111.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 164. 
 Measure of damages to land 
 not taken, property not 
 taken. 
 Metropolitan W. S. El. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Stickney (111.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 147. 
 Measure of damages to land 
 not taken, speculative dam- 
 ages. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. City 
 
 of Potiac (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 382. 
 Metropolitan W. S. El. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Stickney (111.) vol. 3, 
 
 p. 147. 
 Measure of damages to land 
 not taken, test as to dam- 
 ages. 
 Metropolitan West Side EI. 
 
 R. Co. V. Clancy (111.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 164. 
 
358 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EMINENT DOM AITf!— Cont'd. EMINENT DOMAIN— Cont'd. 
 
 Measure of damag-es to land 
 not taken, treating- unoccu- 
 pied land of gas company 
 as part of plant. 
 Spring City Gas Lfight Co. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 3, p. 165. 
 
 Measure of damages to land 
 
 not taken, where separate 
 
 tracts were condemned. 
 
 Foster v. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 T. Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 1. 
 Measure of damages to land 
 not taken where street is ex- 
 tended over depot grounds. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 City of Naperville (111.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 702. 
 Measure of damages, what 
 damages jury may consider. 
 Atchison & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Boerner (Neb.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 168. 
 Measure of, depreciation in 
 value of property because of 
 injury to it for business 
 purposes. 
 Atchison & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Boerner (Neb.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 168. 
 Measure of destruction of lease- 
 hold interest. 
 Botel^r V. Philadelphia & 
 
 R. T. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 132. 
 Measure of difference between 
 cost of redeeming land be- 
 fore and after taking. 
 National Docks & N. J. J. C. 
 
 R. Co. V. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 131. 
 
 Measure of improvement by 
 
 condemning company as 
 
 element of damages. 
 
 Bellingham Bay & British 
 
 Columbia R. Co. v. Strand 
 
 (Wash.), vol. 3, p. 171. 
 Measure of, instruction to as- 
 certain compensation irre- 
 spective of damages to prop- 
 erty not taken. 
 I/os Angeles, P. & G. R. Co. 
 
 V. Rumpp (CaL), vol. 3, p. 
 
 133. 
 Measure of, misleading in- 
 struction as to estimation of 
 damages to particular tract. 
 Chicago, P. & M. R. Co. v. 
 
 Goff (111.), vol. 3, p. 136. 
 Nominal compensation. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 City of Chicago (U. S.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 26. 
 
 Nominal damages only can be 
 recovered for condemnation 
 of railroad right of way for 
 telegraph line. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 
 Utah V. Oregon S. L,. R. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 273. 
 
 Paralleling of highway by 
 
 railroad gives county no 
 
 right of action for. 
 
 Richmond, N., I. & B. R. 
 
 Co. z/. Estill County 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 13, p. 365. 
 Physical interference neces- 
 sary to warrant recovery. 
 Austin V. Augusta T. Rv. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 711." 
 Pleading. 
 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Beck (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 353. 
 Preference of judgment for, 
 over prior mortgage. 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. 
 
 V. Heunen (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 409. 
 Railroad not required to pay 
 for structures erected ou 
 land by it prior to condem- 
 nation. 
 Seattle & M. R. Co. v. 
 
 Corbett (Wash.), vol. 17,. 
 
 p. 709. 
 Recovery for loss of profits. 
 Becker v. Philadelphia & R. 
 
 T. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol.6, 
 
 p. 174. 
 Recovery of present and future 
 damages in one action. 
 Chicago, R. I. &P. R. Co. v^ 
 
 O'Neill (Neb.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 371. 
 Rental value. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Sturey (Neb.), vol. 13,, 
 
 p. 849. 
 
 Requested instructions covered 
 by instructions given. 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 McElroy (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 397. 
 
 Right of sublessee to compen- 
 sation. 
 Boteler v. Philadelphia & 
 
 R. T. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 130. 
 
 Separate ownership of marble 
 or lime rock in land taken, 
 right of railroad to have 
 damages assessed to each 
 owner. 
 
 Ivime Rock R. Co. v. Farns- 
 worth (Me.), vol. 3, p. 13. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 359 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Co«j;W. 
 Speculative profits. 
 
 Hamilton v. Pittsburgh, B. 
 & Iv. E. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 13, p. 376. 
 Street crossing railroad. 
 Morris & E. R. Co. v. City 
 of Orange (N. J.), vol. 16, 
 p. 631. 
 Taking of railroad right of 
 way by telegraph company. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 13, p. 423. 
 Tender. 
 National Docks & N. J. J. 
 C. R, Co. V. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 
 169. 
 Tender of award to attorney 
 of owner. 
 
 National Docks & N. J. J. 
 C. R. Co. V. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 
 169. 
 Value of land. 
 
 Shreveport «& R. R. Val. Ry. 
 Co. V. Hinds (La.), vol. 13, 
 p. 325. 
 Value of land must be kept 
 distinct from damages. 
 Shreveport & R. R. Val. Ry. 
 Co. V. Hinds (Iva.), vol. 
 13, p. 325. 
 Verdict not disturbed where 
 evidence is conflicting, and 
 damages are not excessive. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Town 
 of Normal (111.), vol. 13, p. 
 367. 
 Verdict not disturbed where 
 evidence is conflicting and 
 jury has viewed premises. 
 Rock Island & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 I/Cisy Brewing Co. (111.), 
 vol. 13, p. 340. 
 Decree effecting equitable con- 
 demnation. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann 
 Arbor R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 13, p. 395. 
 Defences. 
 Thomas v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 8, p. 760. 
 Denial of right without prejudice 
 . to future application. 
 Pennsylvania, S. V. R. Co. v. 
 Schuylkill Nav. Co. (Pa. 
 St.), vol. 3, p. 27. 
 Destruction of river landing on 
 neighboring property. 
 Mahaffy v. Beech Creek R. Co. 
 (Pa. St.), vol. 3, p. 131. 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Core^rf. 
 
 Discontinuance of condemna- 
 tion proceedings. 
 Andrus v. Bay Creek Ry. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 6, p. 780. 
 Discontinuance of proceedings, 
 right of landowner to recover 
 expenses of defence. 
 St. Louis R. Co. V. Southern 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 7, p. 772. 
 Distinction between right ac- 
 quired by eminent domain and 
 by purchase. 
 
 Jones V. Erie & Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 18. 
 Due process of law, due notice 
 to the owner of condemnation 
 proceedings, and his appearing 
 in court and defending such 
 proceedings do not show that 
 such condemnation was had by 
 due process of law. Due proc- 
 ess of law requires compensa- 
 tion for private property 
 taken for public use. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 City of Chicago (U. S.), vol. 
 7, p. 26. 
 Dwelling house. 
 
 State V. Mayor of New Bruns- 
 wick (N. J. ) , vol. 3, p. 170. 
 Effect of execution by munici- 
 pality of agreement to con- 
 demn land for use of railroad 
 company. 
 
 Dennis Long & Co. v. City of 
 Louisville (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 
 213. 
 Effect of judgment in former 
 proceeding. 
 
 Ligare v. Chicago, M. & N. R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 52. 
 Effect of previous title of peti- 
 tioner. 
 
 Thomas v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 8, p. 760. 
 Effect on right of condemnation 
 of construction of unnecessary 
 spur track across located line. 
 Southern Pacific Railroad Co. 
 V. Southern California Rail- 
 way Co. (Cal.), vol. 3, p. 37. 
 Effect upon right of entry by 
 the setting aside of verdict of 
 jury. 
 
 National Docks & New Jersey 
 Junction, etc., Co. v. Penn- 
 sylvania Railroad Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. 3, p. 82. 
 Election. 
 Fries v. Wheeling & L. E. Ry. 
 Co. (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 489. 
 
360 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Co«ifW. EMINENT DOMAIN— Cow^'rf. 
 
 Elements of damag'e for con- 
 demnation of right of way. 
 Kansas City & N. C. R. Co. v. 
 Shoemaker (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 
 496. 
 Elevated railroads. 
 
 Garrett v. Lake Roland Ele- 
 vated Ry. Co. (Md.), vol. 1, 
 p. 385. 
 In re Metropolitan El. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 349. 
 Ivake Roland Elevated R. Co. 
 V. Webster (Md. ) , vol. 1, p. 
 360. 
 Metropolitan W. S. El. R. Co. 
 V. Springer (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 731. 
 Oberfelder v. Metropolitan El. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 349. 
 Philips V. Philadelphia & R. 
 T. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 706. 
 Tudor V. Chicago & Southside 
 Rapid Transit Co. (111.), vol. 
 1, p. 340. 
 White V. Manhattan Ry. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 351. 
 Elevators. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. State 
 of Nebraska ex rel. Board 
 of Transportation (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 157. 
 An order of the state board of 
 transportation, under the 
 provision of the act of March 
 31, 1887, entitled "an act to 
 regulate railroads and pre- 
 vent unjust discrimination," 
 etc., which requires a rail- 
 road company to surrender a 
 portion of its right of way 
 for an elevator site to a per- 
 son or corporation engaged 
 in the buying and shipping 
 of grain, contemplates the 
 taking of property for mere 
 private use, within the pro- 
 hibition of the United States 
 constitution, and is accord- 
 ingly without authority and 
 void. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 State Board of Transpor- 
 tation (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 349. 
 Equitable jurisdiction. 
 Pennsylvania, Poughkeepsie, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Trimmer (N. 
 J.), vol. 3, p. 137. 
 Equitable jurisdiction, license to 
 company to build bridge pier 
 on land. 
 
 Pennsylvania, Poughkeepsie, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Trimmer (N. 
 J.), vol. 3, p. 137. 
 
 Erection of telegraph poles as 
 evidence of intention to ap- 
 propriate. , 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Beck (lud.), vol. 
 13, p. 353. 
 Estate acquired by condemna- 
 tion. 
 
 Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. v. 
 Hughes (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 541. 
 Shreveport & R. R. Val. Ry. 
 Co. V. Hinds (Ea.), vol. 13, 
 p. 325. 
 Estoppel, acquiescence by owner 
 in construction of road. 
 Roberts v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 106. 
 Estoppel of landholder to at- 
 tack validity of proceedings 
 because of having testified 
 therein. 
 
 Owen V. St. P., M. & M. R. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 3, p. 32. 
 Estoppel of owner to dispute 
 right of municipality to ease- 
 ment in land used by railroad 
 company. 
 
 Dennis Long & Co. v. City of 
 Louisville (Ky.),vol. 3, p. 213. 
 Evidence. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. City 
 of Pontiac (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 382. 
 Ligare v. Chicago, M. & N. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 52. 
 Lyon V. Hammond & B. I. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 337. 
 Thomas v. St. Louis, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 8, p. 
 761. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to an agreement to sell. 
 Ligare v. Chicago, M. & N. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 52. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 sales of similar property. 
 Suouffer v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 p. 571. 
 Admission of one joint owner 
 as to value of land. 
 St. Louis, O. H. & C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Eowler (Mo.), vol. 
 10, p. 405. 
 Admissions, introduction of 
 evidence of an assessment 
 list made by one joint 
 owner in which the land 
 was valued by him at a cer- 
 tain sum. 
 
 St. Louis, O. H. & C. Rv. 
 Co. V. Eowler (Mo.), vol. 
 10, p. 405. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 361 
 
 EMINENT -DOMAIN— Cont'd. 
 Award which has been set 
 aside. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 National Docks & N. J. J. 
 C. Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 
 166. 
 Competency of evidence as to 
 cuts and fills upon land in 
 determining' damages. 
 Ellsworth V. Chicago & I. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 3, 
 p. 5. 
 Conflicting evidence as to 
 damage to land. 
 AUmon v. Chicago, P. & M. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 3, p. 136. 
 Erroneous basis for estimate 
 as ground for striking out 
 testimony. 
 
 Abbott V. Southern Pac. R. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol.3, p. 166. 
 Evidence of an assessment 
 list made by one joint owner 
 in which the land was valued 
 by him at a certain sum. 
 St. I^ouis, O. H. & C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Fowler (Mo.), vol. 
 10, p. 405. 
 Evidence of effect of condem- 
 nation on business of re- 
 spondent. 
 
 Lake Shore & Michigan S. 
 Ry. Co. V. Baltimore «& 
 Ohio & Chicago R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 57. 
 Evidence of statutory author- 
 ity to condemn railroad 
 right of way for telegraph 
 line. 
 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 Utah V. Oregon S. L. R. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 273. 
 Ei^idence of value, limitation 
 to market value. 
 L,igare v. Chicago, M. & N. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 52. 
 Evidence on cross-examina- 
 tion to show value of land 
 taken. 
 
 Westbrook v. Muscatine N. 
 & S. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, 
 p. 835. 
 Evidence that petitioner and 
 respondent could not agree 
 as to damages. 
 Lake Shore & Mich. S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Baltimore & Ohio & 
 Chicago R. Co. (111.), vol. 
 3, p. 57. 
 Exclusion of evidence as to 
 what the property is worth 
 for railroad purposes alone 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Cont'd. 
 
 and what railroad would pay 
 rather than give up property. 
 Ligare v. Chicago, M. & K. 
 R. Co. (111.), 9, p. 52. 
 In condemning land for right 
 of way a railroad company 
 has a right to rely upon the 
 public records in determin- 
 ing who is the owner of the 
 land. 
 
 Phipps V. Kansas & C. P. 
 Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 
 247. 
 Proof of capital stock and net 
 earnings of a corporation 
 where its land is taken. 
 Spring City Gas Light Co. 
 V. Pennsylvania, etc., R. 
 Co. (Pa. at.), vol. 3, p. 166. 
 Proof of value before con- 
 struction of road. 
 Atchison & N. R. Co. v. 
 Boerner (Neb.), vol. 3, p. 
 166. 
 Sale of other lands. 
 
 St. Louis, O. H. & C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Eowler (Mo.), vol. 
 10, p. 405. 
 Unfinished street plan inad- 
 missible. 
 
 Walker v. South Chester R. 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 4, p. 256. 
 View by jury as evidence. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Farwell (Meb.), vol. 17, 
 p. 687. 
 Where the tract of land sought 
 to be condemned lies con- 
 tiguous to a manufacturing 
 city and is suitable for man- 
 ufacturing purposes the jury 
 in estimating damages may 
 consider the value of switch- 
 ing facilities to the remain- 
 der of the land though there 
 was no evidence of an offer 
 or agreement by plaintiff to 
 permit or provide switch 
 connections with its tracks. 
 St. Louis, O. H. & C. Ry. Co. 
 V. Fowler (Mo.), vol. 10, 
 p. 405. 
 Evidence of statutory authority 
 to condemn railroad right of 
 way for telegraph line. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of Utah 
 V. Oregon S. L. R. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 22, p. 273. 
 Exercise of right to quiet title to 
 land already owned. 
 Florence E. D. & W. V. R. 
 Co. V. Lilley (Kan.), vol. 3, 
 p. 25. 
 
362 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Cont'd. EMINENT DOMAIN— Coni'd. 
 
 Expert and Opinion Evidence. 
 
 Expert and opinion evidence. 
 Union Elevator Co. v. Kan- 
 sas City S. B. R. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 3, p. 167. 
 Expert and opinion evidence, 
 comparison of values. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 
 V. Griffith (Neb.), vol. 3, 
 p. 167. 
 General rule as to expert tes- 
 timony. 
 
 Union Elevator Co. v. Kan- 
 sas City S. B. R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 167. 
 Opinion as to benefit to lands. 
 Sewell V. Chicago Term. 
 Transfer R. Co. (111.), vol. 
 13, p. 387. 
 Opinion evidence. 
 Kay V. Glade Creek & R. R. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 17, p. 695. 
 Proof by gas, manufacturing- 
 expert as to real estate val- 
 ues. 
 
 Spring City Gas L/ight Co. 
 V. Pennsylvania, etc., R. 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 3, p. 167. 
 Proof of prices obtained for 
 other property. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 
 V. Griffith (Neb.), vol. 3, p. 
 168. 
 Real estate experts. 
 Struthers v. Philadelphia & 
 D. C. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 4, 
 p. 207. 
 Value before and after posses- 
 sion by company. 
 Ivos Angeles, P. & G. R. Co. 
 V. Rumpp (Cal.), vol. 3, p. 
 167. 
 Value of leasehold destroyed. 
 Boteler v. Philadelphia & R. 
 T. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 3, 
 p. 167. 
 Value of railroad property con- 
 demned for street purposes. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 Cicero (111.), vol. 3, p. 188. 
 Who are experts. 
 Union Elevator Co. v. Kan- 
 sas City S. B. R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 167. 
 Witness testifying as to the 
 value of the land. 
 Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. 
 Burden (Ind. App.), vol. 3, 
 p. 447. 
 Eiling of survey, pre-emption. 
 American, etc., Nav. Co. v. 
 N. Y., etc., R. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 8, p. 761. 
 
 Florida act of Eeb. 12, 188S. 
 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. 
 Co. V. Adams (Fla.), vol. 3, 
 pp. 24, 27, 28. 
 Foreign corporations. New York 
 statutes. 
 
 New York, New Haven, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Welsh (N. Y.), 
 vol. 3, p. 229. 
 Foreign corporations, power of 
 legislature to authorize con- 
 demnation proceedings by for- 
 eign railroad company. 
 New York, New Haven, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Welsh (N. Y.), 
 vol. 3, p. 229. 
 Funds in court to pay for an- 
 other part of tract partitioned 
 pending proceedings. 
 Virginia-Carolina Ry. Co. v. 
 Booker (Va.), vol. 22, p. 800. 
 Injunctions. 
 
 Willamette Iron Works v. 
 Oregon Ry. & Naviga- 
 tion Co. (Ore.), vol. 1, 
 p. 36. 
 Condemnation of railroad 
 property for street purposes. 
 Chicago & Northwestern 
 R. Co. V. City of Chicago 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 199. 
 Extension of street over rail- 
 road yards. 
 
 Cincinnati, Wabash & Mich- 
 igan R. Co. V. City of An- 
 derson (Ind.), vol. 3, p. 
 194. 
 Injunction against trespass by 
 railroad modified after con- 
 demnation of right of way. 
 Southern California R. Co. 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 3, p. 446. 
 Injunction to prevent reopen- 
 ing of decision of commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 Union Terminal R. Co. v. 
 Board of R. Commission- 
 ers (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 72. 
 Judicial discretion as to en- 
 joining the condemnation of 
 railroad right of way for 
 telegraph line. 
 Savannah, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 917. 
 Right to enjoin proceedings 
 by second company for con- 
 demnation of land already 
 condemned. 
 
 Eureka, etc., R. Co. v. Cal- 
 ifornia, etc., Ry. Co. (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 22, p. 404. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 363 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— CoMif'rf. 
 To prevent taking- possession 
 of land before payment of 
 compensation. 
 Stoltz v. Milwaukee & I,. W. 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. IS, p. 
 820. 
 Judgments against company not 
 binding on trustees and bond 
 holders, under a mortgage, 
 who were not parties thereto, 
 in a suit to foreclose such 
 mortgage. 
 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. v. 
 Hennen (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 409. 
 Judgment in eminent domain 
 proceedings a bar to subse- 
 quent action fpr damages. 
 International & G. N. R. Co. 
 V. Gieselman (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), vol. 3, p. 446. 
 Judicial notice of deposit of 
 amount of award of commis- 
 sioner. 
 
 Foster V. Chicago, R. I. & T. 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 2. 
 Jurisdiction of New York su- 
 preme court to entertain con- 
 . demnation proceedings. 
 
 In re Southern Boulevard R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 3, p. 169. 
 Jurisdiction of supreme court of 
 the United States in proceed- 
 ings in state court. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. City 
 of Chicago (U. S.), vol. 7, 
 p. 26. 
 Jury and Jury Trial. 
 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.), 
 vol. 7, p. 771. 
 Report of jurors, as evidence 
 of number of jurors concur- 
 ring in verdict. 
 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. 
 Co. V. Adams (Fla.), vol. 
 3, p. 29. 
 Right of legislature to dis- 
 pense with jury of twelve 
 men. 
 
 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. 
 Co. V. Adams (Fla.), vol. 
 3, p. 27. 
 Struck jury in condemnation 
 proceedings. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Na- 
 tional Docks Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 4, p. 2S6. 
 Justice of the peace, jurisdiction. 
 Musick V. Kansas City, S. & 
 M. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 28. 
 
 Uttie Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. 
 Alister (Ark.), vol. 3, p. 447. 
 
 EMINENT TtOMAIHJ— Cont'd. 
 lyeased land. 
 
 State V. National Docks, etc.', 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 26. 
 Liability of purchaser of railroad 
 for unpaid condemnation 
 money. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hen- 
 
 rie (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 790. 
 
 Liability of successor company 
 
 upon judgment. 
 
 Chicago & Southeastern R. Co. 
 
 V. Galey (Ind.), vol. 3, p. 234. 
 
 Manufactory. 
 
 English land clauses act. 
 Brooks V. Manchester, S. & 
 h. R. Co. (Eng.), vol. 3, 
 p. 27. 
 Mortgages. 
 
 Dickson v. Epling (111.), vol. 
 9, p. 403. 
 Mortgages, exercise of right of 
 eminent domain with respect 
 to a right of way which it al- 
 ready owns and its effect on 
 mortgage lien. 
 
 Chicago, Kansas & Western 
 R. Co. V. Need (Kan. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 236. 
 Mortgages, improvements by 
 railroad passing to purchaser 
 at foreclosure sale. 
 Briggs V. Chicago, K. & W. 
 R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 446. 
 Mortgages, right to condemn 
 mortgage lien. 
 
 Chicago, Kansas & Western 
 R. Co. V. Need (Kan. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 236. 
 Municipality not authorized to 
 condemn more land than nec- 
 essary for railroad purposes. 
 Dennis I/ong & Co. v. City of 
 Louisville (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 
 213. 
 Nature, extent and exercise of 
 right by railroad companies. 
 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. 
 Co. V. Adams (Fla.), vol. 3, 
 p. 24. 
 Necessity a judicial question. 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.), 
 vol. 7, p. 771. 
 Necessity of direct proceeding. 
 AuU V. Columbia, etc., R. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 3, p. 129. 
 
 Notice. 
 
 Necessity of. 
 Clement v. Wichita & S. 
 W. R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 3, 
 p. 10. 
 
364 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EMINENT BOM AIN— Cont'd. 
 Notice of proceedings. 
 Ellsworth V. Chicag-o & I. 
 "W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 3, 
 p.S. 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Phipps (Kan. App.) , vol. 7, 
 p. 247. 
 Obstruction of drain by a 
 railroad. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Anderson (Arlj.), vol. 5, 
 p. 637. 
 Service of notice on agent of 
 nonresident owner. 
 Saginaw T. & H. R. Co. w. 
 Bordner (Mich.), vol. 3, p. 
 11. 
 Parties, persons whose interest 
 is subsequently discovered are 
 not necessary parties. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Town 
 of Normal (111.), vol. 13, p. 
 367. . 
 Parties, effect of failure to make 
 person in possession and 
 claiming title party to pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Owen V. St. Paul, M. & M. 
 R. Co. (Wash.), vol. 3, p. 169. 
 
 Payment into Court. 
 
 Los Angeles, P. & G. R. 
 
 Co. V. Rumpp (Cal.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 133. 
 National Docks & N. J. J. 
 
 C. R. Co. V. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 132. 
 Acceptance of award as pre- 
 clusion of claim to additional 
 damages. 
 Twombly v. Chicago, R. I. 
 
 & T. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 134. 
 Payment to mortgagees. 
 
 Scottish American Inv. Co. 
 
 V. Prittie (Ont.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 134. 
 Receipt for award and pre- 
 vious demand for payment 
 as evidence of willingness 
 to accept amount. 
 Ft. Worth Ice Co. v. Chicago 
 
 R. L &T. R. Co. (Tex.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 134. 
 Review of award of compen- 
 sation. 
 Atchison & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Boerner (Neb.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 134. 
 Statute providing that a 
 railroad company might pay 
 into court the amount of 
 
 EMINENT TtOMAXN— Cont'd. 
 
 an unsatisfactory award 
 when an appeal has been 
 taken, and thereupon build a 
 turnpike crossing was held 
 unconstitutional. 
 Harrisburg, etc.. Turnpike 
 Road Co. V. Harrisburg, 
 etc., R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 780. 
 Payment of compensation. ' 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Phipps 
 (Kan. App.), vol. 5, p. 699. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Na- 
 tional Docks & N. J. J. C. R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 132. 
 Payment of compensation in 
 proceedings to condemn rail- 
 road right of way for tele- 
 graph line. 
 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of Utah 
 V. Oregon S. L. R. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 22, p. 273. 
 Persons entitled to compensa- 
 tion. 
 
 Virginia-Carolina Ry. Co. v. 
 Booker (Va.), vol. 22, p. 800. 
 Petition, sufficiency of petition 
 for condemnation. 
 Ft. Worth Ice Co. v. Chicago, 
 R. I. & T. R. Co. (Tex.), 
 vol. 3, p. 169. 
 Pleading. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 13, p. 423. 
 Power of commissioners. 
 
 Union Terminal R. Co. v. 
 Board of R. Commissioners 
 (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 72. 
 Power of commissioners, power 
 and authority of commis- 
 sioners appointed under New 
 York General Railroad Act. 
 Matter of Southern Boulevard 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 3, p. 30. 
 Preclusion of right to condemn 
 land by private contract to de- 
 sist from use of steam on por- 
 tion of road. 
 
 In re Long Island R. Co. (N. 
 Y.), vol. 3, p. 25. 
 Presumption as to appointment 
 of qualified commissioners. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Ft. 
 Worth & R. G. R. Co. (Tex.), 
 vol. 3, p. 30. 
 Presumption under general rail- 
 road laws as to extent of ap- 
 propriation. 
 
 Jones V. Frie & Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 18. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 365 
 
 EMINENT TtOMAlN— Cont'd. 
 Proceedings. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. City of 
 Pontiac (111.), vol. 9, p. 382. 
 Davis V. Northwestern El. Ry. 
 
 Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 452. 
 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. 
 Co. V. Adams (Fla.), vol. 3, 
 p. 27. 
 Proper parties. 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.), 
 vol.7, p. 771. 
 Public use, judicial questions 
 under Missouri Const, art. 
 2, § 20. 
 
 Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. North- 
 western Coal & Min. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 593. 
 Public use, taking of property 
 already devoted to public use. 
 Chicago & Northwestern R. 
 Co. V. City of Chicago (111.), 
 vol. 3, p. 199. 
 Question of law and fact, dam- 
 ages. 
 
 Davis V. Northwestern El. 
 Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 452. 
 Quieting title. 
 Florence E. D. & W. V. R. 
 Co. V. I<illey (Kan.), vol. 3, 
 • p. 25. 
 Railroad not private merely be- 
 cause of its relation with coal 
 mining company having same 
 officers and stockholders, so 
 as to prevent it from having 
 power of eminent domain. 
 Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. a. North- 
 western Coal & Min. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 593. 
 Relocation. 
 
 Ivusby V. Kansas City, M. & 
 B. R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 3, p. 
 447. 
 Reopening of decision of com- 
 missioners. 
 
 Union Terminal R. Co. v. 
 Board of Railroad Commis- 
 sioners (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 72. 
 Res judicata. 
 Union Depot Co. v. Backus 
 (Mich.), vol. 3, p. 136. 
 Revivor of proceeding against 
 new company formed by con- 
 solidation. 
 
 Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Butts (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 32. 
 Right of company to possession. 
 Wellington & P. R. Co. v. 
 Cashie & C. R. & Iv. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 3, p. 32. 
 Right of possession before ter- 
 mination of proceedings. 
 Rudd V. Earmville & P. R. Co. 
 (Va.), vol. 3, p. 656. 
 
 EMINENT TiOMAIN—ConCd. 
 Right of private operating road. 
 Butte, A. & P. R. Co. v. Mon- 
 tana U. R. Co. (Mont.), vol. 
 3, p. 25. 
 Right of railroad company to 
 enter upon condemned laud. 
 National Docks & New Jersey 
 Junction, etc., Co. v. Penn- 
 svlvania R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 3, p. 82. 
 Right of riparian owner. 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.), 
 vol. 7, p. 771. 
 Right of Way. 
 Authority to condemn right of 
 way for street railways 
 under Wis. Rev. St. 1898, § 
 1863 a. 
 
 Younkin v. Milwaukee L,., 
 H. & T.Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 p. 500. 
 Condemnation of right of way 
 across railroad side track. 
 L,ake Shore & Michigan 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Balti- 
 more & Ohio & Chicago R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 3, p. 57. 
 Condemnation of right of way, 
 defenses. 
 
 Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Northwestern Coal & Min. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 593. 
 
 Condemnation of right of way 
 
 for telegraph lines, effect of 
 
 grant to other telegraph 
 
 companies. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Miss.), vol. 
 18, p. 364. 
 Condemnation of right of way 
 over laud of coal mining, 
 company having same offi- 
 cers and stockholders and 
 likely to furnish bulk of 
 business. 
 
 Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Northwestern Coal & Min. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 593. 
 
 County ditch across right of 
 
 way. 
 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 Comm'rs (Ohio), vol. 18, 
 p. 765. 
 County ditch as public ne- 
 CGSsitv* 
 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Comm'rs (Ohio), vol. 18, p. 
 
 765. 
 
 Damages for land taken within 
 
 right of way and outside 
 
 tracks. 
 
 Illinois Central R. Co. v. 
 City of Chicago (111.), vol. 
 3, p. 181. 
 
366 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EMINENT TiOyLAXTS— Cont'd. 
 Daraag^es not allowed for im- 
 provements , made before 
 condemnation by railroad 
 company on land. 
 Charleston & W. C. Ey. Co. 
 V. Hughes (Ga.)i vol. 11, 
 p. S41. 
 Description of proposed right 
 of way for telegraph line in 
 complaint in proceedings to 
 condemn right of way for. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 
 Utah V. Oregon S. L. R. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 273. 
 Discretion of duly incorporated 
 telegraph company will not 
 be interfered with by the 
 court in action for condem- 
 nation of railroad right of 
 way for telegraph line where 
 prior use will not be mate- 
 rially interfered with. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 
 Utah V. Oregon S. L,. R. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 274. 
 Effect of condemnation of 
 only part of right of way. 
 National Docks & New Jer- 
 sey Junction, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 82. 
 Effect of fact that foreign cor- 
 poration, is interested in pe- 
 titioner's company in action 
 to condemn railroad right of 
 way for telegraph line. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 
 Utah V. Oregon S. L. R. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 273. 
 Ejectment of company from 
 right of way for failure to 
 condemn and make compen- 
 sation. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Hood 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 166. 
 Estate to be acquired by 
 railroad condemning right of 
 way. 
 Shreveport & R. R. Val. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Hinds (La.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 325. 
 Estimate of cost of proposed 
 improvement need not be 
 stated in petition by town 
 to condemn land for street 
 across right of way. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Town 
 
 of Normal (111.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 367. 
 Fencing along right of way as 
 elements of damages, 
 Ivos Angeles, "P. & G. R. Co. 
 
 V. Rumpp (Cal.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 130. 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Co«^W. 
 Piling of map of proposed 
 route does not vest compa- 
 ny's right. 
 
 Adirondack Ry. Co. v. Peo- 
 ple (U. S.), vol. 18, p. 348. 
 How one railroad may acquire 
 right of way upon land of 
 another. 
 
 Potts V. Quaker City Ele- 
 vated R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, 
 p. 401. 
 
 Institution of condemnation 
 proceedings by railroad to 
 recover right of way. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Standi- 
 
 ford (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 154. 
 Location of public drains on 
 railroad right of way, col- 
 lateral attack on jurisdiction 
 of county board. 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Board of Com'rs (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 716. 
 
 More necessary public use in 
 action to condemn railroad 
 rigbt of way for telegraph 
 line. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 
 Utah V. Oregon S. L. R. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 273. 
 
 Necessity of taking, in action 
 
 to condemn railroad right of 
 
 way for telegraph line. 
 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 
 Utah V. Oregon S. L. R. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 273. 
 Power to change location. 
 Lusby V. Kansas City M. & 
 
 B. R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 447. 
 Purchase of right of way and 
 condemnation of additional 
 strip. 
 
 Jopliu & W. Ry. Co. v. Kan- 
 sas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 8, p. 165. 
 Right of company to compen- 
 sation where right of way 
 is condemned. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City 
 
 of Chicago (111.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 181. 
 
 Right of one railroad company 
 to appropriate railroad prop- 
 erty of another company. 
 Chicago West Division Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Metropolitan West 
 
 Side El. R. Co. (111.), vol.' 
 
 3, p. 45. 
 City Council of Augusta v. 
 
 Georgia R. & Banking Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 7, p. 384. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 367 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— CowjfV. EMINENT DOMAIN— CorailW. 
 
 In re American Trausp. & 
 Nav. Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 
 26. 
 
 L,ake Shore & Mich. South- 
 ern Ry. Co. V. Baltimore 
 & Ohio & Chicagfo R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 57. 
 
 National Docks & New Jer- 
 sey Junction, etc., Co. v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. 3, p. 82. 
 
 St. L,ouis, Alton & Terre 
 Haute Ry. Co. v. Belle- 
 ville City Ry. Co. (111.), 
 vol. 3, p. S3. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern California R. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 3, p. 37. 
 Union Terminal R. Co. v. 
 
 Board of R. Com'rs (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 72. 
 Rig-ht of street railway to 
 cross railroad. 
 Williams Val. R. Co. v. 
 
 Lykens & W. Val. St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, p. 718. 
 Right of street railway to cross 
 steam railroad without con- 
 demnation proceeding's. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta 
 
 R. T. Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 425. 
 Right of way secured by exer- 
 cise of rig'ht of eminent do- 
 main on streets of cities, 
 extent of appropriation. 
 Jones V. Erie & Pennsylva- 
 nia R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 18. 
 Rig'ht to condemn land in ex- 
 cess of width prescribed by 
 statute. 
 Wilder v. Boston & A. R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 28. 
 Right to condemn railroad 
 right of way for telegraph 
 line in absence of legislative 
 authority. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of Utah 
 
 V. Oregon S. L,. R. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 22, p. 273. 
 SnfiBciency of judgment to vest 
 right of way. 
 Ft. Worth Ice Co. v. Chicago, 
 
 R. I. &T. R. Co. (Tex.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 169. 
 Taking land used for right of 
 way. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Cicero (111.), vol. 3, p. 188. 
 Telegraph companies con- 
 
 demning railroad right of 
 way. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 13, p. 423. 
 Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. 
 V. Chicago M. & St. P. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, 
 p. 449. 
 Telegraph companies con- 
 demning railroad line along 
 railroad right of way. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Tenn.), vol. 
 10, p. 867. 
 Under Burns' Rev. St. 1894 of 
 Indiana, county board has 
 jurisdiction to establish 
 public drains across railroad 
 right of way. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Board of Com'rs (Ind.), 
 vol. 22, p. 408. 
 Where proceedings must be 
 brought in action for con- 
 demnation of railroad right 
 of way for telegraph line. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 Utah V. Oregon S. 'L,. R^ 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 273. 
 Whether railroad's right of 
 way over land of coal min- 
 ing company materially in- 
 terfered with latter's use. 
 Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Northwestern Coal & Min. 
 Co. (Mo. ) , vol. 20, p. 593. 
 Width. 
 Zahn V. Pittsburgh, C, C. & 
 St. L. Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 9, p. 411. 
 Right to construtt side tracks. 
 Lake Shore & Michigan South- 
 ern Ry. Co. V. Baltimore & 
 Ohio & Chicago R. Co. (111.), 
 vol. 3, p. 57. 
 Right to question title of land 
 after submission of damages 
 to jury. 
 
 Bellingham Bay & British 
 Columbia R. Co. v. Strand 
 (Wash.), vol. 3, p. 171. 
 Second appropriation to public 
 use. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Board of Com'rs (Ind.), vol. 
 20, p. 716. 
 Security deposited by railroad 
 company in condemnation pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 lyigare v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 • (111.), vol. 4, p. 255. 
 
368 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Co»i!'(^. EMINENT T)OM.AXSi— Cont'd. 
 
 Side tracks. 
 
 L,ake Shore & Mich. South- 
 ern Ry. Co. V. Baltimore & 
 Ohio & Chicago R. Co. (111.), 
 vol. 3, p. .57. 
 Special charters, right of 
 
 states. 
 
 City of Terre Haute v. Evans- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. (Ind. ), 
 vol. 8, p. 760. 
 Specifying purpose for which 
 
 condemnation is sought. 
 
 Barnes v. Chicago R. I. & 
 T. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 p. 28. 
 Spur track as public use. 
 
 In re Minneapolis & St. L/. R. 
 Co. V. Nicolin (Minn.), vol. 
 13, p. 44S. 
 Spur track to manufacturing 
 
 establishments as a public 
 
 use. 
 
 Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Morehouse (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 p. 413. 
 Stations, power of municipality 
 
 to take depot grounds for 
 
 street purposes. 
 
 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. 
 Paul R. Co. V. Stark- 
 weather (Iowa), vol. 3, p. 
 189. 
 Statutory essentials in Texas 
 
 to application by railroad for 
 
 condemnation of land. 
 
 Foster v. Chicago, Rock Is- 
 land & Texas Ry. Co. 
 (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 1. 
 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Chicago & Calumet Termi- 
 nal Ry. Co. V. Whiting, 
 Hammond & East Chicago 
 St. Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 1, 
 p. 181. 
 Condemnation of franchise of 
 
 turnpike company. 
 
 Baltimore, & Fredericks- 
 town Turnpike Road v. 
 Baltimore etc., R. Co. 
 (Md.), vol. 3, p. 177. 
 Condemnation of tracks of 
 
 one company to the use of 
 
 another company. 
 
 Colonial City Traction Co. 
 V. Kingston City R. Co. 
 (N. Y.T, vol. 10, p. 327. 
 Exercise of right by street 
 
 railway company. 
 
 Baltimore & Fredericks- 
 town Turnpike Road v. 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 (Md.), vol. 3, p. 177. 
 
 On country roads. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Montgomery County Pas- 
 senger Ry. Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 1, p. 190. 
 Streets. 
 
 Alteration of streets by rail- 
 road company under munic- 
 ipal authority as a taking 
 of land. 
 
 State V. Mayor of New 
 
 Brunswick (N. J.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 170. 
 
 Authority of city council to 
 
 extend street across right 
 
 of way. 
 
 City of Terre Haute v. 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co. 
 (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 759. 
 Authority of municipality to 
 authorize railroad company 
 to alter streets. 
 State V. Mayor of New 
 Brunswick (N. J.), vol. 
 3, p. 170. 
 Authority of municipality to 
 condemn railroad land for 
 street purposes. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 City of Chicago (111.), 
 vol. 3, p. 181. 
 Condemnation of land in 
 public street. 
 
 State V. National Docks, 
 
 etc., R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 26. 
 
 Condemnation of land of 
 
 railroad not used for train 
 
 service. 
 
 Chicago & Northwestern 
 R. Co. v. City of Chicago 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 199. 
 Condemnation of railroad 
 lands for street -purposes. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 Cicero (111.), vol. 3, p. 
 187. 
 Construction of bridge across 
 intersecting streets. 
 Jones V. Erie & Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 3, p. 18. 
 Extension of streets over 
 railroad yards. 
 Cincinnati, Wabash & 
 Michigan R. Co. v. City 
 of Anderson (Ind.), vol. 
 3, p. 194. 
 Land of railroad condemned 
 for street purposes; 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 
 V. Cicero (111.), vol. 3, p. 
 187. ^ 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 369 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Cont'd. 
 Measure of damages for con- 
 demning land for street 
 purposes. 
 
 Chicago & Northwestern R. 
 Co. V. Town of Cicero 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 206. 
 Ordinance permitting altera- 
 tion of streets, necessity of 
 publication. 
 
 State V. Mayor of New 
 
 Brunswick (N. J.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 170. 
 
 Power of municipality to take 
 
 depot grounds for street 
 
 purposes. 
 
 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. 
 Paul R. Co. 7'. Stark- 
 weather (Iowa), vol. 3, 
 p. 189. 
 Right of city to extend street 
 across railroad right of 
 way. 
 
 Chicago & Northwestern 
 R. Co. V. City of Chi- 
 cago (111.), vol. 3, p. 
 199. 
 Right of owner of unauthor- 
 ized track in street to com- 
 pensation for interference 
 therewith. 
 
 Union Elevator Co. v. 
 Kansas City S. B. R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 130. 
 Streets cannot be opened 
 across railroads without 
 compensation to company. 
 St. L,ouis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Gordon, Mayor (Mo.), 
 vol. 19, p. 561. 
 What constitutes contract be- 
 tween municipalit3' and rail- 
 road company as to altera- 
 tion of streets. 
 State V. Mayor of New 
 Brunswick (N. J.), vol. 
 3, p. 170. 
 Succeeding company liable for 
 compensation. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Hood 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 166. 
 SufBciency of evidence. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 13, p. 423. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 whether tracts constituted one 
 farm. 
 
 Westbrook v. Muscatine, N. 
 & S. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, 
 p. 835. 
 Sufficiency of petition. 
 Barnes z'. • Chicago, R. I. T. 
 
 ID— 24 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN— Co«/W. 
 
 R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 28. *^ 
 
 Thomas. ». St. Louis, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 760. ^ 
 
 Suretyship, discharge of sure- 
 ties to secure damages to land 
 owner by dissolution of corpo- 
 ration prior to condemna- 
 tion proceedings. 
 Keller v. Harrisburg & P. R. 
 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 130. 
 Taking personal property. 
 Becker v. Philadelphia & R. 
 
 T. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 174. 
 Taking real property for rail- 
 road purposes. 
 
 Board of Education v. Kana- 
 wha & M. R. Co. (W. Va.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 767. 
 Temporary obstructions. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S.F. R. Co. 
 
 V. Arnold (Kan.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 61. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Kobs (Ky.), vol. 1, p. 61. 
 Evans v. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 
 & O. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 61. 
 Turnpike companies, condem- 
 nation of franchise of turn- 
 pike company. 
 Baltimore, & Frederickstown 
 
 Turnpike Road v. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co. (Md.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 177. 
 View by jury. 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 771. 
 Void ex parte order permitting 
 railroad to take possession. 
 Sweeney v. Montana Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mont.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 540. 
 Waiver of defects in proceed- 
 ings. 
 Ellsworth V. Chicago & I. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 3, p. 5. 
 Washington statute. 
 Seattle & M. R. Co. v. 
 
 State (Wash.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 25. 
 What passes by right of exer- 
 cise of eminent domain. 
 L(ime Rock R. Co. v. Farns- 
 
 worth (Me.), vol. 3, p. 13; 
 When condemnation of land 
 necessarj'. 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 771. 
 
370 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EMINENT HOMAIN— Cont'd. 
 Whether instruction made use 
 of land the test as to whether 
 tracts constituted one farm. 
 Westbrook v. Muscatine N. 
 & S. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, 
 p. 83S. 
 Whether property of railroad 
 company subject to right. 
 Orleans & J. Ry. Co. v. 
 Jefferson & L. P. Ry. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 16, p. 699. 
 Whether railroad may exercise 
 right within a city without 
 consent of city. 
 Ligare v. Chicago, M. & N. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. S2. 
 Whether right to damages 
 passes to grantee of owner 
 at time of condemnation. 
 Roberts v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 106. 
 Yard and engine house as a 
 public use. 
 
 Cincinnati, Wabash & Michi- 
 gan R. Co. V. City of An- 
 derson (Ind.), vol. 3, p. 
 ,194. 
 
 EMPLOYEES. 
 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 
 ACTS. 
 
 See Constitutionnl Law. 
 Fellow Servants. 
 Master and Servants. 
 Receivers. 
 Keatley v. Illinois Central R. 
 
 Co. (Iowa) , vol. 9, p. 1. 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. Andrews 
 (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 756. 
 Assumption of Risk. 
 
 Assumption of risk and con- 
 tributory negligence, under 
 employers' liability act of 
 North Carolina. 
 Colcy V. North Carolina R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 885. 
 Car inspectors, applicability. 
 Canon v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 12. 
 Constitutionality of. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Montgomerv (Ind.), 
 vol. 9, p. 792. 
 Constitutionality of employers' 
 liability act of Indiana. 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. 
 Houlihan (Ind.), vol. 21, p. 
 915. 
 
 EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 
 AXy^S— Continued. 
 Constitutionality of statute pre- 
 venting employees from waiv- 
 ing benefit of employers' 
 liability act. 
 
 Coley v. North Carolina R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 885. 
 Construction of statute. 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Becker (Ark. ) , vol. 8, p. 759. 
 English. 
 
 McCord V. Cammell (Eng.), 
 vol. 3, p. 451. 
 Interpretation of Iowa statute. 
 Keatley v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 1. 
 Liability for death of fireman of 
 other train through failure to 
 place danger signals on track, 
 Indiana doctrine. 
 Cowen V. Ray (C. C. A.), vol. 
 21, p. 531. 
 Massachusetts statute. 
 
 Fairman v. Boston & A. R. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 83. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Montgomery (Ind.), 
 vol. 9, p. 792. 
 Missouri Laws 1898, p. 93, defin- 
 ing the liabilities of railroad 
 corporations to their employees 
 and Mo. Rev. St. 1889, sec. 2666 
 should be construed together. 
 Powell V. Sherwood (Mo.), 
 vol. 22, p. 53. 
 
 Question for jury whether work- 
 of cleaning wrecked train from 
 track, which caused roof of car 
 to fall upon section hand, 
 was being executed so as to 
 expose him to the peculiar haz- 
 ards of railroad service, with- 
 fn meaning of employers' 
 liability act of Minnesota. 
 Kreuzer v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 912. 
 
 ENGINEERS. 
 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 Lookouts. 
 
 EQUITABLE CLAIMS. 
 See Insolvency. 
 Receivers. 
 
 What are equitable claims 
 
 against a railroad. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Cen- 
 tral Trust Co. of New York 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 14, p. 820. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 371 
 
 EQUITY. 
 
 See Jurisdiction. 
 Nuisances. 
 Specific Performance. 
 Equitable interference in con- 
 troversy between street rail- 
 way companies for possession 
 of streets. 
 
 West Jersey Traction Co. v. 
 Camden Horse R. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 1, p. 134. 
 Necessity .of defendant filing 
 cross bill in order to get affirm- 
 ative relief. 
 
 Hendrix v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 272. 
 Preventing' multiplicity of suits. 
 Eureka, etc., R. Co. v. Cali- 
 fornia, etc., Ry. Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 22, p. 404. 
 Review of finding of master. 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. Ap- 
 peals (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 209. 
 Right to decision on merits. 
 Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Ziegler 
 
 (C. C. A.j, vol. 23, p.l. 
 Ziegler v. Lake St. El. R. Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 1. 
 Street railroad claiming rights 
 obtained by unconscionable 
 method. 
 
 Tamaqua & L. St. R. Co. v. 
 Inter-County St. R. Co. (Pa. 
 St.), vol. 1, p. 198. 
 
 EQUITY JURISDICTION. 
 
 See Jurisdiction. 
 
 ERROR. 
 
 See Appeal. 
 
 Harmless Error. 
 Assignments of. 
 
 Felton V. Clarkson (Tenn.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 300. 
 Georgia, S. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Ry. Eq. Co. (Ga.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 295. 
 Harmless error. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Price (C. C. A.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 324. 
 Hunter v. Montana Cent. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mont.), vol. 16, .p. 615. 
 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Mar- 
 pole (Va.), vol. 16, p. 291. 
 
 ESCAPE OF STEAM. 
 
 See Frightening Horses. ■ 
 
 ESTOPPEL. 
 See Baggage. 
 Bondholders. 
 
 ESTOPPEL— Continued. 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Instructions. 
 
 Leases and Running Pow- 
 ers. 
 Pleading. 
 Right of Way. 
 Taxation. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Ultra Vires. 
 
 City of Charlottesville v. 
 Southern Ry. Co. (Va.), 
 vol. 16, p. 600. 
 Dangerfield v. Atchison, T. & 
 S. P. Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 17, 
 p. 650. 
 Carrier not estopped to explain 
 or contradict bill of lading or 
 shipping receipt where the 
 goods were not actually re- 
 ceived. 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. 
 National Live-Stock Bank 
 (111.), vol. 13, p. 1. 
 Denying corporate existence. 
 Petty V. Brunswick & W. Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 840. 
 Eminent domain, estoppel of 
 - owner to dispute right of 
 municipality to easement in 
 land used by railroad company. 
 Dennis Long & Co. v. City of 
 Louisville (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 
 213. 
 Equitable estoppel of owner of 
 homestead from evicting rail- 
 road, under laws of Alabama. 
 Hendrix v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 272. 
 Equitable estoppel to action in 
 ejectment to recover right of 
 way. 
 
 Scarritt v. Kansas City, O. & 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 15, p. 
 809. 
 Estoppel in pais does not arise 
 from conduct of one party to 
 transaction where other party 
 was not misled, and suffered 
 no injury therefrom. 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. 
 Appeals (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 p. 209. 
 Estoppel of defendant to claim 
 that plaintiff proved a fact 
 where the court erroneously 
 rejected competent evidence to 
 prove it on defendant's objec- 
 tion. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Elliott (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p. 
 715. 
 
373 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 'EiBTOiPVELTj— Continued. 
 Estoppel to deny legality of rail- 
 road aid tax. 
 
 Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Scott, Sheriff (La.), vol. 17, 
 p. 745. 
 Municipal aid. 
 Town Council of L,exing-ton v. 
 Union Nat. Bank (Miss.), 
 vol. 9, p. 321. 
 Municipal authorities estopped , 
 by acquiescence and affirma- 
 tive acts from denying right 
 of company to maintain its 
 track in street. 
 
 City of Chicago v. Union 
 Stock-Yard & Transit Co. 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 490. 
 Railroad served as corporation 
 and not making plea of nul 
 tiel corporation is estopped to 
 deny that it is a corporation. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Glenny 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 839. 
 Relief associations. 
 Eckman v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9. p. 308. 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 299. 
 
 Streets. 
 
 The fact that both plaintiff 
 and defendant own lands 
 abutting on a street by titles 
 derived through mesne con- 
 veyances from the same 
 source does not estop de- 
 fendant from occupying such 
 street for railroad purposes, 
 such fact not establishing 
 contractual relations be- 
 tween plaintiff and defend- 
 ant. 
 
 Bond V. Pennsylvania Co. 
 (111.), vol. 10, p. 118. 
 
 EVICTION. 
 
 See Trespassers. 
 
 EVIDBNOB. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Abutters. 
 Admissions. 
 Adverse Possession. 
 Agency. 
 Baggage. 
 Bills of Lading. 
 Burden of Proof . 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Live Stock, 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Character in Evidence. 
 Children. 
 
 EVIDENCE — Continued. 
 See Collisions. 
 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 Declarations. 
 
 Electric Railroads. 
 
 Elevated Railroads. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 
 Estoppel. 
 
 Expert and Opinion Evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Fellow Servants. 
 
 Fences. 
 
 Fires. 
 
 Frightening Team.s. 
 
 Hearsay Evidence. 
 
 Interrogatories. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission. 
 
 Judicial Notice. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Mortality Tables. 
 I Mortgages. 
 . Negligence. 
 
 Nonsuit. 
 
 Parol Evidence. 
 
 Personal Injuries. 
 
 Res Gestcs. 
 
 Right of Way. 
 
 Stations. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 Street Railroads. 
 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 Trespassers. 
 
 Trial. 
 
 Usages and Custom,s. 
 
 Water and Waiet-cdurses. 
 
 Witnesses. 
 Alabama Mid. Ry. Co. v. 
 Darby (Ala.), vol. 13, p. lOS. 
 Bradley v. Second ' Ave. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 184. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, 
 etc., R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, 
 p. 99. 
 Lumberman's Mut. Ins. Co. 
 V. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 
 127. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Elliott (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 14, p. S87. 
 
 Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co. 
 
 (Vt.), vol. 14, p. 416. 
 Scott V. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, p. 63. 
 
 Accidents on Track. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence in 
 action to recover for in- 
 juries to boy on street car 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 373 
 
 ^EiVlU'ENOE— Continued. 
 
 track, whether motorman 
 could have seen him. 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Cooney (Md. ), vol. 
 
 n, p. 759. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 ownership of locus in quo 
 under allegation of general 
 ownership, in action for 
 injuries on track. 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & 
 
 Nav. Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 6SS. 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 that engineer was compe- 
 tent, in action for injury 
 to person on track. 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. SSI. 
 
 Fact that employee was not 
 
 aware that he was violating 
 
 ordinance cannot be shown. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Bond (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 7S7. 
 
 Harmless error in admitting 
 evidence of existence of or- 
 dinance requiring gripman 
 to exercise vigilance to pre- 
 vent accidents. 
 Schmidt v. St. Louis R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 
 711. 
 Negligence, suf& c i e n c y of 
 evidence. 
 
 Ruppert V. Brooklyn 
 Heights R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 11, p. 873. 
 Presumption that deaf pedes- 
 trian seen near track will 
 ' avoid danger. 
 Piskorowski v. Detroit, etc. , 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 19, 
 p. 120. 
 Presumption that person seen 
 on right of way will keep 
 out of danger. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, 
 etc., R. Co. (Mo.), vol.' 
 19, p. 100. 
 Presumption that trespassers 
 will leave track to escape 
 train. 
 
 Southern Rv. Co. v. Bush 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 46. 
 Refusal to permit plaintiff to 
 testify as to why he was on 
 street railway track. 
 Floyd V. Paducah Railway 
 & Light Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 23, p. 167. 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 Trestle. 
 Little v. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 7, p. 
 772. ' 
 
 Accuracy of photographs. 
 New York, S. & W. R. Co. 
 V. Moore (C. C. A.), vol. 
 21, p. 462. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 compromise with persons hav- 
 ing similar claims. 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ark.), vol. 20, 
 p. S71. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 similar accident in action for 
 personal injuries. 
 Shaw V. Chicago & G. T. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 18, p. 131. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 subsequent repairs. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Henry (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 405. 
 
 Admissibility to support aban- 
 doned theory of case. 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Agency, authority of agent to 
 make contract. 
 Bigelow V. Chicago, B. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 341. 
 
 Ancient deeds. 
 Thompson v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 665. 
 
 Baggage. 
 
 Admissibility of rule requir- 
 ing baggage masters to ex- 
 act release of liability from 
 drummers a s condition 
 precedent to checking sam- 
 ple trunks. 
 Trimble v. New York Cent. 
 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 176. 
 Parol testimony to prove 
 contents of depot placard. 
 Goldberg v. Ahnapee «fe W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 65. 
 
 Bills of Lading. 
 Admissibilitv of testimony of 
 railroad agent to explain 
 technical words in bill of 
 lading. 
 
 Mouton V. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 
 673. 
 
374 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EVIDENCE— ConHnued. 
 
 Marking on bills of lading as, 
 evidence. 
 
 Miller Grain & Elevator 
 Co. V. Union Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 8, p. 1. 
 Parol evidence to vary bill 
 • of lading. 
 McElve'^n v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. IS, p. 
 842. 
 Parol evidence to vary ship- 
 ping contracts and bills of 
 lading. 
 
 Stewart v. Cleveland, C, C. 
 & St. h. Rv. Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 13, p. 28. 
 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Admissibility of official re- 
 ports of connecting carrier 
 in action for loss of goods. 
 Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 429. 
 Burden of proof where car- 
 rier's lia-bility is limited. 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 
 18. 
 Existence of freight rates. 
 Ward V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 30. 
 Misdelivery of goods. 
 Hamilton v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 
 vol. 8, p. 526. 
 Parol evidence as to distinc- 
 tion between transportation 
 service and transfer serv- 
 ice. 
 
 Dixon V. Central of Georgia 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 380. 
 Reasonableness of state 
 rates. 
 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Keyes (C. C. N. Dak.), 
 vol. 13, p. 128. 
 Sufficiency of, to prove cus- 
 tom changing carrier's lia- 
 bility as warehouseman. 
 Georgia & A. Ry. Co. v. 
 Pound (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 398. 
 
 Carriers of Live Stoclc. 
 Admissibility of evidence in 
 action for injury to stock- 
 men. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bell (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 413. 
 
 Admissibility of testimony of 
 
 agent of connecting road in 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 
 action for injury to stock in 
 
 transit. 
 
 Milam v. Southern Rv. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 2S3. 
 Sufficiency of, in action to 
 recover for depreciation in 
 value of stock caused by de- 
 lay in furnishing. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Law (Ark.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 286. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Action for wrongful ejection, 
 of passengers. ■ 
 Lexington & E. Ry. Co. z/.. 
 
 Lyons (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 212. . 
 Admissibility of evidence as. 
 to train being behind time 
 where plaintifE contended, 
 that he had not time to- 
 alight. 
 Killian v. Georgia R., etc., 
 
 Co. (Ga. ), vol. 5, p. 69S. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 
 passenger's ' business and 
 
 profits. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Posten (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 138. 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 that a culvert was covered 
 after an accident. 
 Fisher v. Paxson (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 516. 
 Admissibility of, 'in action 
 by passenger injured by 
 mail pouch thrown from. 
 train. 
 Shaw V. Chicago & G. T. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 131. 
 
 Admissibility of rule of post- 
 office department in action 
 to recover for death of mail 
 clerk. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kelly (111.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 S2. 
 
 Competency of evidence to 
 show that intoxicated 
 passenger, who was injured, 
 purchased beer in station. 
 Cutler V. Concord & M. R. 
 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 760. 
 
 Evidence in action by passen- 
 ger for wrongful ejection. 
 Spink V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 86. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 375 
 
 EVIDENCE— Co«ifi««erf. 
 
 Evidence in action by pas- 
 senger to recover for being 
 carried beyond destina- 
 tion. 
 
 St. l/ouis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Power (Ark.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 1. 
 
 Evidence of custom to assist 
 departing passengers. 
 International & G. N. R. 
 
 Co. V. Satterwhite (Tex. 
 
 Civ. App. ), vol. 12, p. 
 
 215. 
 Injuries to passengers on 
 street railway. 
 West Chicago St. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Kennelly (111.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 359. 
 
 Parol testimony to prove 
 contents of placard. 
 St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co. 
 V. Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 212. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 
 from injury to passenger. 
 Whitney v. New York, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 184. 
 
 Reasons of plaintiff for at- 
 tempting to alight from 
 moving train admissible in 
 action for injuries caused 
 thereby. 
 International & G. N. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Satterwhite (Tex. 
 
 Civ. App.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 215. 
 Records of former suit as 
 evidence, in action for 
 ejection of passenger. 
 Chamberlain v. Lake Shore 
 
 & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 241. 
 Statement that passenger left 
 train before he was in dan- 
 ger. 
 Hoehn v. Chicago P. & St. 
 
 L. R. Co. (111.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 383. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 malice and wantonness in 
 action for ejection of pas- 
 senger. 
 Ristine v. Blocker (Colo.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 139. 
 Conflicting evidence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Taafe (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 693. 
 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 
 Sufficiency of as to joint 
 
 EVIDENCE— Co«ifi««faf. 
 
 liability of two companies 
 for personal injuries. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. 
 V. Davis (Ky.), vol. 19, 
 p. 711. 
 Traffic agreements. 
 
 Post V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 16, p. 201. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 ordinance fixing maximum 
 rate of speed where the or- 
 dinance is not pleaded. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ashline (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 702. 
 Admissibility of on issue as 
 to rate of speed of train. 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia, W, 
 
 & B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 172. 
 Admissibility where statutory 
 provision not applicable. 
 Willingham v. Macon & B. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. ' 
 
 340. 
 Admissions of servant as to 
 speed, admissibility of evi- 
 dence as to, on redirect 
 examination. 
 Mott V. Detroit, G. H. & 
 
 M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 113. 
 As to signals and speed. 
 Daubert v. Delaware, L. & 
 
 W. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 456. 
 Custom as to giving crossing 
 signals. 
 Mackrall v. Omaha & St. L. 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, p. 
 
 59. 
 Description of crossing and 
 admissibility of opinion 
 evidence as to the relative 
 dangers of places to stop, 
 look and listen. 
 Cookson V. Pittsburgh & 
 
 W. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 340. 
 Diagram of crossing. 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stafford (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 172. 
 Evidence as to whether safety 
 gates at crossing were open 
 or not admissible in action 
 for injuries at crossing. 
 Overtoom v. Chicago & E. I. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 849. 
 
376 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EVIDET^CE—Coniinued. 
 
 Evidence of care and so- 
 briety repels inference of 
 negligence at crossing. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Moffatt (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 p. 397. 
 Evidence of habit of falling 
 asleep while crossing track. 
 Dalton V. Chicago, E. I. 
 & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 21, p. 460. 
 Evidence of other failures to 
 give signals at crossings 
 inadmissible. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. PorterfieW (Tex.), 
 vol. 12, p. 383. 
 Evidence of speed at crossing 
 prohibited by company's 
 rules admissible as tending 
 to show absence of con- 
 tributory negligence. 
 Davis V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 _ (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 68. 
 Evidence that deceased was 
 killed by train backing 
 without warning at a point 
 habitually used as a cross- 
 ing is sufiScient to take the 
 case to the jury. 
 Cox V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 390. 
 Eailure to give signals. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Ashline (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 702. 
 Failure to look and listen at 
 crossingr shown by circum- 
 stances. 
 
 Hook V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 787. 
 Eailure to place watchman 
 at crossing where there is 
 an electric signal bell. 
 Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v, 
 Medairy (Md.), vol. 7, p. 
 S26. 
 Habits of deceased as evi- 
 dence of his due care at 
 crossings. 
 
 Smith V. Boston & M. E. 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 
 320. 
 Habits of deceased as to care- 
 fulness at crossings. 
 Davis V. Concord & M. R. 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 
 68. 
 In an action against a rail- 
 way company to recover 
 for injuries caused to an 
 employee by alleged neg- 
 ligence in planking a 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 
 crossing, evidence of the 
 condition upon which the 
 company received its street 
 rights is admissible. 
 Valley Ry. Co. v. Keegan 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 11, p. 507. 
 Negative evidence as to 
 crossing signals. 
 Mackrall v. Omaha & St. 
 L,. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, 
 p. 59. 
 Ordinance limiting speed ad- 
 missible as evidence in ac- 
 tion for injury at crossing. 
 Overtoom v. Chicago & E. 
 I. R. Co. (111.), vol. IS, 
 p. 849. 
 Speed of train, in action for- 
 injury at crossing. 
 Overtoom v. Chicago & E. I. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. IS, p. 
 849. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 failure to give signals. 
 Ijamoureux v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 9, p. 24S. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 speed of street car. 
 Schneider v. Market St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 692. 
 That signals were maintained 
 at other crossings. 
 McGovern v. Smith (Vt.), 
 vol. 23, p. 690. 
 Cumulative evidence. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. 
 V. Price (C. C. A.), vol. 
 16, p. 324. 
 Customs, evidence as to custom 
 in regard to delivery of cars 
 in foreign yard, in action for 
 injury to employee of another 
 company. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 . Harrington (111.), vol. 23, 
 p. 429. 
 Customs, evidence of custom of 
 other companies as to equip- 
 ment of switchyards not ad- 
 missible. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 DriscoU (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 644. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to pecuniary condition of 
 defendant where plaintiff 
 is seeking to recover puni- 
 tive damages. 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. ». 
 
 Lawrence (Miss.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 59. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 377 
 
 EVIDENCE— Co«ifi«a^rf. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 defendant's wealth where 
 punitive damages are 
 claimed. 
 
 Nashville St. R. R. v. 
 O'Bryan (Tenn.), vol. 
 22, p. 902. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 husband's subsequent mar- 
 riage an action for death of 
 wife. 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Younger (Tex.), vol. 8, 
 p. 84. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 wages in another employ- 
 ment. 
 
 Grimmelman v. Union Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 8, 
 p. 322. 
 Annuity tables. 
 
 Kerrigan v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, 
 p. 835. 
 Annuity tables as, in action 
 for permanent injuries. 
 Grouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 p. 780. 
 Carlisle life tables. 
 
 Kerrigan v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, 
 p. 835. 
 Dependence, in action for 
 death by wrongful act. 
 Chicago, P. & St. L. R. 
 Co. V. Woolridge (111.), 
 vol. 13, p. 501. 
 Green v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 13, p. Sll. 
 Domestic conduct as bearing 
 upon pecuniary injury. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Sternberger (Kan.), vol. 
 12, p. 745. 
 Evidence as to cost of med- 
 ical services, in action for 
 personal injuries. 
 Robertson v. Wabash R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 16. 
 Evidence as to decedent's 
 surviving family. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Taafe (Ky. ), vol. IS, p. 
 693. 
 Evidence as to dependants 
 in computing damages. 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 
 383. 
 Evidence as to measure of 
 damages in action against 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 
 railway company to recover 
 for gravel removed. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Le 
 
 Blanc (Miss.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 838. 
 Evidence as to number of 
 children admissible, in ac- 
 tion for wrongful death. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. z/. Davis 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 708. 
 Evidence of circumstances of 
 surviving parent, in action 
 for death. of parent. 
 Gulf, C. & S. P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Younger (Tex.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 84. 
 
 Evidence of physical con- 
 dition of decedent's mother, 
 in action for wrongful 
 death. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Stevens (Va.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 468. 
 
 Evidence of probable future 
 suffering. 
 Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. Em- 
 
 minger (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 188. 
 Evidence tending to aggra- 
 vate exemplary damages 
 admissible. 
 Gillman v- Florida Cent. & 
 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 125. 
 Family relations, in action 
 to recover for personal in- 
 juries. 
 Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 780. 
 Horse's disposition. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Griffin (111.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 767. 
 t/ife expectancy. 
 
 Alabama ' Mineral R. Co. 
 
 V. Jones (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 383. 
 Life tables. 
 Atchison, T. & S. P. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Ryan (Kan.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 684. 
 Kerrigan v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 835. 
 Sax V. Detroit, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 653. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 21, p. 391. 
 
378 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EVIDENCE — Continued. 
 Market quotations. 
 Norfolk & W. Ey. Co. v. 
 
 Reeves (Va. ), vol. 16, p. 
 
 166. 
 Market reports as evidence in 
 action to recover for delay 
 in carriage of live stock. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Truskett (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 273. 
 Mortality tables in action 
 for breach of contract of 
 employment which master 
 could terminate whenever 
 services were not satisfac- 
 tory. 
 Sax V. Detroit, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 653. 
 
 Of value. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 
 415. 
 Pedigree of horse. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Kice (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 45. 
 Pedigree of trotting horse, in 
 action for injuries to horse. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Sheppard 
 (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 528. 
 Poverty of plaintiff. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Carroll (C. C. A.), vol. 
 9, p. 759. • 
 Proof of husband's circum- 
 stances and financial con- 
 dition. 
 
 Thoresen v. La Crosse City 
 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 102. 
 
 Severity of examination 
 
 made by physician. 
 
 Goodhart v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 364. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 Admissions of deceased as 
 evidence in action for death 
 by wrongful act. 
 Helman v. Pittsburg, C, C. 
 & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ohio), 
 vol. 11, p. 641. 
 Interrogatories for a discov- 
 ery may be propounded to 
 defendant railroad in civil 
 action for wrongful death 
 under Alabama statute. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bush 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 47. 
 Sufficiency of, in action to 
 
 EVIDENCE — Continued. 
 
 recover for death by wrong- 
 ful act. 
 Alabama Min. R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 752. 
 
 Declarations. 
 
 Barrett v. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y..) , 
 vol. IS, p. 578. 
 Declaration of engineer. 
 Mason v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 83. 
 Declarations of infant. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. 
 Co. V. Potter (Kan.), vol. 
 IS, p. 660. 
 Declarations of present suffer- 
 ing. 
 
 Beath v. Rapid Ry. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. IS, p. 793. 
 Evidence of conversation ad- 
 missible. 
 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Spencer (Colo.), .vol. 18, 
 p. 236. 
 Of agents. 
 Maxson v. Mich. Cent. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 14, p. 
 823. 
 Of brakeman to injured boy 
 inadmissible as statement 
 of a conclusion and not a 
 fact. 
 
 Scott V. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, p. 63. 
 Of conductor as part ol res 
 gestffii 
 
 Means v. Carolina Cent. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 14, p. 363. 
 Of deceased agent. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 • V. Byrne (Ind. Ter. )j vol. 
 13, p. 17. 
 Of employee, not part of res 
 gestae, are inadmissible. 
 Weinkle v. Brunswick & 
 W. R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 14, 
 p. SO. 
 Of engineer showing malice 
 in action for injury to cat- 
 tle in transit admissible. 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 19, 
 p. 17. 
 Of plaintiff with respect to 
 her injuries 
 
 Hall V. Cedar Rapids, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, 
 p. 316. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 37 
 
 EVIDENCE— Co««««ear. 
 Res g-estse. 
 
 Heckle v. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 584. 
 
 Deed is not competent as 
 
 evidence of grantee's title 
 
 ■where no title is shown 
 
 in grantor. 
 
 Pollock V. Maysville & B. 
 S. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 14, 
 p. 821. 
 Demurrer to. 
 
 Sanders v. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Okla.), vol. 18, 
 p. 244. 
 Depositions of accessible ■wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Wil- 
 der (C. C. A.), vol. 13, p. 
 520. 
 Deposition of ■widow of deceased 
 taken without notice to plain- 
 tiff not admissible as state- 
 ment against interest. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Stern- 
 berger (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 
 745. 
 Effect of demurrer to special 
 pleas in ■which a contract 
 is not set up as a defense on 
 the admissibility of the con- 
 tract under the general issue. 
 Blank v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 16, p. 6. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Damages in cohdemnation 
 proceedings. 
 
 Union Terra. R. Co. v. Peet 
 Bros. Mfg. Co. (Kan.), 
 vol. 13, p. 851. 
 Error to admit evidence of 
 benefit to plaintiffs from 
 construction of road in ac- 
 tion to recover for condem- 
 nation of land. 
 Hamilton v. Pittsburg, B. 
 & L. E. R. Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 13, p. 376. 
 SufBciency of, in condemna- 
 tion proceedings. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Pos- 
 tal Tel. Cable Co. (Ala.), 
 vol. 13, p. 423. 
 Vie^w by jury in condemna- 
 tion proceedings. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. 
 Co. V. Farwell (Neb.), 
 vol. 17, p. 687. • 
 Error in not granting order 
 for the production of papers 
 is harmless, if the evidence 
 
 EVIDENCE— Co«/z««^rf. 
 
 is obtained in another wan- 
 ner. 
 
 Parker v. South Carolina & 
 G. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 6, p. 731. 
 
 Expert and Opinion Evidence. 
 
 Blondel v. St. Paul City R. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 272. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Bond.(Ga. ), vol. 17, p. 
 
 757. 
 Cobb V. St. Louis & H. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 632. 
 Goodhart v, Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 364. 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 552. 
 International & G. N. R. 
 
 Co. V. Satterwhite (Tex. 
 
 Civ. App.), vol. 12, p. 214. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Merrill (Kan.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 471. 
 St. Louis & S. W. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Elgin Con. Milk Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 13, p. 112. 
 As to what are proper appli- 
 ances. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 224. 
 Benefit to railroads at high- 
 ■way crossings. 
 Hook V. Chicago & A. R. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 447. 
 Car ■wheels, tests. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Sheppard 
 
 (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 528. 
 Cattle guards, opinion evi- 
 dence to effect that guard 
 could not be constructed 
 ■without danger to em- 
 ployees. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Clonch (Kan. App.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 240. 
 Cross-examination of expert. 
 Williams v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. .230. 
 Damage caused to property 
 by fire. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Glenny (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 839. 
 
380 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EVIDENCE — Continued. 
 
 Delay in transportation of 
 live stock. 
 St. Ivouis, I. M. & S. Ey. 
 
 Co. V. Bdwards (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 8, p. 402. 
 Eminent domain, real estate 
 experts. 
 Struthers v. Philadelphia & 
 
 D. C. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 207. 
 Eminent domain, value of 
 railroad property con- 
 demned for street purposes. 
 Chicago & N. W. E. Co. v. 
 
 Cicero (111.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 188. 
 Eminent domain, witness 
 testifying as to the value 
 of the land. 
 Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burden (Ind. App. ), vol. 
 
 3, p. 447. 
 Expert evidence of physician 
 as to cause and permanency 
 of injuries based on com- 
 plaint of patient. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Roller (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 18, p. S9S. 
 Expert evidence, when ad- 
 missible. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 476. 
 Expert knowledge not re- 
 quired in order to be com- 
 petent to testify to speed of 
 train. 
 Mcvey z). Chesapeake & O. 
 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 788. 
 Expert may testify as to 
 proper performance of track 
 walker's dutv. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. 
 
 V. Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, 
 
 pp. 491, 492. 
 Expert testimony as to bridge 
 material. 
 Bush V. Delaware L. & W. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 516. 
 Expert testimony as to dis- 
 tance within which car may 
 be stopped. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.),- vol. 22, p. 
 
 759. 
 Expert testimony as to what 
 is an accommodation train. 
 Gray v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 252. 
 
 EVIDENCE —Continued. 
 
 Expert testimony, loss in 
 value of cattle. 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Truskett (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 618. 
 Expression of opinion by 
 witness. 
 Felska v. New York Cent. 
 
 & H. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 
 7, p. 772. 
 Hypothetical questions. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 16, 
 
 -p. 476. 
 Burnett v. Wilmington , 
 
 etc., R. Co. (N. Car.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 773. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Roller (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 595. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Eox (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 864. 
 Williams v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 230. 
 Hypothetical questions to 
 medical experts. 
 Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 780. 
 Schaidler v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 15,, p. 105. 
 Inspector of street railways. 
 Laufer v. Bridgeport Trac- 
 tion Co. (Conn.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 787. 
 Live stock, value of. 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. 
 
 V. Woods (Tex.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 519. 
 Williams v. Houston & 
 ' Texas Cent. R. Co. (Tex. ) , 
 
 vol. 2, p. 533. 
 Master mechanic of street 
 railway may testify, in 
 action by a boy to recover 
 for personal injuries, as to 
 whether boy could ride by 
 hanging on ledge of car, 
 which caused injury, but 
 cannot testify as to other 
 cars. 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Cooney (Md.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 759. 
 Matters* of common knowl- 
 edge. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Fox (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 864. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 381 
 
 EVIDENCE— Coniinued. 
 Medical experts. 
 Lehigh & H. Ry. Co. v.. 
 
 Marchant (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 748. 
 Nonexperts. 
 Handley v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 674. 
 Nonexpert testimony as to 
 mental and bodily condition 
 of party injured. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Gray (lud.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 48. 
 Nonexpert testimony as to 
 speed at crossing. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart (Ala.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 34. 
 Opinion. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Price (C. C. A.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 324. 
 Jacob V. Flint & P. M. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 383. 
 Opinion evidence as to au- 
 thority to start engine, 
 in action for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 Wiraber v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 
 
 476r 
 Opinion evidence as to cause 
 of injury to employee. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 21, p. 391. 
 Opinion evidepce as to con- 
 dition of freight delayed in 
 transportation. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Foulks (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 664. 
 Opinion evidence as to dam- 
 ages in condemnation pro- 
 ceedings. 
 Kay V. Glade Creek & R. R. 
 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 695. 
 Opinion evidence as to habit- 
 ual carefulness on the part 
 of engineer. 
 Mosnat v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 609. 
 Opinion evidence as to power 
 of station agent to employ 
 guard for station. 
 Lipscomb v. Houston, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 401. 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 
 Opinion evidence as to ques- 
 tion for jury's determina- 
 tion not competent. 
 McGeary v. Old Colony R. 
 R. (R. I.), vol.14, p. 764. 
 Opinion evidence as to speed 
 of car. 
 
 Mott V. Detroit, G. H. & 
 
 M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 113. 
 
 Opinion evidence of owner 
 
 as to damages to live stock 
 
 in transit. 
 
 Milam v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 2S3. 
 Opinion of doctor as *-o con- 
 dition of plaintiff. 
 Holman v. Union St. Ry. 
 Co. of Saginaw (Mich.), 
 vol. 9, p. 105. 
 Opinion of doctor as to 
 whether plaintiff-'s condi- 
 . tion was the result of her 
 injuries. 
 
 Holman v. Union St. Ry. 
 Co. of Saginaw (Mich.), 
 vol. 9, p. 105. 
 Opinion of expert as to neces- 
 si-ty of employing track 
 walkers admissible. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. 
 V. Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, 
 pp. 491, 492. 
 Opinion of physicians. 
 
 Lambertson v. Consolidated 
 
 Traction Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 355. 
 
 Opinion of physician as to 
 
 cause of injury to nervous 
 
 system. 
 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. 
 Co. V. Baer (Md. ), vol. 
 22, p. 662. 
 Opinion of witness as to bene- 
 fit to land from construc- 
 tion of road. 
 
 Sewall V. Chicago Term. 
 Trans. R. Co. (111.), vol. 
 13, p. 387. 
 Opinion of witness is not 
 competent as to matter for 
 the jury to determine from 
 common knowledge. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Milliken (Ky. ), vol. 14, p. 
 742. 
 Party cannot be required to 
 answer interrogatory call- 
 ing for opinion as to cause 
 of railroad collision. 
 Robbins v. Brockton St. 
 Ry. Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, 
 p. 483. 
 
383 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 
 Persons familiar with locus 
 in quo may testify as to 
 whether view was ob- 
 structed. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hellenthal (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 774. 
 Physicians allowed to give 
 opinion as to percentage of 
 patients who recover. 
 Budd V. Salt Lake City 
 
 R. Co. (Utah), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 7. 
 Physicians allowed to testify 
 as to how long a person 
 would probably suffer and 
 be unable to work. 
 Budd V. Salt Lake City R. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 7. 
 
 Physicians competent to 
 
 testify as to reasonableness 
 
 of bill for medical services. 
 
 Ward V. Ohio River & C. 
 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 8S4. 
 Physician's testimony. 
 Austin & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 
 McElmurry (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. ), vol. 3, p. 44S. 
 Holman v. Union St. Ry. 
 
 Co. of Saginaw (Mich.), 
 
 vol. % p. lOS. 
 Qualification of witnesses. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Arnett 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 794. 
 Range given to admission of. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. 
 
 V. Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 492. 
 Refusal to allow witness to 
 testify as expert where 
 qualification as such is not 
 shown not error. 
 Creswell v. Wilmington & 
 
 N. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 62S. 
 That steel rails were properly 
 loaded upon car. 
 McCray v. Galveston, H. & 
 
 S. A. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 276. 
 
 The opinion of a freightboat 
 captain, based upon the ap- 
 pearance of broken glass, 
 that its fracture had been 
 caused by a wreck on a rail- 
 road, is not admissible as 
 expert evidence of such fact. 
 United States Mail Line Co. 
 V. CarroUton Furniture 
 Mfg. Co. (Ky.), vol. 9, 
 p. 286. 
 
 ^'VID'BNC^— Continued. 
 Value of. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 16, p. 476. 
 Who competent to give. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 16, p. 477. 
 Fences, sufficiency of evidence 
 of defects. 
 
 Goodrich v. Kansas City, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 
 137. 
 Fires. 
 
 Brown v. Benson (Ga. ), 
 
 vol. S, p. 316. 
 Dunning v. Maine Cent. 
 R. Co. (Me.), vol; 9, p. 
 574. 
 Thomas v. New York C. 
 & St. L. Ry. Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 9, p; 132. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to sparks being thrown by 
 ' other locomotives. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 
 '20, p. 909. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 diagrams of house destroyed 
 by fire. 
 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 20, 
 p. 909. 
 As to ownership of property 
 destroyed by fire. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 20, 
 p. 909. 
 Burden of'proof as to the use 
 of best appliances to pre- 
 vent the' escape of sparks 
 from locomotive. 
 White V. New York, P. & 
 N. R. Co. (Va.), vol. 20, 
 p. 588. 
 Burden of proof in action for 
 fire set by locomotive. 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Barrett (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 p. 141. 
 Circumstantial evidence of 
 origin of fire sufficient to 
 support finding. 
 McGinn v. Piatt (Mass.), 
 vol. 19, p. 245. 
 Defects in spark arresters. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Scantland 
 (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 75. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Samuels (Ky.), vol. 18, p. 
 374. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 383 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 
 EfEect of showing good con- 
 edition of appliances to pre- 
 ^ vent escape of fire. 
 
 Georgia & A. Ry. Co. v. 
 Rawson (Ga.), vol, 19, 
 p. 463. 
 Evidence of other fires. 
 Galveston, H. & -S. A. Ry. 
 Co. V. Hertzig (Tex. 
 Civ. App. ), vol. 12, p. 
 846. 
 Hygienic Plate-Ice M. 
 Co. V. Raleigh & A. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 18, p. 
 78. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. 
 Louis Ry. Co. v. Indiana 
 H. Co. (Ind.), vol. 18, 
 p. 83. 
 Evidence that company has 
 paid damages for injuries 
 to other property caused by 
 same fire. 
 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 
 Co. V. Hertzig (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), vol. 12, p. 846. 
 •Eire caused by engines. 
 
 Finkelston v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 6, p. 
 193. 
 Hemmi v. Chicago & G. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 8, 
 p. 547. 
 Fire in elevator. 
 Cox V. Vermont Cent. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 
 591. 
 In rebuttal to show that such 
 engines throw sparks., 
 Bowen v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 
 267. 
 Origin of fire. 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Indiana H. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 18, p. 
 83. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 from origin of fire. 
 Parrington v. Rutland R. 
 Co. (Vt.), vol. 19, p. 248. 
 Proof of loss admissible in 
 action by subrogated in- 
 surer for reimbursement. 
 Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. 
 Co. V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. IS, p. 530. 
 Sparks from other locomotives 
 at other times. 
 McGinn v. Piatt (Mass.), 
 vol. 19, p. 245. 
 
 EVIDENC E— Co«/2 « M^rf. 
 
 Speed of train which started 
 fire not evidence of negli- 
 gence. 
 
 L/ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Marbury I^. Co. (Ala.), 
 vol. 18, p. 508. 
 Subsequent emission of 
 sparks from engine. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. 
 Co. V. Tripp (111.), vol. 
 14, p. 119. 
 Subsequent precautions by 
 railway company to prevent 
 fire. 
 
 Young V. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 
 14, p. 72. 
 Sufficiency of as to origin 
 of fire. 
 
 Bowen v. Boston & A. R. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 268. 
 
 Brennan Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. 15, p. 478. 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Indiana H. 
 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 18, p. 83. 
 
 Sufficiency of to show license 
 
 to pile wood on railroad 
 
 land. 
 
 Boston Excelsior Co. v. 
 Bangor & A. R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 654. 
 Value of property destroyed 
 by fire. 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Indiana H. R. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 18, p. 
 83. 
 Frightening teams, admissi- 
 bility of evidence as to 
 failure to give signal where 
 horse is frightened. 
 Ohio Val. R. Co.'s Receiver 
 V. Young (Ky. ), vol. 8, 
 p. 399. 
 Frightening teams, subse- 
 quent fright at same object. 
 Valley v. Concord & M. R. 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 9, p. 
 128. 
 Harmless error in admission 
 on rebuttal. 
 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mc), vol. 
 22, p. 61. 
 Harmless error in reading 
 affidavits. 
 
 Wimber 'v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 
 476. 
 
384 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EVIDENCE— Conlinued. 
 
 Harmless error in receiving 
 map in evidence in action 
 in ejectment against rail- 
 road company. 
 Fish V. 'Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 409. 
 Imma terial testimony as 
 ground for new trial. 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bradshaw (Ga.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 572. 
 Instructions as to weight of. 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Durham (Ga.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 606. 
 Interstate commerce, presump- 
 tion that interstate commerce 
 commission has complied 
 with act. 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Home (Tenn.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 509. 
 Intoxication, in an action to re- 
 cover damages for a personal 
 injury which the defendant 
 claimed w as the result of 
 intoxication on the part of 
 the plaintiff, it was error to 
 admit evidence to show that 
 the latter had been in the 
 habit of getting drunk prior 
 to the accident. 
 Kingston v. Ft. Wayne & 
 
 E. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 259. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Action to recover for injury 
 to servant. 
 Konold V. Rio Grande W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 450. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to how cars are loaded by 
 another company, in action 
 for injuries to employee. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Mauzy 
 
 (Va.), vol. 20, p. 647. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to payment of hospital ex- 
 penses in absence of allega- 
 tion respecting them. 
 Mickelson v. New East 
 
 Tintic Ry. Co. (Utah), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 855. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to rule of company regard- 
 ing uncoupling moving 
 cars. 
 HoUenbeck v. Missouri 
 
 Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 277. 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 of number of hands em- 
 ployed on train, where it is. 
 not alleged that injury was 
 caused by failure to furnish 
 a sufBcient number. 
 Jones V. New York, N. H. 
 
 & H. R. Co. (R. I.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 414. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 other holes in platform. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Henry (Ky.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 405. 
 Admissibility of evidence" of 
 servant's knowledge of 
 proximity of cattle chute. 
 Keist V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 
 
 297. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 condition of grab-iron caus- 
 ing injury, six days after 
 accident. 
 Jones V. New York, N. H. & 
 
 H. R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 414. 
 Admissibility of expert tes- 
 timony as to proper way to 
 load cars in action for in- 
 jury to employee. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Mauzy 
 
 (Va.), vol. 20, p. 674. 
 Admissibility of opinion of 
 expert as to proper construc- 
 tion of buildings in action 
 for injury to employee. 
 Hayes v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 11, p. 419. 
 Admission not warranted by 
 pleading or evidence in ac- 
 tion for injury to employee 
 caused by fall between cars 
 of different height, while 
 walking on roof. 
 Benson v. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 299. 
 Admission of rebutting testi- 
 mony, in action for injury 
 to employee. 
 Chicago G. W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Price (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 324. 
 
 Assumption of risk, suffi- 
 ciency of evidence. 
 Walker v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 vol. 11, p. 738. 
 As to whether engineer was 
 a careful man, in action for 
 injury to employee. 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 385 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 
 Burden of proof on plaintiff 
 to show negligence in ac- 
 tion for injury to employee 
 based on negligence in in- 
 specting cars. 
 Hodges V. Kimball (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 19, p. 7SS. 
 Defects. 
 
 Denver Tramway Co. v. 
 
 Crumbaugh (Colo.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 875. 
 Defect in engine, question 
 for jury. 
 Kush V. Spokane Falls & 
 
 N. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 285. 
 Error in admitting in action 
 for injury to employee cured 
 by construction. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Ste- 
 wart (Ky. ), vol. 21, p. 
 
 874. 
 Evidence of act as tending to 
 show lack of judgment and 
 presence of mind of fellow 
 servant. 
 Morrow v. St. Paul City 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 836. 
 Evidence of condition of ap- 
 pliance causing accident 
 admissible where it appears 
 that its condition was the 
 same on day of accident. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. 
 
 V. Bohan (Texi), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 491. 
 Hypothetical questions as to 
 proper position on engine 
 pushing cars. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Harrington (111.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 429. 
 In an action to recover for 
 injuries received by em- 
 ployee through the colli- 
 sion of a hand car and a 
 train where no question 
 was raised as to the right 
 of precedence of the train, 
 there was no prejudice to 
 the defendant from the ex- 
 clusion of evidence as to 
 the rules and customs on 
 other railroads as to such 
 precedence. 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. 
 
 Herndon (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 124. 
 Instruction as to negative 
 testimony in regard to giv- 
 ing of signals. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 ID— 25 
 
 "ESrvaW^G^— Continued. 
 
 York (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 470. ^ 
 
 Master's knowledge of de- 
 fects. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), yol. 16, 
 
 p. 476. 
 Matter of common knowl- 
 edge, danger of riding on 
 hand car. 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 383. 
 Negative evidence as to 
 whether signal was given, 
 in action for death of em- 
 ployee coupling cars. 
 Liouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 York (Ala. ),vol. 23, p. 470. 
 Notice to master of danger 
 from appliance. 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 660. 
 Particulars of construction 
 of switch in general use 
 among other roads may not 
 be shown, in action for 
 injury to employee. 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 660. 
 Ratification of agent's con- 
 tract. 
 Maxson v. Michigan Cent. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 823. 
 Release from claim for per- 
 sonal injuries to employee 
 cannot be contradicted by 
 parol evidence. 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Houlihan (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 916. 
 Release of railroad company 
 from liability for injury to 
 servant. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Montgomery 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 9, p. 792. 
 
 Rules for government of 
 employees as evidence of 
 injury to employ^. 
 Caron v. Boston, etc.,- R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. S, p. 70S. 
 Rules of defendant not ad- 
 missible, in action for in- 
 jury to employee, when it is 
 not shown that plaintiff 
 had received them or had 
 knowledge of them. 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 660. 
 
386 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 
 Rules, sufBciency of to show 
 defective condition of track 
 and that master was charge- 
 able with notice. 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Victory (Ky. ), vol. 12, p. 
 S38. 
 , Rules, sufiHciency of to show 
 master's negligence. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Andrews (Ohio), 
 vol. 12, p. S4S. 
 Rules, violation of evidence 
 of negligence. 
 Smithson ii. Chicago, G. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 11, 
 p. 726. 
 Telegraphic^ orders in action 
 for death of employee re- 
 sulting from collision be- 
 tween trains. 
 
 Rinard v. Omaha, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 34. 
 The complaint alleged that 
 the yard master was charged 
 with the direction and con- 
 trol of all switch engines 
 and the making up of the 
 trains within the said yard 
 limits of the defendant. It 
 was held that evidence to 
 show under whose control 
 were the employees en- 
 gaged in this work is re- 
 sponsive and therefore ad- 
 missible. 
 
 Wilson V. Charleston & S. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 9, 
 p. 211. 
 Understanding of, plaintiff as 
 to length of ties, in action 
 by conductor for personal 
 injury caused by their pro- 
 jection. 
 
 Whitcher v. Boston & M. 
 R. Co. (N. H.), vol.20, p. 
 540. 
 Wages paid servants. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Elliott (C. C. A.), vol. 
 18, p. 716. 
 Medical books. 
 
 Bixbj^ z;. Omaha & C. B. Ry. 
 
 & Bridge Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 13, p. 748. 
 
 Medical experts, admissibility 
 
 of opinion of medical expert. 
 
 Fulmore v. St. Paul City Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 11, p. 636. 
 
 Minutes of meeting of directors. 
 
 Coos Bay, R. & E. R. R. Co. 
 
 & Nav. Co. V. Siglin 
 
 (Ore.), vol. II, p. 714. 
 
 EVIDENCE— Co«i!?««£C?. 
 Negligence. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Marbury L. Co. (Ala.), 
 Vol. 18, p. 508. 
 Evidence admissible under 
 general allegation of negli- 
 gence. ^ 
 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Swope (Ala.), vol. 13, 
 p. 856. 
 Evidence of other acts of 
 negligence. 
 
 Konold V. Rio Grande W. 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 17, 
 p. 450. 
 Evidence of similar occur- 
 rences admissible. 
 Exton V. Central R. Co. of 
 New Jersey (N. J.), vol. 
 14, p. 240. 
 Evidence of subsequent ex- 
 periments admissible. 
 Hayes v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 11, p. 419. 
 Experiments. 
 Konold V. Rio Grande W. 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 17, 
 p. 450. 
 Whitcher v. Boston & M. R. 
 Co. (N. H. ), vol. 20, p. 540. 
 Habitual negligence. 
 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 
 Co. V. Davis (Tex.), vol. 
 12, p. 832. 
 Habitual negligence, evidence 
 of one act or habitual acts 
 of negligence. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Johnson (Tex.), vol. 
 12, p. 824. 
 Habitual negligence, evidence 
 of single act incompetent to 
 prove. 
 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 
 Co. V. Davis (Tex.), vol. 
 12, p. 832. 
 In an action against a street 
 railway for personal in- 
 juries, a photograph of a 
 car other than the one occa- 
 sioning the injury is inad- 
 missible in evidence. 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. 
 Co. V. Cooney (Md. ), 
 vol. 11, p. 759. 
 Insufficiency to show negli- 
 gence. " 
 McGeary v. Old Colony R. 
 R. (R. I.), vol. 14, p. 764. 
 Model of locus in quo. 
 Rudigera. Chicago, St. P., 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 vol. 12, p. 196. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 387 
 
 W^ID^-^G^— Continued. 
 
 Of previous acts of negli- 
 gence, in action for injury 
 to passenger. 
 
 Stuckey v. Atlantic Coast- 
 
 Ivine R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 771. 
 
 Of_ speed of cars at other 
 
 times in action for injury 
 
 on track. 
 
 Rouse V. Detroit Electric 
 Ry. (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 
 650. 
 Other acts of carelessness in 
 blasting. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Bernstein (Ga. ), vol. 
 20, p. 952. 
 Similar acts of negligence. 
 Agulino V. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.), 
 vol. 14, p. 314. 
 Hutcherson v. Louisville & 
 N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 15, 
 p. 846. 
 Subsequent experiments. 
 Schweinfurth v. Cleveland, 
 C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 
 (Ohio), vol. 15, p. 73. 
 Subsequent repairs of 
 bridges. 
 
 Bush V. Delaware, Iv. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, 
 p. 516. 
 Testimony as to scene of ac- 
 cident and its surroundings 
 is admissible. 
 Bias V. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 13, p. 616. 
 Wanton negligence. 
 
 Slbniker v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, 
 p. 819. 
 What admissible in actions 
 for negligence. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 V. Moouey (Fla. ), vol. 
 12, p. 721. 
 Newly-discovered evidence as 
 ground for new trial. 
 Jones V. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 
 11, p. 414. 
 Objections to must be specific. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 
 V. O'Leary (C. C. A.), vol. 
 14, p. 718. 
 Ordinances, how proved. 
 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 Ordinances, certification. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Bond (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 757. 
 
 EVIDENCE— Co«^2>«erf. 
 
 Parol evidence to explain deed. 
 Abraham v. Oregon & C. R. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 17, p. 250. 
 Parol evidence to prove con- 
 tents of lost contracts. 
 Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 14, p. 374. 
 
 Personal Injuries. 
 
 Admissibility of statements 
 to physicians. 
 Williams v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 230. 
 Admissible to show location 
 of highway in action for 
 personal injuries caused by 
 excavation made by street 
 railway without authority. 
 Nosier v. Coos Bay, etc. , R. 
 
 Co. & Nav. Co. (Ore.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 719. 
 As to whether plaintiff ap- 
 peared to suffer. 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Priest (111.), yol. 22, p. 
 
 694. 
 Complaints as evidence of 
 existing pain. 
 St: Louis & S. F. R. Co. 
 
 V. Burrows (Kan.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 678. 
 Examination of urine. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Huddleston 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 7, p. S53. 
 Exclamations of pain as. 
 Mott V. Detroit, G. H. & M. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 15, 
 
 p. 113. 
 Of extent of personal injuries 
 admissible in- corroboration 
 of plaintiff's testimony. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 874. 
 Result of autopsy. 
 
 Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Cal. ), vol. 8, p. 201. 
 Testimony as to groans not 
 inadmissible as of declara- 
 tions in own favor. 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Priest (111.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 694. 
 
 Photographs. 
 
 Baxter v. 
 
 Ry. Co, 
 
 476. 
 Denver i 
 Roller 
 
 Chicago & N. W. 
 (Wis.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 i R. 
 (C. 
 18, p. 595. 
 
 G. R. Co. V. 
 C. A.), vol. 
 
388 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 BVIDENOB — Continued. 
 Discretion of court. 
 De Forge v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. R. (Mass.), 
 vol. 20, p. 492. 
 Nude photographs. 
 Guhl V. Whitcomb (Wis.), 
 vol. 20, p. S20. 
 Photographs of scene of acci- 
 dent. 
 Bach V. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 161. 
 Hampton v. Norfolk & W. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 7, p. 
 510. 
 I,ake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 Wilson (111.), vol. 20, p. 
 164. 
 X-ray photographs as evi- 
 dence. 
 Bruce v. Beall (Tenn.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 841. 
 De Forge v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. R. (Mass.), 
 vol. 20, p. 492. 
 X-ray pictures, authentica- 
 tion. 
 
 De Forge v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. R. (Mass.), 
 vol. 20, p. 492. 
 Presumption from refusal to 
 produce. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Elliott (C. C. A.), vol. 18, 
 p. 715. 
 P'rivileged communication. 
 Keist V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 297. 
 Proving contents of books, 
 records and papers by parol 
 evidence. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Elliott (lud. Ter.), vol. 
 14, p. 587. 
 Railroads in streets, admissi- 
 bility of evidence showing 
 that before cable broke, di- 
 rector's attention had been 
 called to its weakened state. 
 Musser v. Lancaster City St. 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 
 718. 
 Railroads in streets, injury to 
 property by railroad in street. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Lersch (Ohio), vol. 14, p. 
 835. 
 'Refusal to permit testimony to 
 be given by tenant of reduc- 
 tion of rent due to building of 
 railroad. 
 
 Birch V. Lake Roland El. 
 Ry. Co. (Md.), vol. 5, p. 
 640. 
 
 'EVlD^mG'Ei— Continued. 
 
 Reputation, admissibility of 
 evidence of. 
 
 Galveston, H. & S, A. Ry. 
 Co. V. Davis (Tex.), vol. 
 12, p. 832. 
 Res Gestae. 
 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & C. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 18, p. 340. 
 Butler V. Manhattan R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 2, p. 383. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Oyster (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 p. 656. 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 
 V. Ashley (C. C. A.), vol. 
 2, p. 383. 
 Hughes V. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 12, 
 p. 560. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Conversation of parties in 
 interest as part of res 
 gestffi. 
 
 Slavens v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 16, p. 406. 
 Statement of person- acting 
 as agent of plaintiff in 
 loading cattle. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. 
 Arndtt (C. C. A.), vol. 
 23, p. 794. 
 Review on appeal. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Conlon (Kan. App. ), vol. 
 15, p. 195. 
 Rules of company, in action for 
 injury to employee. 
 Laird v. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 7, p. 772. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 
 
 V. Roberts (Colo.), vol. 
 
 15, p. 572. 
 Action for killing stock. 
 Louisville & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hall (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 7. 
 Admissibility of letter offer- 
 ing compromise in action 
 for injury to stock. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Roberts (Colo.), vol. 15, 
 
 p. 572. 
 Burden of proof on defend- 
 ant, under Louisiana stat- 
 ute to show that the killing 
 of stock on its track was not 
 the result of its negligence. 
 Mire v. Yazoo & M. Val. 
 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 761. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 389 
 
 EVIDENCE— Co«^i««e<i. 
 
 Conflicting testimony as to 
 Jsilling- stock. 
 Quinn v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (Miss.), vol. 7, p. 788. 
 Evidence of other killings in 
 actions for killing stock on 
 track. 
 Whitmore v. Rio Grande 
 
 Western Ry. Co. (Utah), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 742. 
 Evidence of similar injuries 
 to stock inadmissible. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Ross (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 12. 
 In an action to recover dam- 
 ages for the negligent 
 killing of stock by a rail- 
 road compairy, evidence to 
 show that signboards had 
 been erected at its crossings 
 and the proper signals had 
 been given subsequent to 
 the accident, is inadmis- 
 sible. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bowen (Ky. ), vol. 9, p. 
 
 276. 
 Injury to stock, negligence. 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Irwin (Ga. ), vol. 8, p. 
 
 768. 
 Blankenship v. Kanawha, 
 
 etc., Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 768. 
 Of failure to give crossing 
 signals, in action for in- 
 jury to stock near crossing. 
 WilHngham v. Macon & B. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 340. 
 Ordinance limiting speed 
 inadmissible in action for 
 injury to stock. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wood 
 
 (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 570. 
 Presumption of failure to 
 give statutory signals, in 
 action under Alabama stat- 
 ute for injury to stock at 
 crossing. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Reaves 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 784. 
 Prima facie evidence of 
 ownership of track. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Wood (Ala.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 906. 
 Rebuttal of presumption of 
 negligence arising from in- 
 jury to stock. 
 Central of Georgia R. Co. 
 
 V. Woolsey (Ga.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 573. 
 
 "EiVTD^TiiG^— Continued. 
 
 Tax return as evidence of 
 value of stock killed. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Tharp 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 858. 
 Testimony of engineer un- 
 ' contradicted as to killing 
 of stock. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Weems (Miss.), vol. 7, 
 p. 788. 
 Weight of engineer's testi- 
 mony, in action for in- 
 juries to stock. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Reaves 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 784. 
 Where there is conflicting 
 evidence as to question of 
 killing stock question of 
 negligence is for jury. 
 Roberds v. Mobile & O. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 7, p. 93. 
 Tickets, parol evidence not 
 admissible to vary printed 
 conditions as to time limit 
 on railroad tickets. 
 Walker v. Price (Kan.), vol. 
 20, p. 432. 
 Trespassers, wantonness on part 
 of trainmen to trespassers on 
 track may be shown by cir- 
 cumstantial evidence. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bush 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 46. 
 Weight of evidence, question 
 for jury. 
 Allen V. Boston & M. R. R. 
 
 (Me.), vol. 19, p. 729. 
 Gradert v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 
 118. • 
 Haun V. Rio Grande W. Ry. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 19, p. 370. 
 Witnesses. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 bias of witness. 
 Shaw V. Chicago & G. T. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 18, 
 p. 131. 
 Admissibility of evidence to 
 sustain character of wit- 
 ness who has been im- 
 peached. 
 
 Warfield v. Ivouisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 17, 
 p. 135. 
 Attacking credibility of wit- 
 ness. 
 
 Dampman v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 2, p. 
 383. 
 Competency of employees ac- 
 cused of negligence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Kelly (Ky.), vol. 7, p. 166. 
 
390 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EVIDENCE— Co«j!j«K^rf. 
 
 Credibility of plaintiff's tes- 
 timony. 
 
 Chicago & E. R. Co. v. 
 Meech (111.), vol. 7, p. 
 667. 
 Effect of failure to produce 
 witnesses. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Bernstein (Ga.), vol. 
 20, p. 952. 
 Harmless error in instruc- 
 tion as to credibility of 
 witness. 
 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Brown (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 930. 
 Statements made by witness 
 shortly after accident ad- 
 missible as tending to im- 
 peach him. 
 
 Alabama Min. R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. IS, p. 
 7S2. 
 Stenographic report of former 
 testimony of absent wit- 
 ness. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Miller 
 (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 843. 
 
 EXCAVATIONS. 
 See Children. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Assumption of risk by servant 
 of falling of embankment. , 
 Reiter v. Winona & St. P. R. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 11, p. 31. 
 
 EXCESS PROFITS. 
 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 EXCESSIVE VERDICT. 
 See Damages, 
 In action for injuries to em- 
 ployee. ■ 
 
 Rush V. Spokane Falls & N. 
 Rv. Co. (Wash.), vol. 20, p. 
 285. 
 Passion or prejudice. 
 
 Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 8, p. 201. 
 
 EXCURSIONS. 
 
 ' See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 EXCURSION TICKETS. 
 See Tickets and Fares. 
 
 EXECUTION. 
 See Insolvency. 
 Mortgages. 
 Rates. 
 
 Company purchasing a railroad 
 from a director who had pur- 
 
 EXBCUTION— Continued. 
 
 chased it at an executioil sale 
 is not liable to the creditors, 
 of the original company for 
 the price paid by the director 
 at the execution sale. 
 Kittel V. Augusta T. & G. R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. N. Y.), vol. ll, p. 
 
 876. , 
 Sale of franchise under execu- 
 tion. 
 Simmons v. Worthiugton 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 10, p. 771. 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMIN- 
 ISTRATORS. 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Action by representative. 
 
 Ean z/. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 Ry, Co. (Wis,), vol. 9, p. 475. 
 Construction of order of inferior 
 court appointing administra- 
 tor under Ky. Civil Code of 
 Practice. 
 
 lyouisville & N. R. Co. v. Ed- 
 monds (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 481. 
 Right of railroad to object ta 
 the appointment of an execu- 
 tor or administrator. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ben- 
 nett's Estate (Kan.), vol. 7, 
 p. 534. 
 Suit by administrator, negli- 
 gence of father. 
 ' Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 Hone (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 679. 
 
 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Damages. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Frightening Team.s. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Allowance of attorneys' fees. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 v. Stewart (Kan.), vol. 2, 
 p. 387. 
 Breach of contract of carriage- 
 ou excursion ticket. 
 Hansley v. Jamesville & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 2, p. 
 382. 
 Counsel's fees as exemplary 
 damages where passenger- 
 was ejected. 
 
 Winters v. Cowen (C. C. 
 Ohio), vol. 12, p. 40. 
 Ejection of passengers. 
 Atchison, etc., Co. v. I/ong~ 
 (Kan. App.), vol. 6, p. 774. 
 Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. 
 V. Hardage (Ga.), vol. 2, p.. 
 161. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 391 
 
 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES— 
 Continued. 
 
 Ejection of passengers, one 
 who boarded a train by 
 advice of conductor of 
 another train. 
 
 Allen V. Wilmington & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 8, p. 
 257. 
 Ejection of passengers, where 
 the evidence tends to show 
 that the conductor , used 
 insulting language, the 
 court was not unwarranted 
 in charging the jury upon 
 the law of vindictive dam- 
 ages. 
 
 Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. 
 V. Keeny (Ga.), vol. S, p. 
 30S. 
 Ejection where malice is 
 shown. 
 
 Smith V. Philadelphia, "W. 
 & B. R. Co. (Md.), vol. 10, 
 p. 264. 
 Failure to carry passenger. 
 Gillman v. Florida Cent. & 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 12, 
 p. 125. 
 Failure to stop at destination. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Hardin 
 (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 250. 
 Insulting conduct of servants 
 to passenger. 
 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Ct). v. 
 
 Keller (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 90. 
 
 Negligence in leaving switch 
 
 open, action for injury to 
 
 passenger. 
 
 I,ouisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kingman (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 
 401. 
 Error where court does not ex- 
 plain to the jury what negli- 
 gence entitles plaintiff to such 
 damages. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Cham- 
 berlain (Okla.), vol. S, p. 698. 
 Evidence as to pecuniary condi- 
 tion of defendant. 
 Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. 
 Lawrence (Miss.), vol. 8, 
 p. 59. 
 Interrogatories requiring jury to 
 specify what they find to be 
 the actual damages, and what 
 they allow as punitive dam- 
 ages. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Cham- 
 berlain (Okla.), vol. 5, p. 698. 
 Kentucky statute as to wilful 
 negligence or neglect. 
 Clark V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 355. 
 
 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES— 
 Continued. 
 Master and Servtant. 
 Liability of master for negli- 
 gence of employee. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Kelly (Ky.), vol. 7, p. 165. 
 What must be shown to justify 
 awarding, in action for in- 
 jury to servant. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Mooney (Fla.) , vol. 12, p. 
 722. 
 When not warranted in action 
 for death of employee. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Sander (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 
 528. 
 Where a constitution provides 
 that damages may be recovered 
 for death by wrongful act, the 
 word damages has been held 
 to include punitory as well as 
 compensatory damages. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kelly 
 (Ky.), vol. 7, p. 165. 
 
 EXEMPTIONS. 
 
 See Local Assessments. 
 Taxation. 
 
 EXEMPTION FROM LIABIL- 
 ITY. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 EXPECTANCY. 
 
 See Life Expectancy. 
 
 EXPENSES. 
 See Damages. 
 Receivers. 
 
 EXPERIMENTS. 
 See Evidence. 
 Trial. 
 Evidence of subsequent exper- 
 iments. 
 
 Schweinfurth v. Cleveland, C, 
 C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ohio), 
 vol. 15, p. 73. 
 
 EXPERT AND OPINION EVI- 
 DENCE. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 EXPLOSIVES. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Exemption from Liability. 
 
392 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EXPRESS COMPANIES. 
 See Bills of Lading. 
 
 Carrier^of Freight. 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Rates. 
 
 Revenue Act. 
 Liability of carrier for loss of 
 goods where value is conceded. 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Wood 
 (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 83. 
 Limitation of liability by rail- 
 road company as to carriage 
 of express matter. 
 Pittsburg. C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Mahony (Ind.), vol. 8, 
 p. 441. 
 Railroads discriminating 
 against. 
 
 Kidder v. Fitchburg R. C. 
 (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 453. 
 
 EXPRESS MESSENGERS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 EXPROPRIATION OF RAIL- 
 "WAY PROPERTY. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. 
 (La), vol. 6, p. 212. 
 
 EXTRA PARE. 
 
 See Tickets and Fares. 
 
 EXTRA TRAINS. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 FALSE IMPRISONMENT. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Carriers of passengers," liability 
 of company for false arrest 
 and imprisonment of passen- 
 ger. 
 
 Atchison, Topekaj etc.,R. Co. 
 V. Henry (Kan.'), vol. 2, p. 
 418. 
 Liability of railroad companies. 
 Eichengreen v. Louisville & 
 N. R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 3, p. 
 453. 
 
 FAMILY. 
 
 See Damages. 
 
 FARES. 
 
 See Tickets and Fares. 
 
 FARM CROSSINGS. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Private Crossings. 
 
 FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 FEDERAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 See Parties, 
 
 FEDERAL COURTS. 
 See Jurisdiction. 
 
 Removal of Causes. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. South- 
 ern Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 417. 
 
 Construction of state statute by 
 state court binding on. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Lans- 
 ford (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p. 
 697. 
 Decision of questions arising 
 under common law are not 
 governed by state decisions. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 
 V. O'Lejry (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 718. 
 
 Decisions of state courts based 
 on supposed rules of common 
 law are not binding on federal 
 courts. 
 Murray v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 278. 
 Effect of decision of state court 
 as to state statute. 
 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 
 
 (U. S.), vol. 16, p. 779. 
 Enjoining state officers from 
 enforcing certain rates of 
 transportation. 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v. 
 
 Ames (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 1. 
 Equity jurisdiction of federal 
 courts, state regulations of 
 rates. 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v. 
 
 Ames (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 1. 
 
 Following practice in state 
 courts. 
 Wall V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 413. 
 
 Following state decision. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 McCann (U. S.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 185. 
 Roberts v. Northern Pacific 
 
 Railroad Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 106. 
 
 Following state , decisions con- 
 struing state statutes. 
 TuUis V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 16, p. 462. 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 American Exp. Co. v. May- 
 nard, Atty. Gen. (U. S.), vol. 
 17, p. 530. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 393 
 
 I'EDERAL OOUKTS— Cont'd. 
 Jurisdiction of supreme court. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), vol. 6, 
 p. 3. 
 Jurisdiction of supreme court of 
 the United States in proceed- 
 ings in state court. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. City 
 of Chicago (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 
 26. 
 Jurisdiction over controversy 
 over lands derived from the 
 United States. 
 
 St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. v. St. 
 
 Paul & N. Pac. R. Co. (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 1, p. 621. 
 
 Jurisdiction to enforce penal 
 
 statute on subject of death by 
 
 I wrongful act. 
 
 Perkins v. Bostoil & A. R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 13, p. 601. 
 I/eave to sue in state court re- 
 ceiver appointed in federal 
 court not necessary. 
 Malott V. Shimer (Ind.), vol. 
 IS, p. 774. 
 Motion to quash invalid process. 
 Wall V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 15, p. 413. 
 I^ot bound to follow state deci- 
 sions on questions relating to 
 carriage of freight or passen- 
 gers. 
 
 Whitney v. New York, etc. , R. 
 ^ Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, p. 185. 
 Pleading and practice in state 
 courts not binding on. 
 Van Doren v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, p. 
 577. 
 Pleading and proving absence of 
 contributory negligence. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. v. Price 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 16, p. 324. 
 Power to fix rate for transporta- 
 tion of interstate commerce. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Colorado, 
 F. &I. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 18, p. 559. 
 Review of judgment of state 
 court by federal court. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 City of Chicago (U. S.), vol. 
 7, p. 26. 
 State decisions as to questions of 
 fact binding on federal court 
 reviewing a case on appeal 
 from state court. 
 Atchison, T. & S. 1*. R. Co. v. 
 Matthews (U. S.), vol. 14, p. 
 89. 
 State statute regulating admis- 
 sions as to evidence of absent 
 
 FEDERAL COTJUTS— Cont'd. 
 witness may be taken advan- 
 tage of in federal court. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Humble 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 17, p. 83. 
 Supreme court of United States 
 will abide by decisions of state 
 court as to questions of fact 
 where case is appealed from 
 state court. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 
 Matthews (U. S.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 89. 
 Supreme court of United States 
 win not review decision of 
 state court as to constitution- 
 ality under state constitution 
 of state statute. 
 Ivake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Smith (U. S.), vol. 14, p. 511. 
 Validity of restraining order. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Colorado, 
 
 F. & I. Co. (C. C. A.), irol. 
 
 18, p. 559. 
 
 FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 
 See Federal Courts. 
 Jurisdiction. 
 Removal of Causes. 
 Federal question sufficiently 
 raised^ in state court for . pur- 
 pose of writ of error from 
 supreme court of the United 
 States. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R/ Co. v. Adams 
 (U. S.), vol. 20. p. 1. 
 Importation of diseased cattle. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Haber (U. S.), vol. 13, p. 37. 
 When federal question must be 
 raised in state court to sustain 
 writ of error from supreme 
 court of United States. 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Adams 
 (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 1. 
 
 FEDERAL QUESTIONS. 
 See Taxation. 
 
 FELLOW SERVANTS. 
 See Burden of Proof. 
 
 Employers' Liability Acts. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Assumption of Risk. 
 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. _ 
 Assumption of risk of negli- 
 gence of. , 
 O'Neill V. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, p. 
 415. 
 
394 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 FELLOW SERVANTS— Cbw^'rf. FELLOW SERVANTS— Cb«<' of. 
 
 Incompetent fellow servant. 
 Jenson v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 11, p. 
 253. 
 Parker v. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 10, p. 614. 
 Neg-ligence of in inspecting- 
 car is risk assumed by serv- 
 ant. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 Hennessey (C. C. A.), vol. 
 16, p. 515. 
 Railroad employee injured 
 wTiile boarding- a car which 
 was moving round on a 
 turntable assumes the risk 
 whether he is injured 
 through his own want of or- 
 dinary care or the act of a 
 fellow servant. • 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Ferguson (Ark.), vol. 
 10, p. 634. 
 Burden of proving existence 
 of relationship. 
 Hunter v. Kansas City & M. 
 Railway & Bridge Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 10, p. 620. 
 Burden on master claiming that 
 servant was in jured_ by negli- 
 gence of fellow servant to 
 show that such was the case. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Oyster (Nebw) , vol. 12, p. 656. 
 By what laws question of fellow 
 service determined. 
 Hunt V. Hurd (C. C. A.), vol. 
 18, p. 741. 
 California statute defining. 
 San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Harding (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 389. 
 Care due from master in employ- 
 ing fallow servant. 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. 
 Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 Care of roadbed a nonassign- 
 able duty. 
 
 Wright V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 873. 
 Concurring negligence of master 
 and fellow servant. 
 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. 
 Co. V. Becker (Ark.), vol. 16, 
 p. 348. 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 16, p. SSI. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 making railroad liable for 
 negligence of fellow servant. 
 Tullis V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 16, p. 462. 
 
 Contributory negligence, in or- 
 der to recover for injuries 
 . caused by negligence of fellow 
 servant, plaintiff must have 
 been free from negligence. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mooney (Fla.), vol. 12, p. 721. 
 Criterion of co-service. 
 
 Kerner v. Baltimore & O. S. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 328. 
 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Houch- 
 
 ins (V.a.), vol. 8, p. 616. 
 Declarations of superior en- 
 gaged with plaintiff in per- 
 forming the work in which 
 plaintiff was injured, made on 
 the spot where the injuries oc- 
 curred, and almost simulta- 
 neous with the injury, and 
 describing how it was caused. 
 Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. C. 
 
 A. ) , vol. 7, p. 2. 
 Different department limitation 
 of fellow-servant rule. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ed- 
 monds (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 481.. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stuber (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 840. 
 Duty to employ competent fel- 
 low servants. 
 Oliver v. Ohio River R. Co. 
 
 (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 784. • 
 Effect of repeal of penalty for 
 excessive speed within mu- 
 nicipalities on fellow-servant 
 rule. 
 Faiquhar v. Alabama & V. R. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, p. 538. 
 Effect of rule requiring brake- 
 man to inspect appliances. 
 Eaton V. New York C. & H. 
 
 R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 391. 
 
 Employee handling derrick in- 
 jured by negligence of fellow 
 servant engaged in same work 
 is not engaged in work con- 
 nected with the "use and 
 operation of a railroad" 
 within meaning of Iowa stat- 
 ute. 
 
 Reddington v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 14, p. 563. 
 
 Employers' liability act as af- 
 fecting fellow-servant rule. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Wagner (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 706. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 395 
 
 FELLO'W SERVANTS— CowiP or. 
 Engineer could recover for g^ross 
 negligence of his fellow serv- 
 ant, the engineer of other 
 train. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co.'s Re- 
 ceiver V. Roberts (Ky.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 322. 
 Evidence, burden is on plaintiff, 
 in action for injuries alleged 
 to have been caused by fellow- 
 servant to show that he was 
 free from fault, and when this 
 is done, the brrden is on de- 
 fendant to show that his serv- 
 ants were not at fault. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mooney (Pla.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 721. 
 Evidence, fireman and engineer, 
 burden of proof. 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Becker (Ark.), vol. 8, p. 758. 
 Existence of relation of fellow 
 servants a question for jury. 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Dris- 
 
 coll (111. ) , vol. 12, p. 644. 
 Failure to furnish safe appli- 
 ances is chargeable to master, 
 not to fellow servant. 
 Troxler v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 711. 
 Failure to instruct as to liability 
 where accident occurred 
 through negligence of fellow 
 servant. 
 Atlantic Avenue R. Co. v. Van 
 
 Dyke (C. C. A.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 623. 
 Failure to keep headlight in 
 repair. 
 San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Harding (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 389. 
 Fellow-servant rule was not 
 available where employee sus- 
 tained injury on crossing after 
 working hours. 
 Sullivan v. New York, N. H, 
 
 & H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 108. 
 General denial, defense of neg- 
 ligence of fellow servant. 
 * Wilson V. Charleston & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 9,'p. 211. 
 General liability. 
 Nolan V. New York, N. H. & 
 
 H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 637. 
 General rule as to liability for 
 injuries through negligence 
 of fellow servant. 
 Blomquist v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 439. 
 
 FELLO'W SERVANTS— Co^ifrf. 
 Harmless error in jury's finding.' 
 MacCarthy v. Whitcomb, 
 (Wis.), vol. 20, p. 860. 
 Injuries to employee walking 
 near a track after finishing 
 his day's work, from a stick of 
 wood negligently thrown from 
 a passing train, by a co- 
 employee. 
 
 Fletcher v. Baltimore & P. R. 
 Co. (U. S.),vol. 9, p. 229. 
 Knowledge of servant of incom- 
 petency of fellow servant not 
 notice to master. 
 Smith V. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 609. 
 Liability for incompetency of 
 fellow servant. 
 
 Parker v. New York Cent. & 
 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 614. 
 
 Liability for injury to employee 
 
 of another company as affected 
 
 by negligence of his fellow 
 
 servant. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 429. 
 Liability for negligence of. 
 Creswell v. Wilmington & N. 
 R. Co. (Del.), vol. 14, p. 625. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Josey 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 869. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Stu- 
 
 ber (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 840. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Lyons (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 610. 
 
 Railey v. Garbutt (Ga.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 211. 
 Smith V. St. Louis & S. F. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 609. 
 Swisher v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 16, p. 421. 
 Liability for negligence of fel- 
 low servant in handling en- 
 gine. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. York 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 470. 
 Liability for negligence of, in- 
 structions. 
 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 Liability of lessor for injuries to 
 lessee's employees caused by 
 negligence of fellow servant. 
 Banks v. Georgia R. & Bank- 
 ing Co. (Ga,), vol. 20, p. 22S. 
 Liability of master for injuries 
 to employee where fellow serv- 
 ant substitutes defective ap- 
 pliance iu place of safe and 
 suitable appliance. 
 Campbell v. New Jersey Dry- 
 Dock & Transp. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 11, p. 12. 
 
396 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 I'ELLOW SERVANTS— Cow^'rf. FELLO"W SERVANTS— Cont'd. 
 
 Liability of master for negli- 
 gence of fellow servant. 
 Swisher v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 16, p. 421. 
 Massachusetts statute, construc- 
 tion. 
 
 ' Fairman v. Boston & A. R. Co. 
 (Mass.). vol. 9, p. 83. 
 Master liable for injury to serv- 
 ant where negligence of vice 
 principal was proximate cause, 
 although negligence of fellow 
 servant also contributed. 
 Felton V. Harbeson (C. C. A.), 
 ■jol. 20, p. 131. 
 Master's negligence in failing to 
 maintain safe couplings must 
 be proximate cause to warrant 
 recovery where also negligence 
 of fellow servant. 
 McCoy V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 838. 
 Master not liable for negligence 
 of vice principal, except that 
 occurring in the performance 
 on a nonassignable duty. 
 Scott V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 884. 
 Master not liable for tort of fel- 
 low servant beyond scope of 
 his employment. 
 Kincade v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 14, p. 
 . 559. 
 Minnesota statute not applicable 
 to case where servant was in- 
 jured by fall of coal dislodged 
 from tender by fellow servant. 
 Weisel v. Eastern Ry. Co. of 
 Minn. (Minn.), vol. 17, p. 446. 
 Mixed question of law and fact, 
 existence of relationship. 
 Wilson V. Charleston & S. Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.); vol. 9, p. 211. 
 Modifications of instruction as 
 to Who are. 
 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 Negligence of concurring with 
 negligence of master. 
 Fluhrer v. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 Rv. Co. (Mich.), vol. 17, p. 
 463. 
 Wright V. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 5, p. 560. 
 Negligence of fellow servant 
 concurring does not relieve 
 master where his negligence 
 was proximate cause. 
 Louisiana Western Extension 
 Ry. Co. V. Carstens (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), vol. 12, p. 782. 
 Negligence of fellow servant 
 
 concurring with negligence of 
 master. 
 
 Fluhrer v. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 17, p. 464. 
 Negligence of fellow servant 
 question for jury. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. De- 
 laney (111.), vol. 13, p. 859. 
 Pleading liability of companv. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. &.St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Montgomery (Ind.), 
 vol. 9, p. 792. . 
 Presumption as to whether 
 servants are fellow servants 
 or vice principals. 
 Hunter v. Kansas City & M. 
 Ry. & Bridge Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 10, p. 620. 
 Presumption of negligence, un- 
 der Florida statute, where 
 injury resulted from act being 
 performed by fellow servants 
 of plaintiff, but in which he 
 was not participating, 
 Florida Cent. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Mooney (Fla.), vol. 12, p. 721. 
 Provision of South Carolina 
 statute as to construed. 
 Rutherford v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 17, p. 520. 
 Question as to whether employ- 
 ees are fellow servants is a 
 mixed one of law and fact. 
 Wilson V. Charleston & S. Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 9, p. 452. 
 Question for court, existence of 
 relationship. 
 
 MacCarthy v. Whitcomb 
 (Wis.), vol. 20, p. 860. 
 Question for jury whether negli- 
 gence of fellow servant was 
 proximate cause, in action for 
 injury to employee of another 
 company. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 429. 
 Receivers, liability of receivers 
 for injuries to employees 
 caused by negligence of fellow 
 servants, under statutes pro- 
 viding for liability of rail- 
 roads. 
 
 Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. Ct 
 A.), vol. 7, p. 1. 
 Refined distinctions as to who 
 are, based upon subordination 
 of one servant to another, or 
 upon the fact that they are 
 engaged in different depart- 
 ments, should not be consid- 
 ered. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Stuber (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 840. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 397 
 
 FELLOW SERVANTS— Cb»i!'rf. FELLOW SERVANTS— Cowif'rf. 
 
 Relatioa depending' upon char- 
 acter of negligent act. 
 Jackson v. Norfolk & Western 
 R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 4SS. 
 Retroactive effect of statutes. 
 Rittenhouse v. Wilmington St. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 6, p. 
 784. 
 Rules of ma.ster cannot change 
 status of employees with re- 
 gard to each other. 
 Stephani v. Southern Pac. R. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 14, p. 575. 
 "Same character of work" un- 
 der Texas statute. 
 Long V. Chicago, R. I. & T. 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 18, p. 
 386. 
 "Same piece of work" under 
 Texas statute. 
 
 Long V. Chicago, R. I. & T. 
 • Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 18, p. 
 386. 
 Statute not applicable to causes 
 of action arising prior to its 
 passage. 
 
 Wright V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 717. 
 Statutory provisions as to 
 "cars" includes hand cars. 
 Benson v. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 & O. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 12, p. 797. 
 Stone mason setting curbing 
 around station not within 
 protection of Kansas statute. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Medaris (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 p. 698. 
 Test of master's liability for 
 act of fellow servant. 
 Jackson v. Norfolk & West- 
 ern R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 6, p. 455. 
 To recover for injuries occa- 
 sioned by negligence of fel- 
 low servant plaintifE must 
 have been free from negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Mooney (Fla.), vol. 12, p. 
 721. 
 Validity of state statute for- 
 bidding a railroad company 
 from entering into any agree- 
 ment with its employees 
 whereby it shall be held not 
 liable for injuries to them 
 and declaring such corpora- 
 tions liable for injuries by 
 fellow servants. 
 Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 7, p. 1. 
 
 Vice Principals. 
 
 Brakemen are not under em- 
 ployers' liability act of In- 
 diana. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Little (Ind.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 427. 
 Section foreman and track 
 hands. 
 Chattanooga Elec. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Lawson (Tenn.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 669. 
 Servant given charge of 
 dynamite is. 
 Bush V. Spokane Falls & 
 
 N. Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 285. 
 Train dispatcher vice princi- 
 pal of fireman. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Elliott (Ind. Ter.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 587. 
 What law governs in action 
 for death in another state. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Harris (Miss.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 119. 
 
 Who Are Fellow Servants. 
 
 Brakeman and fireman. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. in Ken- 
 tucky V. Clifford (Ky.), 
 vol. 21, p. 229. 
 Brakeman of freight train 
 acting as switchman and 
 engineer of passenger 
 train. 
 
 Swisher v. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 16, p. 
 421. 
 Brakemen are fellow servants 
 of each other. 
 Young V. West Virginia, 
 C. & P. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 
 vol. 4, p. 134. 
 Bridge repairer riding • to 
 work and trainmen are. 
 Tomlinson v. Chicago, B. 
 & Q. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 16, p. 344. 
 Car inspector, and switch- 
 man. 
 
 V. Michigan C. R. 
 (Mich.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 Lellis 
 
 Co. 
 
 545. 
 
 Conductor acting as brake- 
 man and engineer are. 
 Linck V. Louisville & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 831. 
 
398 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 FELLOW SERVANTS— Cbwjf'rf. FELLOW SERVANTS— Cowif'rf. 
 
 Conductor and brakeman. 
 Jackson v. Norfolk & West- 
 ern R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 6, p. 4SS. 
 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. 
 Houchins (Va.), vol. 8, 
 p. 616. 
 Purcell V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 6, p. 784. 
 Spencer v. Brooks (Ga. ), 
 
 vol. S, p. 202. 
 Walker v. Gillett (Kan.), 
 vol. 10, p. 140. 
 Conductor and brakeman of 
 freight train. 
 
 New England R. Co. v. 
 Cohroy (U. S. ), vol. 16, 
 p. 380. 
 Conductor and car-coupler. 
 Young V. Boston & M. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 7, p. 776. 
 Conductor and ene^ineer. 
 Linck V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 831. 
 Conductor and foreman. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Sipes (Colo.), vol. 6, p. 
 60S. 
 Conductor and other train- 
 men are. 
 
 Jackson v. Norfolk & W. R. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 
 4SS. 
 Conductor and section hand. 
 Slavens v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 16, p. 406. 
 Employees and brakeman are. 
 McDonald v. Norfolk & T/y'. 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. 8, p. SS2. 
 Texas Central Railway Co. 
 V. Frazier (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 p. 381. 
 Texas Central R. Co. v. 
 Prazier (Tex.), vol. 4, p. 
 664. 
 Employees of different com- 
 panies. 
 
 Hallett V. New York Cent., 
 etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 22, p. 446. 
 Employees of different trains. 
 Beaumont v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 22,^. 470. 
 MacCarthy v. Whitcomb 
 (Wis.), vol. 20, p. 860. 
 Engineer and conductor are. 
 Creswell v. Wilmington & 
 N. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 14, 
 p. 62S. , 
 Eckles V. Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co. (Va.), vol. S, p. 707. 
 
 Engineer and foreman, under 
 Texas statute, although 
 employed by different supe- 
 riors. ' 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. t. War- 
 ner (Tex.), vol. 4, p. 262. 
 Engineer and watchman are. 
 Welsh V. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 14, p. S69. 
 Engineers of different trains. 
 Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Roberts (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 323. 
 Engineer of lum.ber train and 
 wood cutter riding thereon 
 to work. 
 
 Railey v. Garbutt (Ga.), 
 vol. 20, p. 211. 
 Engineer of wrecking engine 
 and track-walker are, under 
 common -law rule. 
 Stephani v. Southern -Pac. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 14, p. 
 575. 
 
 Fireman and round house 
 employees are. 
 Smith V. St. Louis & S. F. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 609. 
 Fireman on passenger train 
 is a fellow servant of engi- 
 neer and conductor of 
 freight train. 
 Maher v. Union Pac, D. & 
 
 G. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 644. 
 Foreman of switch crew is. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Tuohey (Ark.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 453. 
 Foreman and conductor are. 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 McGill (Ariz.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 653. 
 
 Foreman and laborer. 
 Goodwell v. Montana Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mont.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 419. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bol- 
 ton (Tenn.), vol. 9, p. 868. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Charless (U. S.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 128. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Peterson (U. S.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 120. 
 
 Foreman is a fellow servant 
 of a hand under him, while 
 both engaged in manual 
 labor of loading cars. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Mauzy 
 (Va.), vol. 20, p. 647. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 399 
 
 I'BLLO'W SERVANTS— Cowif'ar. FELLOW SERVANTS— Co«i!'a'. 
 
 Machinists and foreman. 
 Kerner v. Baltimore & O. S. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 328. 
 Thompson v. Chicago & E. 
 
 R. Co. (Ind.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 611. 
 Motorman and employee 
 working on track. 
 Lundquist v. Duluth, St. 
 
 R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 506. 
 Not liable for negligence of 
 plaintiff's fellow switch- 
 man. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 874. 
 One in charge of gang erect- 
 ing telegraph line employed 
 by telegraph company as 
 fellow servant of gang 
 employed by railroad com- 
 pany. 
 Johnson v. Western N. Y. 
 
 & P. Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 309. 
 Eoadmaster and laborer are 
 when working together. 
 O'Neill V. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 41S. 
 Section boss and hands. 
 Martin v. Atchison, T. & S. 
 
 F. R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 6^ 
 
 p. 600. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. ii. Doyle 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 774. 
 Section boss with men under 
 him. 
 Gavigan v. Lake Shore, 
 
 etc., R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 S, p. 523. 
 Section foreman and laborers 
 are. 
 Flippen V. Kimball (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 11, p. 256. 
 Street railways. 
 
 Brittain v. West End St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mass.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 773. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Doyle (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 773. 
 Switching crews in same em- 
 ployment. 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 
 Driscoll (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 644. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Lyons (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 610. 
 
 Switchman and fireman. 
 St; Louis, I. M. <Sr S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Brown (Ark.), vol. 
 16, p. 440. 
 Telegraph operatois and en- 
 gineers are. 
 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Bentz 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p. 540. 
 Telegraph operator and train- 
 men as fellow servants. 
 Oregon, etc., Ry. Co. ».' 
 Frost (U. S.), vol. 5, p. 
 707. 
 Trainmen and employees 
 riding in course of duty. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Stuber (C. C. A.), vol. 
 22, p. 840. 
 Trainmen and laborers on 
 roadbed. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Charless (U. S.), vol. 4, 
 p. 128. 
 Trainmen and section hand. 
 Hunt V. Hurd (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 18, p. 741. 
 Where several servants are in 
 the same general service, 
 but in different departments 
 of it, though one may be 
 inferior in position to the 
 other, they are fellow serv- 
 ants, and if one of them is 
 injured by the negligence 
 of the other, the master is 
 not responsible, unless on 
 the ground of negligence in 
 employing an unfit person 
 for his service. 
 Benignia v. Penn. R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 20, p. 486. 
 Whether brakeraan is fellow 
 servant of fiiieman a ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 
 Louisiana Western Exten- 
 sion Ry. Co. V. Carstens 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 12, 
 p. 781. 
 Yard master riding on train 
 and its engineer are. 
 Farquhar v. Alabama & V. 
 R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 p. 538. 
 Who Are Not Fellow Servants. 
 
 Arkansas statute. 
 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. 
 R. Co. V. Becker (Ark.), 
 vol. 16, p. 348. 
 Baggage master and engineer 
 ■ -not fellow servants. 
 
 Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. 
 Swan (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 675. 
 
400 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 FELLOW SERVANTS— Cow/'flT. FELLOW SERVANTS— Cbw/'oT. 
 
 Boss and his hands loading' 
 lumber on car were not. 
 Bryan v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 542. 
 Brakeman and car inspector. 
 Eaton V. New York, C. & 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 18, p. 391. 
 Fulton V. Bullard (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 547. 
 Brakeman and engineer and 
 . fireman. 
 Louisiana Western Exten- 
 sion Ry. Co. V. Carstens 
 (Tex. Civ. App.)f vol. 
 12, p. 781. 
 Car inspector and conductor 
 of train. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Hilliard (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 
 539. 
 Car inspector and trainmen 
 are not under employers' 
 liability act of Iowa. 
 Canon v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 
 vol. 9, p. 12. 
 Engineer and brakeman. 
 Hallett V. New York Cent., 
 etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 22, p. 446. 
 Expressman not fellow serv- 
 ant of trainman. 
 Cobb V. St. Louis & H. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, 
 p. 632. 
 Fireman and conductor. 
 Meyer v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (III.), vol. 12, p. 694. 
 Fireman on engine and sec- 
 tion foreman, are not. 
 Bateman v. Peninsular Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 12, p. 
 679. 
 Foreman and laborer. 
 Bradley v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 8, p. 729. 
 Foreman of wiper gang fel- 
 low servant of hands in 
 gang. 
 
 Knot V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 12, p. 684. 
 In action by baggage master 
 to recover for injuries al- 
 leged to have been caused 
 by engineer's negligence, 
 petition need not allege that 
 they are not fellow serv- 
 ants. 
 
 Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. 
 Swan (111. ), vol. 12, p. 674. 
 
 Liability for injury to track 
 repairer caused by viola- 
 tion of ordinance regulat- 
 ing the running of trains 
 cannot be avoided on the 
 ground that he and the 
 trainmen were fellow serv- 
 ants. 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Peterson (Ind. ), vol. 20^ 
 
 p. 887. 
 Member of bridge crew load- 
 ing timber on flat car and 
 engineer and conductor are 
 not. 
 Freeman v. Illinois Cent. 
 
 R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 49. 
 Section boss and engineer 
 are not. 
 Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. 
 
 Krayenbuhl (Neb.), vol. 
 4, p. 483. 
 Section foreman controlling- 
 hand car and his hands, 
 riding on same are not. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Josey (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 869. 
 
 Servants in different depart- 
 ments. 
 
 Dobson V. New Orleans & 
 W. R. Co. (La.), vol. 17, 
 p. 404. 
 Street car conductor and car 
 repairer. 
 
 Denver Tramway Co. v. 
 Crumbaugh (Colo.), vol. 
 10, p. 875. 
 
 Train dispatcher and fireman. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Elliott (C. C. A.), vol. 
 18, p. 715. 
 
 Train dispatcher and train- 
 men are not. 
 
 Felton V. Harbeson (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 20, p. 131. 
 Workman in car shops apd . 
 foreman of switch crew are 
 not. 
 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 16, p. 551. 
 Wisconsin statute relating to, 
 construed. 
 
 Medberry v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 17, p. 494. 
 
 FEME COVERT. 
 
 See Married Women. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 401 
 
 FENCES. 
 
 See Cattle Guards. 
 Children. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 Constitutionality of fence 
 
 law. 
 ' Grand Island & W. C. R. 
 Co. V. Swinbank (Neb.), 
 vol. 9, p. 870. 
 Constitutionality of Montana 
 fence law. 
 
 Beckstead v. Montana 
 Union Ry. Co. (Mont.), 
 vol. 9, p. 273. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 allowing double damages 
 for injuries to stock. 
 Kingsbury v. Missouri, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 19, p. 719. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 requiring company to pay 
 entire cost of division 
 fences whsre right of way 
 is donated. 
 
 Sleadd v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 in Kentucky (Ky.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 131. 
 
 Contributory negligence no 
 
 defence to action for injury 
 
 to stock under Wisconsin 
 
 statute. 
 
 Cole V. Duluth, S. S. & A. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, 
 p. 749. 
 Crossings, duty to fence at 
 wagon crossings in cities. 
 Croft V. Chicago, G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 11, p. 652. 
 Culverts, liability where hogs 
 pass through under statute 
 requiring tracks to be fenced. 
 Kingsbury v. Missouri, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 
 719. 
 Depot grounds in excess of 
 legal limit. 
 Eaton V. McNeill (Ore.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 680. 
 Double compensation for in- 
 jurying stock. 
 Grand Island & W. C. R. Co. 
 
 V. Swinbank (Neb.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 870. 
 Duty of company to observe 
 
 other statutory precautions 
 
 where it has complied with 
 
 fence law. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Tier- 
 nan (Tenn.), vol. IS, p. 
 654. 
 
 ID— 26 
 
 FENCES— Continued. 
 
 Duty of railroad company to 
 avoid injurying stock. 
 Kirk V. Norfolk & W. R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 4, p. 105. 
 Duty of railroad to construct 
 division fences under Ken- 
 tucky statute. 
 
 Owensboro & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 Courts (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 125. 
 Duty to fence. 
 
 Cornell v. Manistee & N. E. 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 11, p. 
 263. 
 McCook». Bryan (Okla.), vol. 
 5, p. 699. 
 Duty, to fence against hogs un- 
 lawfully at large. 
 Kingsbury v. Missouri, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 
 719. 
 Duty to fence as affected by 
 statute passed after acquisi- 
 tion of right of way by ad- 
 verse possession. 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Thompson (Ky.), vol. 23, 
 p. 48. 
 Duty to fence railroad yard. 
 Nickolson v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 18, 
 p. 682. 
 Duty to fence right of way, 
 whether Ky. St. of 1797, re- 
 trospective. 
 
 Ringo V. C. & O. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 271. 
 Duty to fence track where two 
 roads are parallel. 
 Marengo v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, 
 p. 660. 
 Duty with respect to station 
 grounds. 
 
 Hathaway v. Detroit, T. & 
 M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 19, p. 714. 
 Effect of existence of fence not 
 required by statute. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Woodworth (Ind. Ter. ), vol. 
 4, p. 261. 
 Failure to fence as prima facie 
 evidence of negligence. 
 Jolliffe V. Brown (Wash.), 
 vol. 3, p. 254. 
 Failure to fence land used for 
 depot grounds. 
 
 Cole V. Duluth, S. S. & A. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 749. 
 
 Failure to fence right of way. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lyon 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 764. 
 
402 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 'F'EniiC'&S— Continued. 
 Gates. 
 
 Mobile & O. K. Co. v. Tier- 
 nau (Tenn.), vol. IS, p. 
 S64. 
 Duty of company to keep 
 gates closed. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. 
 Tiernan (Tenn.), vol. IS, 
 p. 564. 
 Inability for failure to keep in 
 repair fence not required by 
 law, where stock are injured. 
 Georgia S. & F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Wisenbaker (Ga.), vol. 22, 
 p. 186. 
 Liability for injury to child as 
 affected by failure to fence 
 tracks. 
 
 Marengo v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, 
 p. 660. 
 Nickolson v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 18, 
 p. 682. 
 Rosse V. St. Paul & D. Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 351. 
 Liability of companies for in- 
 juries to animals fixed by 
 place of entry. 
 Eaton V. McNeill (Ore.), vol. 
 8, p. 680. 
 Liability under statute requir- 
 ing track to be fenced, where 
 injured cattle got on track by 
 passing under railroad bridge. 
 Cagwin v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 
 236. 
 No obligation to maintain cat- 
 tle guards at intersections 
 with fences built on right of 
 way by former owner where 
 company r acquired fee simple 
 title. 
 
 Anderson v. Atlantic Coast 
 Line Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 20, p. 230. 
 Obligation of railroad company 
 to maintain fences. 
 Dixon V. Railway Co. (Eng. ), 
 vol. S, p. 699. 
 Obligation to construct under 
 deed conveying right of way, 
 in absence of stipulation. 
 Owensboro & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 Courts (Ky. ), vol. 19, p. 
 125. 
 Pleading and evidence. 
 McCook V. Bryan (Okla.), 
 Vol. 5, p. 699. 
 Railroad liable for double dam- 
 ages Under Missouri fence 
 
 'F'ENGZS— Continued. 
 
 law where it failed to fence 
 
 though stock was lost but not 
 
 killed. 
 
 Boggs V. Missouri, K. & T. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 379. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 compensation of grantor. 
 Owensboro & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Courts (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 125. 
 SufSciency of evidence of de- 
 fect. 
 Goodrich v. Kansas City, C. 
 
 & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 137. 
 Under U 1, 2, art. 1, ch. 72, 
 Comp. St. a railroad company 
 is liable for injuries, caused 
 by a moving train, to cattle, 
 horses, sheep, or hogs upon 
 the track, at a place where it 
 ought to have been but was 
 not fenced, although there 
 was no actual collision be- 
 tween the train and the ani- 
 mals injured. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Cox (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 379. 
 Where a state statute requires 
 railway companies to erect 
 fences on their rights of way 
 through all enclosed lands or 
 lots, it does not render such 
 companies liable for injuries 
 done to employees, conse- 
 quent upon failure to fence, 
 but only for damages done to 
 stock. 
 
 Carper v. Receivers of Nor- 
 folk & W. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 95. 
 Where stock is killed in citj' 
 limits, failure to fence track 
 is not prima facie evidence of 
 negligence. 
 Ryan v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 647. 
 
 FENDERS. 
 
 Validity of ordinance regard- 
 ing. 
 
 State V. City of Cape May 
 (N. J.), vol. 6, p. 511. 
 
 FINANCIAL CONDITION. 
 See Exemplary Damages. 
 
 FINES. 
 
 See Penalties. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 403 
 
 FIRE INSURANCE. 
 See Insurance. 
 Fires set by locomotives. 
 
 Matthews v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 
 673. 
 
 FIRES SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES. 
 
 See Attorney's Fees. 
 Baggage. 
 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Datnages. 
 Insurance. 
 
 Amendment of petition in ac- 
 tion for negligence in allow- 
 ing fire to spread from right 
 of way. 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ey. Co. v. 
 Ludlnm (Kan.), vol. 23, p. 
 8S1. 
 Appliances. 
 
 Best appliances. 
 Paris, M. & S. P. R. Co. v. 
 Nesbitt (Tex. Civ. App. ), 
 vol. 3, p. 448. 
 Burden of proof as to use of 
 best appliances to prevent 
 the escape of sparks. 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 20, 
 p. 909. 
 White V. New York, P. c& 
 N. R. Co. (Va.), vol. 20, 
 p. S88. 
 Defective spark arrester. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Scantland 
 (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 7S. 
 Defects in engine and negli- 
 gence in operation are 
 questions for jury, where 
 there' is evidence of other 
 fires set on same day by 
 such engine. 
 
 McTavish v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), 
 vol. 14, p. S9. 
 Duty as to furnishing spark 
 arresters. 
 
 Harrington v. Rutland R. 
 Co. (Vt.), vol. 19, p. 248. 
 Effect of proving use of best 
 appliances to prevent the 
 escape of sparks. 
 White V. New York, P. &• 
 N. R. Co. (Va.), vol. 20, 
 p. 588. 
 Effect of showing good con- 
 ditions of appliances. 
 Georgia & A. Ry. Co. v. 
 Rawson (Ga. ), vol. 19, p. 
 463. 
 
 FIRES SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES— CoraffireK^af. 
 
 Inspection of spark arrester. 
 Thomas v. New York, C. & 
 
 St. L. R. Co. (Pa. , vol. 
 
 9, p. 132. 
 Liability where company has 
 spark arresters. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Samuels (Ky. ), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 374. 
 Railroads using appliances in 
 common use. 
 Gumbel v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 Co. (La.), vol. 4, p. 452. 
 Spark arresters. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Samuels (Ky.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 374. 
 Spark arresters, care required 
 in furnishing. 
 Kimball v. Borden (Va.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 519. 
 Under statute requires rail- 
 road to show absence of 
 negligence it exonerates 
 itself from liability, in an 
 action where it is claimed 
 the fire was caused by using 
 a certain engine, by prov- 
 ing that the spark arrester 
 thereon was such as in 
 common use. 
 Peter v. Chicago & W. M. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 15, 
 
 p. S41. 
 
 Combustibles on Right of Way. 
 Accumulation of grass on 
 right of way as negligence. 
 Richmond v. McNeill 
 (Ore.), vol. 10, p. 691. 
 Accumulation of inflammable 
 debris near trestle, irt sec- 
 tion subject to forest fires 
 is negligence. 
 Bateman v. Peninsular Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 12, p. 
 678. 
 Care required to keep roadbed 
 free of' combustibles. 
 Waters v. Atlantic City R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 15. p. 
 525. 
 Combustible matter on track. 
 Watt V. Nevada Central R. 
 Co. (Nev.), vol. 3, p. 659. 
 Duty to keep right of way 
 free from combustibles. 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Ludlum (Kan.), vol. 
 23, p. 851. 
 Liability for loss of house 
 on right of way from fire 
 originating iu combustibles 
 
404 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 FIBES SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES— Cb«<i««<?flf. 
 
 accumulated on right of 
 
 way. 
 
 Shields v. Norfolk & C. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 635. 
 Liability of company for 
 loss by fire of wood piled 
 by licensee on companj-'s 
 land. 
 Boston Excelsior Co. v. 
 
 Bangor & A. R. Co. 
 
 (Me.), vol. 16, p. 654. 
 Liability of company where 
 fire spreads from combus- 
 tibles on right of way. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Indiana H. Co. 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 18, p. 83. 
 Negligence in allowing accu- 
 mulation of combustible 
 matter. 
 New York, P. & N. R. Co. 
 
 V. Thomas (Va. ), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 240. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Indiana H. 
 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 18, p. 83. 
 Shields v. Norfolk & C. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 635. 
 Negligence in failure to burn 
 off right of way. 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. i. 
 
 Lycan (Kan.), vol. 6, p.* 
 
 781. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 making railroad an insurer. 
 Blackmore v. Mo. Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 360. 
 Statute imposing attorney's 
 fee, constitutional. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 
 
 Co. V. Matthews (U. S.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 89. 
 Statute providing that fact of 
 communication ■ of fire by 
 railroad shall be prima facie 
 evidence of negligence is 
 constitutional. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Tripp(Ill.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 119. 
 
 Validity of statutes making 
 every railroad responsible 
 in damages for property 
 destroyed by fire originat- 
 ing from its locomotives 
 and declaring such corpora- 
 tions to have an insurable 
 
 FIRES SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES— Co«^i««erf. 
 interest in property along 
 their routes. 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Mathews (U. S.), vol. 
 6, p. 361. 
 Cotton destroyed by fire, lia- 
 bility of carriers. 
 Amory Mfg. Co. v. Gulf, 
 C. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Tex.), 
 vol. 8, p. 472. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Boston Excelsior Co. v. 
 
 Bangor & A. R. Co. 
 
 (Me.), vol. 16, p. 655. 
 Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Stephens 
 
 (111.), vol. 11, p. 268. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Marbury L. Co. (Ala.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 508. 
 Matthews v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 673. 
 Paris M. & S. P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Nesbitt (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. ), vol. 3, p. 448. 
 Combustibles of plaintiff 
 near right of way. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Marbury L. Co. (Ala.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 508. 
 Due care of plaintiff's em- 
 ployees. 
 Richmond v. McNeill 
 
 (Ore.), vol. 10, p. 691. 
 Duty of landowner to keep 
 lookout for sparks. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Scantland 
 
 (End.), vol. 14, p. 75. 
 Duty of owner of structure on 
 right of way to guard 
 against fires. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Samuels (Ky.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 374. 
 
 Effect of contributory negli- 
 gence under statute creat- 
 ing absolute liability. 
 Boston Excelsior Co. v. 
 
 Bangor & A. R. Co. 
 
 (Me.), vol. 16, p. 654. 
 Exposure of combustibles as 
 contributory negligence. 
 Kimball v. Borden (Va.), 
 
 vol. 15, p. 519. 
 Inflammable building near 
 right of way. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Scantland 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 75. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 405 
 
 PIRES SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES— Cb«i2««^ar. 
 Negligence of company need 
 not be guarded against by 
 adjoining owner. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. I/. 
 Ry. Co. V. Indiana H. Co. 
 (Ind.), vol. 18, p. 83. 
 Not a defense to action for 
 loss by fire, where statute 
 requires company to show 
 , absence of negligence. 
 Peter v. Chicago & W. M. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. IS, 
 p. 541. 
 Not preventing recovery un- 
 less gross, under Massachu- 
 setts statute. 
 
 Bowen v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 
 268. 
 Permitting combustibles to 
 accumulate on land adja- 
 cent to right of way. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. 
 Co. V. Ireton (Kan.), vol. 
 23, p. 847. 
 •Question for jury. 
 
 McTavish v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), 
 vol. 14, p. 59. 
 <3uestion whether precautions 
 taken by landowner invit- 
 ing dangerous engine upon 
 premises were such as rea- 
 sonable care would dictate 
 was for jury. 
 
 Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. 
 Co. V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 15, p. 530. 
 Damages. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. E*. R. 
 Co. V. Hays (Kan. App. ), 
 vol. 11, p. 654. 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 Falk (Ohio), vol. 17, p. 
 751. 
 Matthews v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, 
 p. 673. 
 Watt V. Nevada, etc., R. - 
 Co. (Nev.), vol. 5, p. 700. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to cost of building new 
 .house, in action for de- 
 struction of property by fire. 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 20, 
 p. 909. 
 Kvidence as to value of trees 
 destroyed by fire. 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Lycan (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 
 781. 
 
 FIRES SET BY l^OGOTilLO- 
 Tl'VES—Coniinued. 
 Injury to trees by fires caused 
 by locomotives. 
 Missouri, etc., Rj'. Co. v. 
 Lycan (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 
 781. 
 Measure of damages for in- 
 jury to orchard. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. 
 Co. V. Emmerson (Kan.), 
 vol. 8, p. 663. 
 Measure of damages for prop- 
 erty burned. 
 
 Watt V. Nevada Central R. 
 Co. (Nev.), vol. 3, p. 659. 
 Opinion as to value of prop- 
 erty. 
 
 Matthews v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 
 673. 
 Recovery of attorney's fee in 
 action for loss by fire. 
 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Ludlum (Kan.), vol. 
 23, p. 851. 
 Right of defendant to com- 
 plain that damages were 
 Inadequate. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Trammell (Ga.), vol. 23, 
 p. 856. 
 Showing what land produced 
 before and after the fire. 
 Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. 
 , Burden (Ind. App.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 448. 
 Statute of Ohio providing for 
 recovery of attorney's fees 
 as costs in action for dam- 
 ages caused by fire is con- 
 stitutional. 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Kreager (Ohio), vol. 18, 
 p. 99. 
 Testimony as to value of prop- 
 erty destroyed, admissible. 
 Kansas City & O. R. Co. 
 V. Rogers (Neb.), vol. 4, 
 p. 617. 
 Value of hay destroyed is the 
 market price. 
 
 Watt V. Nevada Central R. 
 Co. (Nev.), vol. 3, p. 659. 
 Defect in engine and negli- 
 gence in its operation are 
 questions for jury where there 
 is evidence of other fires set 
 on same day by same engine, 
 although statutory presump- 
 tion of negligence has been 
 overcome. 
 
 McTavish v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 14, 
 p. 59. 
 
406 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 FIRES SET BY LOCOMQ. 
 TUVES— Continued. 
 Destroying wood illegally cut 
 on public lands. 
 Northern Pac. K. Co. v. 
 Lewis (U. S.), vol. 4, p. 262. 
 Duty of company. 
 
 Watt V. Nevada Central R. 
 Co. (Nev.), vol. 3, p. 659. 
 West Jersey R. Co. v. Ab- 
 bott (N. J.), -vol. 8, p. 764. 
 Evidence. 
 Admissibility in evidence of 
 diagrams of house de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 20, 
 p. 909. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to sparks being thrown by 
 other locomotives. 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 20, 
 p. 909. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 other fires. 
 Brown v. Benson (Ga.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 161. 
 New York, P. & N. k. Co. 
 V. Thomas (Va.), vol. 4, 
 , p. 240. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 other fires set on same day. 
 Thomas v. New York, C. & 
 St. L,. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 9, p. 132. • 
 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 showing that a spark sub- 
 sequently fell upon a tent- 
 standing upon ground where 
 the barn that had been 
 burned stood. 
 
 Matthews v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 
 673. 
 Admissibility of testimony of 
 locomotive engineers as to 
 distance live sparks could 
 have been carried. 
 Peck V. New York Cent. & 
 H. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 22, p. 808. 
 Another fire originating from 
 same engine. 
 
 Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. 
 Burden (Ind. App. ), vol. 
 3, p. 448.' 
 Burden of proof as to negli- 
 gence of railroad where 
 origin of fire has been fixed 
 upon it. 
 
 Patteson v. Chesapeake & 
 O. R. Co. (Va.), vol. 6, 
 p. 389. 
 
 FIRES SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES — Continued. 
 Burden of proof as to negli- 
 gence where railroad had 
 paid judgment against if 
 anid another party, in action 
 by railroad against latter. 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Sar- 
 gent (N. H.),vol. 21, p. 
 335. 
 Burden of proif in action for 
 fires set by locomotive. 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Barrett (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 p. 141. 
 Burden of proving negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Garrett v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p. 
 529. 
 Circumstantial evidence of' 
 negligence in action for 
 ■fires set by locomotives. 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Barrett (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 p. 141. 
 Circumstantial evidence of 
 origin of fire sufficient. 
 McGinn v. Piatt (Mass.), 
 vol. 19, p. 245. 
 Direction of verdict for de- 
 fendant. 
 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Taylor (Ala.), vol. 21, 
 p. 135. 
 Error in admitting evidence 
 as to distance that sparks, 
 may be thrown. 
 Peck V. New York Cent. & 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 22, p. 808. 
 Evidence as to origin of fire 
 in elevator. 
 
 Cox V. . Vermont Cent. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 591. 
 Evidence as to ownership of 
 property destroyed. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ala.), vot 20, 
 p. 909. 
 Evidence in rebuttal to show- 
 that such engines throw 
 sparks. 
 
 Bowen v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 267. 
 
 Evidence of defects in spark 
 arrester. 
 
 , Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Samuels (Ky.), vol. 18, p. 
 374. 
 
 of 
 
 Evidence of existence 
 defects in appliances. 
 Brown v. Benson (Ga.) 
 vol. 10, p. 161. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 407 
 
 FIRES SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES— Cow^iBM^flf. 
 Evidence of negligence under 
 111. Rev. St., ch. 114, I 
 103, making fact that fire 
 was set by locomotive, 
 prima facie evidence of neg- 
 ligence. 
 Norris v. Baltimore & O. S. 
 
 W. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 806. 
 Evidence of origin. 
 Pittsburg, C, "C. & St. h. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Indiana H. 
 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 18, p. 83. 
 Evidence of other fires. 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 
 
 Co. z/. Hertzig (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), vol. 12, p. 846. 
 Hygienic Plate-Ice M. Co. 
 
 V. Raleigh & Air-Line R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 78. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. h. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Indiana H. Co. 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 18, p. 83. 
 Evidence of other fires in ac- 
 tion for fire caused by accu- 
 mulation of combustibles 
 on right of way. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Miller 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 843. 
 Evidence of subsequent pre- 
 cautions of company admis- 
 sible. 
 Young V. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 72. 
 
 Evidence sufficient to war- 
 rant the court in submit- 
 ting the case to the jury. 
 Brown v. Benson (Ga.), 
 vol. S, p. 316. 
 
 Evidence that defendant has 
 paid damages for injuries 
 to other property caused by 
 same fire. 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Hertzig (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), vol. 12, p. 846. 
 Evidence to show that fire 
 was caused by sparks from 
 engine. 
 Finkelston v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 193. 
 
 Evidence to support charge 
 of negligence in causing 
 fire. 
 
 Taylor v. Pennsylvania 
 Schuylkill Valley, R. Co. 
 (Pa. St.), vol. 4, p. 258. 
 
 FIRES SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES— Co«<«re»,?rf. 
 In action under the Illinois 
 statute, to recover for dam- 
 ages caused by fire set by 
 engine, particular facts 
 constituting negligence 
 need not be proven. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Gleuny (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 839. 
 
 Instructions as to evidence. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Scantland 
 (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 75. 
 
 Making negligence a question 
 for jury. , 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Taylor (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 135. 
 
 Of negligence. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Marbury L. Co. (Ala.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 508. 
 Only necessary to show facts 
 from which negligence may 
 be inferred where fires are 
 set by locomotives. 
 Peck V. New York Cent. & 
 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 808. 
 Presumption of negligence. 
 Gainesville, J. & S. R. Co. 
 
 V. Edmondson (Ga.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 154. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Johnson (Tex.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 82. 
 McCuUen v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. 500. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 from, how rebutted. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 909. . 
 Presumption of negligence 
 from origin of fire. 
 Farrington v. Rutland R. 
 
 Co. (Vt.), vol. 19, p. 248. 
 
 Presumption that employees 
 
 causing were acting within 
 
 scope of their employment. 
 
 Baxter v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 85. 
 Prima facie case of negli- 
 gence. 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Barrett (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 141. 
 
408 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 FIRES SET BY LOOOMO 
 
 TI VES — Continued. 
 Rebuttal of presumption of 
 negligence. 
 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Taylor (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 
 13S. 
 Drake v. Ya7,oo & M. V. 
 R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 
 141. 
 Right of counsel to exhibit 
 diagram of engine in action 
 for fires set by locomotives. 
 Clisby V. Mobile & O. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 
 179. 
 Sparks from other locomo- 
 tives, at other times. 
 McGinn v. Piatt (Mass.), 
 vol. 19, p. 245. 
 
 Speed of train. 
 Bell V. Alabama Midland 
 R. Co. (Ala.), Tol. 3, p. 
 448. 
 Speed of train as evidence of 
 negligence. 
 
 l/ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Marbury L. Co. (Ala.), 
 vol. 18, p. 508. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 origin. 
 
 Minneapolis Sash & Door 
 Co. V, Great Northern 
 Ey. Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, 
 p. 750. 
 Weight of testimony. 
 Dunning v. Maine Cent. R. 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 9, p. 574. 
 Whether presumption of neg- 
 ligence can be rebutted in 
 action for injury from fire 
 set by locomotive. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Trammell (Ga. ), vol. 23, 
 p. 856. 
 Harmless error in instruction 
 not warranted by evidence. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Trammell (Ga.), vol. 23, 
 p. 856. 
 In absence of negligence rail- 
 roads not liable for injuries 
 from fires set by locomotives. 
 Peck V. New York Cent. & 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 22, p. 808. 
 In action under Mississippi 
 Code 1892, I 3546, ch. 63, 
 speed within city limits in 
 violation of statute will not 
 render company liable for 
 
 FIRES SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES— Continued. 
 fires set by locomotive ex- 
 ceeding such speed, unless 
 proximate cause. 
 Clisby V. Mobile & O. R. Co. 
 
 (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 179. 
 Instruction. 
 Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal. ), 
 
 vol. 15, p. 530. 
 
 Insurance. 
 
 Matthews v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, 
 p. 673. 
 Company not liable for de- 
 struction of property not 
 insurable. 
 
 Pierce v. Bangor & A. R. 
 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 18, p. 533. 
 
 Effect of inability to procure 
 
 insurance, where statute 
 
 makes company an insurer. 
 
 Dean v. Charleston & W. 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.'), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 555. 
 
 Liability for damages caused 
 
 by, co-extensive with right 
 
 to insure. 
 
 Pierce v. Bangor & A. R. 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 18, p. 533. 
 Proof of loss admissible in 
 action for reimbursement, 
 by subrogated insurer. 
 Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. 
 Co. V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 15, p. 530. 
 Right of insurer to recover. 
 Omaha & R. V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Granite State Fire Ins. 
 Co. (Neb.), vol. 14, p. 140. 
 Subrogation of insurer. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Glenny (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 839. 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 Falk (Ohio), vol. 17, p. 
 751. 
 What property insurable. 
 Pierce v. Bangor & A. R. 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 18, p. 533. 
 Jurisdiction of justice's court. 
 Bagley v. Columbus (Ga.), 
 vol. 5, p. 700. 
 Liability of carrier for loss of 
 freight by fire from failure to 
 ship in time. 
 
 Hernsheim v. Newport News, 
 etc., Co. (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 
 772. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 409 
 
 J'lRBS SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES— Co»/j««^rf. 
 
 Liability of company for in- 
 jury lo nonabutting property. 
 Lumberman's Mut. Ins. Co. 
 
 V. Kansas City, Ft. S. & 
 
 M. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 127. 
 Liability of railroad absolute 
 under Ohio statute. 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Falk (Ohio), vol. 17, p. 7Sl. 
 
 Liability of railroad company 
 
 for loss by fire of strain in 
 
 elevator. 
 
 Cox V. Vermont Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 9, p. S91. 
 Liability of receiver for dam- 
 ages by fires. 
 Wall V. Piatt (Mass.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 563. 
 Negligence. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 
 V. Emmerson (Kan.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 663. 
 negligence an essential ele- 
 ment under Ohio statute, in 
 action for loss from fires set 
 by engines. 
 Continental Trust Co. v. 
 
 Toledo, St. Louis & R. C. 
 
 R. Co. (Ohio), vol. 12, p. 
 
 8S4. 
 2>Iegligence a question for jurv. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Tripp (111.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 119. 
 Negligence a question for jury 
 where presumption of negli- 
 gence has been rebutted. 
 McCuUen v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 500. 
 Negligence in causing fire a 
 question for jury. 
 Thomas v. New York, C. & 
 
 St. L. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 132. 
 Negligence in knowingly suf- 
 fering fire to escape. 
 Pittsburg, C. , C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V, Indiana H. Co. 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 18, p. 83. 
 Negligence, Kansas statutes, 
 precedents. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 
 V. Hays (Kan. App.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 654. 
 Negligence may be inferred 
 from emission of sparks in 
 unusual quantity. 
 Peck V. New York Cent. & 
 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 808. 
 
 FIRES SET BY 1,000^10- 
 TU'V'EiB— Continued. 
 Negligence of company need 
 not be alleged nor proven in 
 action under Ohio statute 
 making liability of railway 
 absolute where fire is started 
 on right of way. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kreager (Ohio), vol. 18, p. 
 
 99.- 
 Ohio statute does not make lia- 
 bility of railway absolute 
 where fire is started on adja- 
 cent land. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kreager (Ohio), vol. 18, p. 
 
 99. 
 
 Origin of Fire. 
 
 Burden of proof. 
 Paris, M. & S. P. R. Co. v. 
 Nesbitt (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 448. 
 Burden of proof as to negli- 
 gence of railroad where 
 origin of fire has been 
 , fixed upon it. 
 Patteson v. Chesapeake & O. 
 R. Co. (Va. ), vol. 6, p. 
 389. 
 Erroneous instruction. 
 
 Osborne v. Chicago & W. 
 
 M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 297. 
 
 Origin of fire and negligence 
 
 of railroad, question for 
 
 jury- 
 
 Patteson v. Chesapeake & 
 
 O. R. Co. (Va.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 389. 
 Question for jury. 
 Brown v. Benson (Ga.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 161. 
 Southern Ry. in Kentucky 
 
 V. Hanna (Ky.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 524. 
 Statute of Iowa as to fires 
 caused by "operating" rail- 
 roads. 
 Connors v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 18, p. 75. 
 SuflBciency of evidence of 
 origin of fire. 
 Bowen v. Boston & A. R. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 267. 
 Brennan Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. IS, p. 478. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 415. 
 
410 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 FIRES SET BY LOOOMO- FIRES SET BY LOCOMO- 
 TIVES— Co»i;j««gaf. TIVBS— Continued. 
 
 When question for jury. 
 McCuUen v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 18, p. 500. 
 Where the fact that engine 
 causing the fire passed 
 along defendant's road is 
 undisputed, no error is 
 committed in assuming 
 such to be the case in in- 
 structing the jury. 
 Chicago & A. E. Co. v. 
 Glenny (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 839. 
 Ownership of right of waj' need 
 not be proven. 
 
 McTavish v. Great Northern 
 Ey. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 14, 
 p. 59. 
 Pleading in action to recover 
 for damage caused by. 
 l/ouisville & N. E. Co. v. 
 Spring- Water Distilling Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 527. 
 Pleading negligence under Ohio 
 statute where fire started on 
 adjacent land. 
 
 Baltimore & O. E. Co. v. 
 Kreager (Ohio), vol. 18, p. 
 99. 
 Proof of particular facts con- 
 stituting negligence not nec- 
 essary under Illinois statute. 
 Chicago & A. E. Co. v. 
 Glenny (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 839. 
 
 Proximate Cause. 
 
 Boston Excelsior Co. v. 
 
 Bangor & A. E. Co. 
 
 (Me.), vol. 16, p. 654. 
 Hoffman v. King (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 764. 
 Where fire destroys property 
 after crossing intervening 
 land. 
 
 Alabama & V. Ey. Co. v. 
 ' Barrett (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 141. 
 Van Inwegen v. Port Jer- 
 
 vis, etc., E. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 352. 
 
 Eebutting presumption of neg- 
 ligence. 
 
 Ivouisville & N. E. Co. v. 
 Marbury L,. Co. (Ala.), 
 . vol, 18, p. 508. 
 Special verdict. 
 
 Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. 
 Porter (Ind. ), vol. 5, p. 
 700. 
 
 Statutes of limitation in action 
 for loss by fvce. 
 Louisville & N. E. Co. v. 
 Spring-Water Distilling Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 527. 
 Statute of Ohio creates absolute 
 liability. 
 
 Baltimore & O. E. Co. v. 
 Kreager (Ohio), vol. 18, p. 
 99. 
 Sufficiency of allegation of 
 cause of action. 
 Alabama, G. S. E. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 
 909. 
 Sufficiency of complaint. 
 
 Chicago & G. T. E. Co. v. 
 Burden (Ind. App. ), vol. 3, 
 p. 447. 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 Southern Ey. Co. v. Myers 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 672. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Williams 
 (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 415. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 negligence. 
 
 Gainesville, J. & S. E. Co. 
 V. Edmondson (Ga. ), vol. 
 10, p. 154. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of neg- 
 ligence in action for injury 
 from fire set by locomotive. 
 Central of Ga. Ey. Co. v. 
 Trammell (Ga. ), vol. 23, 
 p. 856. 
 Sufficiency of evidence, ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 
 Van Steuben v. Central E. 
 Co. of New Jersey (Pa.), 
 vol. 9, p. 485. 
 Trespass on case as remedy. 
 Northern Pac. E. Co. v. 
 Lewis (U. S. ), vol. 4, p. 
 258. 
 
 Whether the emission of sparks 
 from an engine is evidence of 
 negligence is a questiori of 
 fact. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ey. Co. 
 
 V. Tripp (111.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 119. 
 
 Wind as intervening cause of 
 destruction of property. 
 Alabama G. S. E. Co. v. John- 
 ston (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 909. 
 
 PISH CHUTES. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 411 
 
 FIXTURES. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Tracks of railroad company do 
 not pass with land sold at tax 
 sale for taxes due by land- 
 owner. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. lye 
 Blanc (Miss.), vol. 12, p. 877. 
 
 FLAGMAN. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Failure to station as neg-lig-ence. 
 Huntress v. Boston, etc., R. 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 4, p. 257. 
 
 FLOODS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 Act of God. 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. Har- 
 
 lin (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 766. 
 Wald V. Pittsburgh, C, C. & 
 St. L. R. Co. (111.), vol. S, p. 
 70. 
 Care in construction of road. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. 
 Bland (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 
 3, p. 423. 
 Damage to land caused by over- 
 flow of water arising- from the 
 construction of railroad. 
 Parker v. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.) , vol. 6, p. 716. 
 Delay in shipment of cattle. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. V. 
 Bland (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 
 3, p. 423. 
 Duty of company. 
 Georgia Ry., etc., Co. v. Bohler 
 (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 767. 
 Extraordinary flood, question of 
 fact. 
 Brown v. Pine Creek Ry. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 693. 
 Georgia Ry., etc., Co. v. Bohler 
 (Ga.), vol.8, p. 766. 
 Flooding farm lands. 
 Canton, A. & N. R. Co. v. 
 Paine (Miss.), vol. 3, p. 453. 
 Johnstown flood. 
 
 Brown v. Pine Creek Ry. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 693. 
 
 FOOT STOOLS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 FORBOLOSITRE. 
 
 See Mortgages. 
 Receivers. 
 Sales. 
 
 FORBOLOSTJRB— Continued. 
 Assignee of purchaser at sale as 
 party to proceedings. 
 Baltimore Trust & Guarantee 
 Co. V. Hofstetter (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 10, p. 783. 
 Liens, terms of decree. 
 Baltimore Trust & Guarantee 
 Co. V. Hofstetter (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 10, p. 783. 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. Ap- 
 peals (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 209. 
 Title to earnings where pur- 
 chaser delays complying with 
 terms of his bid. 
 Boyle V. Farmers' Loan & 
 Trust Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 14, 
 p. 817. 
 
 FOREIGN OARS. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Evidence. 
 Inspection. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 
 
 See Municipal Aid Bonds. 
 Process. 
 Railroads. 
 Removal of Causes. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 New York statutes. 
 
 New York, New Haven, etc.j 
 R. Co. V. Welsh (N. Y.), 
 vol. 3, p. 229. , 
 Power of legislature to author- 
 ize condepiuation proceed- 
 ings by foreign railroad 
 company. 
 
 New York, N. H., etc., R. 
 Co. V. "Welsh (N. Y.), vol. 
 3, p. 229. 
 How made domestic corporation. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. 
 V. Louisville Trust Co. (U. 
 S.), vol. 15, p. 345. 
 Interstate commerce. 
 Averill v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 5, p. 704. 
 Pleading and proving charter. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Ala.), voL 
 13, p. 423. 
 Powers of. 
 State v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 18, p. 762. 
 Right to garnish foreign rail- 
 road corporation for wages of 
 employee earned within state. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Parker (Ark.), vol. 22, p. 441. 
 
412 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 I-OREIGN OORPORATIONS- 
 Continued. 
 •Service of process on agents of. 
 Wall V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (C. C. A.),vol. IS, p. 413. 
 Situs of cars for taxation. 
 
 Union Refrig-. Trans. Co. v. 
 Ivynch (Utah), vol. 13, p. 
 868. 
 Venue of action where goods 
 are injured in transit. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Horn- 
 beck (Tex.), vol. 9, p. 238. 
 
 FOREIGN LAWS. 
 See Conflict of Laws. 
 Judicial Notice. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Presumptions. 
 Chesapeake & N. R. Co. v. 
 Venable (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 449. 
 Presumption as to effect of com- 
 mon law in sister state. 
 ' Crandall v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, p. 
 388. 
 ■ Presumption as to foreign em- 
 ployers' liability act. 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., Lim- 
 ited, z;. Glover (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 21, p. 272. 
 Right to recover in federal court 
 for injury to employee in- 
 flicted in Mexico. 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. Jones 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 200. 
 
 FOREIGN RECEIVERS. 
 
 Power of receiver appointed by 
 foreign court to replevy prop- 
 erty. 
 
 Robertson v. Stead (Mo.), vol. 
 4, p. 529. 
 
 FOREMAN. 
 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 
 FORFEITURE. 
 
 See Public Lands. 
 Railroads. 
 Right of Way. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 FORGERY. 
 
 See Pay Checks. 
 
 FORMA PAUPERIS. 
 See Actions. 
 
 FORWARDERS. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 
 FRANCHISES. 
 
 See Assigntnenis. 
 Executions. 
 Grants. 
 Railroads. 
 Street Railways. 
 Taxation. 
 Acquirement of railroad fran- 
 chises by natural persons. 
 Parker v. Elmira, C. & N. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 20, p. 345. 
 Assignment. 
 
 Santa Rosa City Railroad Co. 
 V. Central Street Railway 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 1, p. 106. 
 Authority to grant right to ufee 
 public streets of a city for rail- 
 road, primarily resides in city. 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 23. 
 Construction of franchises re- 
 lating to fares. 
 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 23.- 
 Effect of special statute upon 
 railroad franchises, construed. 
 Frostburg Mining Co. v. Cum- 
 berland & Pa. R. Co. (Md.), 
 vol. 2, p. 568. 
 Extension of franchise. 
 
 Prostburg Mining Co. v. Cum- 
 berland & Pa. R. Co. (Md.), 
 vol. 2, p. 568. 
 Improper use of franchise. 
 
 Thomas v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 8, p. 760. 
 New York statute as to sale of 
 franchises. 
 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 23. 
 Power of municipality to grant 
 franchise. 
 
 Sun Printing, etc., Ass'n v. 
 Mayor of New York (N. Y.), 
 vol. 8, p. 771. 
 Right of municipality to attack 
 validity of franchise collat- 
 erally. 
 
 Bonaparte v. Baltimore, Hamp- 
 den & Lake Roland R. Co. 
 (Md.), vol. 1, p. 119. 
 Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. (Md.), 
 vol. 1, p. 119. 
 Hodges v. Baltimore Union 
 Pass. R. Co. (Md.), vol. 1, 
 p. 119. 
 State ex rel. Baltimore, C. & 
 P. B. R. Co. V. Latrobe 
 (Md.), vol. 1, p. 119. 
 Sale of franchises under execu- 
 tion. 
 
 Simmons v. Worthington 
 (Mass.), vol. 10, p. 771. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 41S 
 
 FRAUD. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Contracts. 
 
 Fraud in procuring contract to 
 convey land to railroad com- 
 pany. 
 
 Grand Tower & Cape Girard- 
 eau R. Co. V. Wolton (111.), 
 vol. 1, p. 686. 
 Specific performance. 
 Grand Tower & Cape Girard- 
 eau R. Co. . V. Wolton (111.), 
 vol. 1, p. 686. 
 
 FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. 
 
 Verbal contract by railroad to 
 maintain switch for benefit of 
 shipper. 
 
 Warner v. Texas & P. R. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 696. 
 
 FREE PASSES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Passes. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 FREE TRANSPORTATION. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 FREIGHT. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 FREIGHT AGENTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 
 FREIGHT RATES. 
 See Interest. 
 
 FREIGHT TRAINS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 FRIGHT. 
 
 See Personal Injuries. 
 
 FRIGHTENING TEAMS. 
 See Crossings. 
 Railroads. 
 Admissibility of evidence as to 
 failure to give signals. 
 Ohio Val. R. Co-'s Receiver v. 
 Young (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 399. 
 Blowing whistle beneath bridge. 
 Mitchell V. Nashville, C. & St. 
 L. Ry. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 10, 
 p. 775. 
 Breaking of trolley wire. 
 Kepner v. Harrisburg Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 493. 
 Care required of railroads in 
 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. Pen- 
 rod (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 759. 
 
 FRIGHTENING TEAMS— Cow- 
 tinued. 
 
 Care to be exercised in running" 
 I cars so as not to frighten, 
 horses. 
 
 McCann v. Consolidated Trac- 
 tion Co. (N. J.) , vol. 7, p. 280. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Attempting to cross in front 
 of locomotive emitting" 
 steam. 
 
 Miller v. Wellington & P.. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 557. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 husband must be pleaded in 
 action for injuries to wife. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jamison (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 442. 
 Driver's care a question for 
 jury. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Grif- 
 fin (111.), vol. 17, p. 767. 
 Guest not liable for driver's, 
 negligence. 
 
 Pyle V. Clark (Utah), vol. 5^ 
 p. 156. 
 Habitual disregard of rules of 
 railroad company. 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Roach (Ala.), vol. 5, p. 706. 
 Incurring apparent and emi- 
 nent danger. 
 
 Wherry v. Duluth, M. & N.. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, p. 
 72. 
 Injury caused by an endeavor 
 to escape from apparent dan- 
 ger. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of 
 Texas v. Rogers (Tex.), 
 vol. 8, p. 141. 
 Injury caused to one by negli- 
 gence of driver of wagon in 
 which he was riding. 
 Missouri, K. &' T. Ry. Co. of 
 Texas v. Rogers (Tex.)^ 
 vol. 8, p. 141. 
 Question of law. 
 Miller v. Wellington & P. R.. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 557. 
 Where whistle was blown be- 
 neath bridge. 
 
 Mitchell V. Nashville, C. & 
 St. I,. Ry. Co. (Tenn.), voU 
 10, p. 775. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Flaherty v. Harrison (Wis.), 
 vol. 10, p. 176. 
 
414 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 FRIGHTENING TEAMS— Cb«- 
 tinued. 
 
 Discharge of steam by eng-ines 
 at crossings. 
 
 Boothby v. Boston & M. R. 
 R. (Me.), vol. 8, p. 299. 
 Duty to look out for teams 
 near crossing. 
 
 Inabnett v. St. Louis, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 590. 
 
 Engine under excessive and 
 
 unnecessary pressure of 
 
 steam. 
 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Schmidt (Ind.), vol. 
 6, p. 571. 
 Exemplary damages for 'will- 
 fulness and recklessness. 
 Proctor V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 426. 
 Failure to comply with stat- 
 utory requirements as to 
 crossings. 
 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 Durham (Ga. ) , vol. 16, p. 
 606. 
 It is not negligence to ob- 
 struct crossings with engine 
 emitting steam, for a few 
 minutes, in order to transact 
 business. 
 
 Miller v. Wellington & P. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.); vol. 20, p. 
 557. 
 Liability for frightening team 
 on side track as affected by 
 speed and failure to give 
 crossing signals. 
 Coleman v. Wrightsville & 
 T. R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 23, 
 p. 863. 
 Duty of motorman. 
 
 Omaha St. R. Co. v. Duvall 
 (Neb.), vol. 1, p. 269. 
 Eminent domain. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Shafer 
 (Neb.), vol. 5, p. 698. 
 Escape of steam, horses fright- 
 ened by escape of steam, where 
 defendant was not negligent. 
 Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Burkhardt (Ind.), vol. 5, 
 p. 189. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Evidence of horse's disposi- 
 tion. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Grif- 
 fin (111 ), vol. 17, p. 767. 
 Evidence of subsequent fright 
 at same object, 
 yalley v. Concord & M. R. 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 9, p. 128. 
 
 FRIGHTENING TEAMS— Core- 
 tinued. 
 Failure to warn persons near 
 track of approach of train 
 must be proximate cause of 
 injury. 
 
 Coleman v. Wrightsville & T. 
 R. Co. (Ga.) , vol. 23, p. 863. 
 Giving signals. 
 
 Ochiltree v. Chicago & N. W. 
 ■ Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 30. 
 Hand car on side track. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Morrow (Kan.), vol. 5, p. 
 262. 
 Horses frightened by lumber 
 near highway. 
 
 Valley v. Concord & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 9, p. 128. 
 Instruction as to liability for 
 negligently and wantonly 
 blowing whistle. 
 Everett v. Receivers of Rich- 
 mond &D. R. Co. (N. Car.), 
 vol. 8, p. 523. 
 Issues. 
 
 Chattanooga & D. R. Co. v. 
 Voils (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 302. 
 Liability for negligence in op- 
 eration of cars furnished to 
 another company and operated 
 on latter's road. 
 Thompson v. Dotterer (La.), 
 vol. 21, p. 14. 
 Liability of company on account 
 of ordinary noises. 
 Ohio Val. R. Co.'s Receiver v. 
 Young (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 399. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for wanton acts of employees. 
 International & G. N. R. Co. 
 V. Yarbrough (Tex.), vol. 7, 
 p. 733. 
 Liability where horse is fright- 
 ened by street car left near 
 street railway barn to be un- 
 loaded, as between street rail- 
 way company and steam 
 railway by which it had been 
 hauled. 
 
 Patnoude v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 860. 
 Liability where horses are 
 frightened by usual and nec- 
 essary noises. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Black (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 864. 
 Negligence. 
 Brendle v. Spencer (N. Car.), 
 vol. 16, p. 722. 
 
 Negligence in blowing whistle 
 a question for the jury. 
 Plynn v. Boston & A. R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 691. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 415 
 
 FRIGHTENING TEAMS— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 
 Negligence iti unnecessarily 
 blowing' whistle. 
 Inabnett v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Ark.), vol. 20, p. S90. 
 Negligently sounding whistle. 
 "Weil V. St. Lrouis S. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Ark.), vol. 9, p. 721. 
 No liability for frightening 
 horses through the noises 
 usually incident to operation 
 of railway. 
 
 Dewey v. Chicago, H. & St. P. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 11, p. 
 275. 
 Proximate cause where horses 
 frightened by escape of steam 
 during delay caused by viola- 
 tion of ordinance in failing to 
 raise safety gates. 
 Simmons v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol.21, p. 466. 
 Questions of law and fact. 
 
 Weil V. St. Louis S. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Ark.), vol. 9, p. 721. 
 Railway company piling cinders 
 on public highway near cross- 
 ing in such a way as to 
 frighten horses is guilty of 
 negligence. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. GrifBn 
 (111.), vol. 17, p. 767. 
 Signals, railroads in street. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Pen- 
 rod (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 759. 
 Sounding whistle under bridge 
 unnecessarily, as negligence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Shearer (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 138. 
 Street railways. 
 
 Flewelling v. Lewiston & A. 
 H. R. Co. (Me.) , vol. 6, p. 501. 
 Suf&ciency of evidence to sus- 
 tain verdict for plaintiff. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Black 
 (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 864. 
 Wanton act of employee. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Pool 
 (Ga), vol. IS, p. 617. 
 Wanton and willful negligence. 
 Brendle v. Spencer (N. Car.), 
 vol. 16, p. 722. 
 "Whether failure to give signal 
 of approach to overhead bridge 
 is negligence, question for 
 
 jury- 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. V. 
 
 Shearer (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 138. 
 Whether signal was necessary 
 was a question for jury. 
 Weil V. St. Louis S. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ark.), vol. 9, p. 721. 
 
 FROGS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 GARNISHMENT. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Railroads. 
 Conclusiveness of judgment 
 against garnishee as to 
 whether plaintiff had obtained 
 valid judgment against main 
 debtor. 
 
 Holbrook v. Evansville, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 598. 
 Effect of garnishment after de- 
 livery to carrier. 
 Baldwin v. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 202. 
 Garnishee's right of appeal. 
 Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. Bossut 
 (N. Mex.), vol. 19, p. 683. 
 Right to garnish foreign railroad 
 corporation on account of 
 wages earned within state. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Parker (Ark.), vol. 22, p. 
 441. 
 Right to garnish one railway 
 company on judgment against 
 employee of another when they 
 have officers in common. 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Gate City Co-op. Grocery Co. 
 (Ark.), vol. 23, p. 875. 
 Service of summons upon rail- 
 road. 
 
 Holbrook v. EJvansville, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 597. 
 
 GATES. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Elevated Railways. 
 
 Fences. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 GAUGE. 
 Change of gauge fixed by char- 
 ter. 
 
 Walker v. City, of Denver 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 206. 
 
 GENERAL DAMAGES. 
 See Damages. 
 
 GRADE CROSSINGS. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Crossing of Railroads. 
 
 GRANTS. 
 
 See Franchises. 
 Ordinances. 
 Public Lands. 
 Right of Way. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Reversion of land not caused by 
 mere breach Jjf grantor's per- 
 
41 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 GHANTS— Continued. 
 
 sonal covenant to locate sta- 
 tions, 
 
 Behlow V. Southern Pac. Ey. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 19, p. 392. 
 Right to invoke statute provid- 
 ing- for forfeiture of land for 
 failure to operate railroads. 
 Behlow V. Southern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 19, p. 392. 
 Use of land for railroad purposes 
 preventing reversion. 
 Behlow V. Southern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 19, p. 392. 
 
 GROSS NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 See Contributory Negligence. 
 Damages. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 Definition. 
 Macon v. Paducah St. Ry. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 614. 
 Question for jury in action for 
 personal injuries from hang- 
 ing electric railway wire. 
 Macon v. Paducah St. Ry. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 614. 
 
 GUARANTY. 
 See Bonds. 
 
 GUARDIAN AND WARD. 
 Power of guardian to sue for 
 injury to ward by carrier of 
 passengers. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Moneyhun (Ind.), vol. S, p. 
 682. 
 
 HAOKMEN. 
 
 See Stations and Depots. 
 
 HACK STANDS. 
 
 See Injunctions. 
 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 HAND CARS. 
 See Children. 
 Collisions. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Railroads. 
 Collision injuring employee. 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 383. 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. An- 
 drews (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 756. 
 
 HARBOR LINES. 
 Right of company to restrain es- 
 tablishment of harbor lines. 
 Prosser v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 717. 
 
 HARMLESS ERROR. 
 See^ Evidence. 
 Instructions. 
 Pleading. 
 Reversal. 
 
 HEALTH., 
 
 See Damages. 
 
 HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 
 See Evidence. 
 Hearsay evidence of what plain- 
 tiff said to physician in actioa 
 for injuries to passenger. 
 Webber v. St. Paul City Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 6, p. 774. 
 Personal injuries. 
 
 Boston & Albany R. Co. v. 
 O'Reilly (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 
 377. 
 Physician allowed to testify 
 that one who had received 
 personal injuries did not know 
 that he had paid the physi- 
 ciafa's office a visit after re- 
 ceiving the injuries. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Stafford (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 172. 
 
 HIGHWAYS. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Municipal Corporations. 
 Streets. 
 
 Street Railways. 
 Rahn Tp. v. Tamaqua & L. 
 St. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 1, 
 p. 197. 
 
 Authority of township to grant 
 use of highways. 
 Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v.. 
 ■ Montgomery County Pas- 
 senger Railway Co. (Pa.),, 
 vol. 1, p. 190. 
 Bridge as part of highway. 
 Pittsburg & West End Pas- 
 senger Railway Co. v. Point 
 Bridge Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 
 209. 
 Consent of township to occupy. 
 West Jersey Traction Co. v. 
 Camden Horse R. Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. 1, p. 133. 
 County road over right of way. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Milam County (Tex.), vol.. 
 7, p. 780. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Duty of railway as to leaving 
 
 highway in good condition.. 
 
 Sutton V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 10, p. 100.. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 417 
 
 HIGHWAYS— Continued. 
 
 Railroad's right to compensa- 
 tion where street is con- 
 structed across its right of 
 way. 
 
 Paterson, N. & N. Y. R. Co. 
 V. Mayor, etc., of City of 
 Newark (N. J.), vol. 10, p. 
 182. 
 Dedication, whether the leaving 
 of strips of land on either side 
 of depot open to the public, 
 amounts to a dedication. 
 City of Chicago v. Chicago, 
 Rock Island, etc., R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 1, p. 1. 
 Discontinuance of, does not af- 
 fect easements of adjoining 
 owner. 
 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. v. 
 Hennen (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 409. 
 Duties of street railways and 
 public as to use of street. 
 Buttelli V. Jersey City, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 784. 
 Duty of railroad company to 
 restore highway. 
 Leitch V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 6, p. 782. 
 Duty of railroad to maintain 
 wagon way to freight yard. 
 Curtis V. De Coursey (Pa.), 
 vol. 5, p. 416. 
 Liability of successor of railroad 
 company for restoration of 
 highway. 
 
 Allen V. Buffalo, R. & P. Rt. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 9i, p. 265. 
 Obstruction of. 
 Buchholz V. New York, L,. E. 
 & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 3, 
 p. 453. 
 Knowles v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 781. 
 Paralleling of, by railroad gives 
 county no right of action for 
 damages. 
 
 Richmond, N. I. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Estill County (Ky.), vol. 
 13, p. 365. 
 Public loss in right at crossing. 
 In re Railroad Crossing in 
 Town of Old Orchard (Me.), 
 vol. 10, p. 870. 
 Railroads as public highway. 
 Roberts v. Northern Pacific 
 Railroad Co. (U. S;), vol. 3, 
 p. 106. 
 Railways on county roads. 
 Lehigh Coal & N. Co. v. Inter- 
 County St. R. Co. (Pa.) , vol. 
 1, p. 197. 
 ID— 27 
 
 ■HIQU-WATIS— Continued. 
 
 Restoration of highway by rail- 
 road company. 
 
 Allen V. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 9, p. 26S. 
 Right in highway. 
 
 Laufer v. Bridgeport Traction 
 Co. (Conn.), vol. 7, p. 788. 
 Right of individual to recover 
 damages for obstruction by 
 railway. 
 
 Knowles v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 781. 
 Right of rival street railway 
 company in public highway. 
 West Jersey Traction Co. v. 
 Camden Horse R. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 1, p. 133. 
 Right to diverge from highway. 
 Rahn Tp. v. Tamaqua & L,. 
 St. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 1, p. 
 198. 
 Right to use railroad track in 
 highway. 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. An- 
 derson (C. C. A.), vol. 10, p. 
 497. 
 Street railways on country roads. 
 Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. 
 Montgomery County Passen- 
 ger Railway Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 1, p. 190. 
 Under a law which authorizes a 
 railroad company to construct 
 its road along and over any 
 public or private way, if it 
 shall "be necessary" a practi- 
 cal and not an alasolute neces- 
 sity is intended ; and the 
 burden of proof would be upon 
 the company to show this 
 practical necessity, if ques- 
 tioned when originally lo- 
 cating the lines. 
 Village of Wayzata v. Great 
 Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 7, p. 360. 
 
 HOGS. 
 
 5^1? Fences. 
 
 HOBSBS. 
 
 See Contributory Negligence. 
 Frightening Horses. 
 Definition. 
 
 Richardson v. Chicago & A. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, p. 170. 
 
 HOTELS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Maintenance of, not a railroad 
 purpose, as a matter of law. 
 Abraham v. Oregon & C. R. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 17, p. 250. 
 
418 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 HUSBAND AND "WIFE. 
 See Damages. 
 
 Imputable Negligence. 
 Married Women. 
 Parties. 
 Action by husband for loss of 
 wife's services. 
 
 Redfield v. Oakland Consoli- 
 dated Street R. Co. (Cal.), 
 vol. 3, p. 432. 
 Contributory negligence of hus- 
 band in action for injury to 
 wife. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 Jamison (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 442. 
 Ifiability to husband for injury 
 to wife. 
 
 Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. Chol- 
 lette(Neb.), vol. 2, p. 381. 
 "Whether recovery by personal 
 representatives of a wife for 
 her wrongful death bars an ac- 
 tion by the husband. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Elwain (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 309. 
 
 Witnesses. 
 Jones V. Texas & P. R. Co. 
 (La. Ann.), vol. 2, p. 382. 
 
 HYPOTHETICAL Q U B S- 
 TIONS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 Expert Evidence. 
 
 ILLEGAL ARREST. 
 See Arrest. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Carrier not liable for arrest 
 made by employee acting out- 
 side scope of employment. 
 Penny v. New York Cent. & 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, 
 p. 180. 
 Passenger illegally arrested for 
 riding beyond destination not 
 entitled to punitive damages. 
 Cone V. Central R. Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 12, p. 278. 
 
 ILLEGAL CONTRACTS. 
 See Interstate Commerce. 
 
 ILLNESS. 
 
 See Damages. 
 Sickness. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT. 
 See Witnesses. 
 
 IMPROVEMENTS. 
 See Right of Way. 
 Street Railways. 
 Fixtures. 
 St. Louis, K. & S. "W. R. Co. 
 V. Nyce (Kan.), vol. 16, p. 
 798. 
 
 IMPUTABLE NEGLIGENCE. 
 See Children. 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 
 Hone (N. J.), vol. S, p. 679. 
 
 Fox V. Oakland Consol. St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 9, p. 825. 
 
 Children. 
 
 Dan V. Citizens' St. R. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol 10, p. 880. 
 Crossings. 
 Clark V. Wright (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 432. 
 Pyle V. Clark (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 432. 
 
 Driver's negligence imputa- 
 ble to passenger. 
 Bush V. Union Pac. R. Co. 
 (Kan.), vol. 20, p. 798. 
 Guest not liable for driver's 
 negligence. 
 
 Pyle v: Clark (Utah), vol. S, 
 p. 156. 
 Husband and wife. 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 Jamison (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 442. 
 Imputable negligence of hack- 
 men. 
 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & C. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 18, 
 p. 340. 
 Imputed negligence of parents. 
 Bias V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 616. 
 Ploof V. Burlington Traction 
 Co. (Vt.), vol. 13, p. 702. 
 Negligence of servant driving 
 carriage over crossing not 
 imputable to his employer. 
 Faust V. Philadelphia & R. 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 15, p. 
 146. 
 
 Of driver of wagon. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of 
 Texas v. Rogers (Tex.), 
 vol. 8, p. 141. 
 Pleading. 
 Evans V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 10, p. 837. 
 Questions of law and fact. 
 Hoimark v. Consolidated 
 Traction Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 380. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 419 
 
 INCOME. 
 
 See Taxation. 
 
 INDEMNITY. 
 See Insurance, 
 Receivers. 
 
 Bffect of iudgment against 
 indemnities on indemnitors. 
 Schaefer v. Fond du Lac 
 (Wis.), vol. 11, p. 342. 
 
 INDEPENDENT CONTRACT- 
 ORS. 
 
 See Contractors. 
 Crossings. 
 Railroads. 
 Liability for negligence where 
 railroad company was con- 
 trolling the work. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Tow (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 441. 
 Liability for negligence where 
 railroad company was con- 
 trolling the work done by 
 independent contractors. 
 Louisville &. N. R. Co. v. 
 Tow (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 441. 
 Liability of master for acts of 
 contractor. 
 Leavitt v. Bangor & A. R. 
 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 7, p. 3S4. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Stevens (Va.), vol. 16, p. 
 468. 
 Liability of railroad for injury 
 to employee of bridge com- 
 pany constructing railroad 
 bridge. 
 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, p. SSI. 
 
 Who are. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Tow (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 441. 
 
 INDICTMENTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Form of, under separate coach 
 statute. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Commonwealth (Ky.), vol. 
 
 14, p. SOS. 
 
 Liability to indictment for 
 
 charging more for short than 
 
 long haul, under Ky. Const., 
 
 sec. 218, and Ky. Statute, 
 
 sec. 820. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com- 
 , monwealth (Ky.), vol. 22, 
 p. 356.. 
 
 INDIGENCY. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Damages. 
 
 INFANTS. 
 
 See Children. 
 
 INJUNCTIONS. 
 See Abutters. 
 Crossings. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Street Railways. 
 Taxation. 
 
 Abutters. 
 
 Against elevated railroads. 
 Potts V. Quaker City Ele- 
 vated Railroad Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 1, p. 401. 
 Right of abutting owners to 
 enjoin construction of rail- 
 roads in streets. 
 Mobile & M. Ry. Co. v. 
 Alabama M. Ry. Co. 
 (Ala.), vol. 10, p. 128. 
 Right of abutting owners to 
 enjoin location of a street 
 railway. within the limits of 
 a public way. 
 
 Taylor v. Portsmouth K. & 
 
 Y. St. Ry. (Me.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 215. 
 
 Right of abutting owners to 
 
 enjoin the operation of a 
 
 steam railroad in city 
 
 streets. 
 
 Bond V. Pennsylvania Co. 
 (111.), vol. 10, p. 118. 
 Use of streets for car tracks. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Thomas (Miss.), vol. 10, 
 p. 846. 
 Abutting owner enjoining use 
 of street. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. City of 
 Chicago (111.), vol. 15, p. 
 618. 
 Conflicting rights of rival com- 
 panies. 
 
 Taraaqua & L. St. R. Co. v. 
 Inter-County St. R. Co. 
 (Pa. St.), vol. 1, p. 198. 
 
 Elevated Railroads. 
 
 Absence of actual damages. 
 
 Doane v. Lake St. El. R. 
 
 Co. (111.), vol. 7, p. 782. 
 
 O'Reilly v. New York El. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 432. 
 
 Eminent domain. 
 
 Willamette Iron Works v. 
 Oregon Railway & Naviga- 
 tion Co. (Ore.), vol. 1, p. 
 36. 
 
420 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 INJUNCTIONS— Continued. 
 Extension of street over rail- 
 road yards. 
 
 Cincinnati, Wabash & Michi- 
 gan R. Co. V. City of An- 
 derson (Ind.), vol. 3, p. 
 194. 
 Federal jurisdiction to grant, 
 to prevent state railroad com- 
 mission from regulating war 
 revenue tax. 
 
 Binsraore v. Southern EJxp. 
 Co. (C. C. Ga. ), vol. 13, p. 
 314. 
 Injunction to prevent railway 
 company from granting spe- 
 cial privileges to local car- 
 riers of baggage. 
 Kates V. Atlanta B. & C. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 140. 
 Injunction to prevent reopen- 
 - ing of decision of commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 Union Terminal Railroad Co. 
 
 V. Board of Commissioners 
 
 (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 72. 
 
 Injunction to protect company 
 
 crossing tracks of another 
 
 company. 
 
 National Docks & N. J. J. C. 
 R. Co. V. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 170. 
 Intersecting trolley lines. 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Birmingham Railway & 
 Electric Co. (Ala.), vol. 9, 
 p. 502. 
 Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Wilmington City Ry. Co. 
 (Del.), vol. 9, p. 493. 
 Is not wholly a writ of right, 
 , even to enforce a strictly 
 legal right. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Meyer (Kan.), vol. 21, 
 p. 764. 
 loaches. 
 McHugh V. Ivouisville Bridge 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 946. 
 Laying additional tracks. 
 Varwig !». Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. L. R. Co. (Ohio), vol. 
 4, p. 265. 
 Mandatory injunction to allow 
 shipper to select connecting 
 carrier. 
 
 Post V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 16, p. 201. 
 Municipal aid. 
 Neale v. County Court of 
 Wood County (W. Va. ), vol. 
 7, p. 252. 
 
 INJUNCTIONS— Coreif2««^ar. 
 Power of rival street railway to 
 enjoin illegal construction. 
 New England R. Co. v. Cen- 
 tral Railway & Electric Co. 
 (Conn.), vol. 8, p. 261. 
 Power of rival street railway 
 to enjoin ultra vires act. 
 New England R. Co. v. Cen- 
 tral Railway & Electric Co. 
 (Conn.), vol. 8, p. 261. 
 Preventing taking of land con- 
 demned before payment of 
 compensation. 
 
 Stoltz V. Milwaukee & L. W. 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 15, p. 
 820. 
 Railroads in streets. 
 
 Lockwood V. Wabash Rail- 
 road Co. (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 
 16. 
 Right of company to restrain 
 establishment of harbor lines. 
 Prosser v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 717. 
 Right of railway to enjoin es- 
 tablishment by municipality 
 of hack stand on street in 
 front of depot. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. City of 
 Chicago (111.), vol. 15, p. 
 618. 
 
 Right to damages for injury to 
 property, under prayer for 
 general relief. 
 
 McHugh V. Louisville Bridge 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 946. 
 Right to enjoin occupation of 
 land recovered by railroad in 
 ejectment, until payment of 
 value of improvements. 
 Poland R. Co. v. Chaffee 
 (Vt.), vol. 21, p. 513. 
 Right to enjoin prosecution 
 under California statute 
 granting stop-over privil- 
 eges, to prevent multiplicity 
 of suits. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Robin- 
 son (Cal. ), vol. 21, p. 160. 
 Right to enjoin use of tracks by 
 another company. 
 Alabama M. R. Co. v. South- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Ala.), vol. 10, 
 p. 112. 
 
 Right to mandatory injunction 
 
 to compel railroad company 
 
 to furnish cars. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 7', 
 
 Pittsburg, etc.. Coal Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 332. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 421 
 
 INJUNCTIONS— Continued. 
 Right to mandatory injunction 
 to compel railroad to stand 
 cars to be loaded in .street in 
 front of shipper's property. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc.. Coal Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 332. 
 Scope of decree in action to en- 
 join ejection from right of 
 way. 
 Hendrix v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 272. 
 Setting out complainant's title 
 in bill to restrain road from 
 laying tracks on his land. 
 Lewis V. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 413. 
 Street railways, unauthorized 
 construction. 
 Canastota Knife Co. v. 
 
 Newington Tramway Co. 
 
 (Conn.), vol. 7, p. 787. 
 Sufiiciency of bill to restrain 
 operation of road and to re- 
 move obstructions. 
 WesthefEer v. Lebanon & A. 
 
 St. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 170. 
 Sufficiency of petition for in- 
 junction to compel removal 
 of trolley pole. 
 Snyder v. Ft. Madison St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, p. 
 
 S3. 
 Tearing up street railway 
 tracks. 
 Des Moines City Railway 
 
 Company v. City of Des 
 
 Moines (Iowa), vol. 1, p. 
 
 215. 
 To restrain construction of 
 street railway. 
 Niemann v. Detroit Suburban 
 
 Street Railway Co. (Mich.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 172. 
 United States courts, enjoining 
 state officers from enforcing 
 certain rates for transporta- 
 tion. 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v. 
 
 Higginson (U. S.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 1. 
 Unla^yful construction. 
 Lehigh Coal & N. Co. v. 
 
 Inter-County St. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 197. 
 
 INJURIES. 
 
 See Personal Injuries. 
 
 INJURIES TO PROPERTY. 
 
 See Damages. 
 
 INJURIES TO STOCK. 
 See Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 INSANITY. 
 
 Injury to passenger by insane 
 person. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Greenthal (C. C. A.), vol. 
 6, p. 261. 
 
 INSOLVENCY. 
 
 See Corporations. 
 
 Preferential Claims. 
 Railroads. 
 Receivers. 
 Reorganization. 
 
 Evidence of insolvency. 
 
 JefEris v. Fitchburg R. Co. 
 (Wis.), vol. 4, p. 608. 
 Filing of claim against insol- 
 vent; 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. Carnegie 
 Steel Co., Limited (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 6, p. 420. 
 Preference of creditors. 
 Johnson v. Miller (Pa.), vol. 
 3, p. 657. 
 Preferential claims, franchise 
 tax levied during receiver- 
 ship. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Atlantic Transp. Co. (N. 
 J.), vol. 21, p. 709. 
 Preferred claims, operating 
 expenses. 
 
 Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. 
 V. Jacksonville, T. & K. 
 W. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 9, p. 582. 
 Priority of supply debts. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. Carnegie 
 
 Steel Co., Limited (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 6, p. 420. 
 
 Right of supply creditor where 
 
 there has been a diversion of 
 
 assets. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. Carnegie 
 Steel Co., Limited (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 6, p. 420. 
 
 INSPECTION. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Foreign Cars. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Duty of master to inspect for- 
 eign cars. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Veach (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 24. 
 Foreign cars. 
 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Carroll (C. C. A.), vol. 9, 
 p. 759. 
 
422 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 INSFECTION— Continued. 
 
 Inspection of cars. 
 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Hilliard 
 (Ky.), vol. S, p. S39. 
 Inspection of tracks. 
 Cox V. Chicag-o & N.. W. Ky. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 604. 
 Liability of company for fail- 
 ure to discover defect in for- 
 eign car, 
 
 Jones V. New York, N. H. & 
 H. E. Co. (R. I.), vol. 11, p. 
 414. 
 
 INSTBITOTIONS. 
 
 See Burden of Proof. 
 Children. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings. 
 Damages. 
 
 Direction of Verdict. 
 Evidence. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 Absence of request to charge. 
 Southern Ey. Co. v. Ivough- 
 ridge (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 387. 
 Abstract propositions. 
 Claiborne v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 14, 
 p. 217. 
 Admissions of counsel. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 
 286. 
 A party cannot complain of 
 error in instruction if there 
 is like error in instruction 
 given at his request. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 Assignments of error in giv- 
 ing. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. Ebaugh 
 (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 701. 
 As to contributory negligence 
 of person on track not contra- 
 dictory. 
 
 McCall V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 760. 
 
 Authorizing verdict on grounds 
 
 other than those alleged. 
 
 Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bell (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 384. 
 
 Burden of proof. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Johnson (Tex.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 82. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gidley (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 214. 
 
 INSTBtrCTIONS— Co«ii»««rf. 
 Burden of proving negligence- 
 Hale V. New York & N. E. R- 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 16, p. 
 535. 
 Carriers of goods. 
 
 Hinton v. Eastern Ry. Co. of 
 Minnesota (Minn.), vol. 11, 
 p. 125. 
 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Submission of issues in ac- 
 tion for loss of freight. 
 Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 429. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Care due by carrier of pas- 
 sengers. 
 
 Sanders v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 281. 
 Damages in action for carry- 
 ing passengers beyond sta- 
 tion. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bryant 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 159. 
 Duty of passenger for flag 
 station whose ticket has not 
 been taken to notify con- 
 ductor. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Dorsey (Ga.), vol. 14, 
 p. 212. 
 Effect of attempting to leave 
 car at rest. 
 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 Eldridge (111.), vol. 2, p. 
 385. 
 Negligence in starting train. 
 Johnson v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 12, p. 
 273. 
 Substitution of baggage car 
 for passenger car. 
 Baltimore & Potomac R. 
 Co. V. Swann (Md.), vol. 
 2, p. 187. 
 Whether warranted by plead- 
 ing and proof in action for 
 injury to passenger in 
 alighting from moving car. 
 Payne v. Nashville, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 p. 677. 
 Charge as to prejudice against 
 railroads. 
 
 Cornell v. Manistee & N. E. 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 11, p. 
 263. 
 
 Charge on facts. 
 Jones V. Charleston, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 261. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 423 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— Co«/?««^ar. 
 Charge on facts properly re- 
 fused. 
 
 Cooper V. Georgia, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 
 667. 
 Charge upon specific questions. 
 Schaidler v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. IS, 
 p. 105. 
 Children. 
 
 In actions for injuries to 
 children. 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Johnson (Tex.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 291. 
 Consistency. 
 
 St. Ltouis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Tomlinson (Ark.), vol. 22, 
 p. 682. 
 Schmidt v. St. Louis R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 711. 
 Construction of general oral 
 charge. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Lynn 
 (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 570. 
 Contradictory and conflicting 
 instructions. 
 
 Ford V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, p. 
 489. 
 Contradictory instructions. 
 Lemasters v. Southern Pac 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 20, p. 296 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. » 
 Griffin (111.), vol. 17, p 
 767. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v 
 Bowlds (Ky. ), vol. 23, p, 
 553. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 son (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 
 97. 
 Care required to be exercised 
 in order to escape imputa- 
 tion of contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Emminger (Neb.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 188. 
 
 Erroneous instruction as to 
 
 contributory negligence, in 
 
 action for injury on track. 
 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 551. 
 
 Error to refuse to instruct as 
 to certain alleged contribu- 
 tory negligence which has 
 been pleaded and as to 
 which evidence has been 
 introduced, and which, if 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— Continued. 
 
 established, is a complete 
 defense to certain alleged 
 negligence on defendant's 
 part. 
 
 Louisiana Western Exten- 
 sion Rj'. Co. V. Carstens 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 
 12, p. 781. 
 Instruction that contributory 
 negligence is based upon, 
 and cannot exist without, 
 negligence on defendant's 
 part. 
 
 Union Stock- Yards Co. v. 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 p. 503. 
 Covered by other instructions. 
 Cook z/. Los Angeles & P. 
 Electric Ry. Co. ' (Cal.), 
 vol. 23, p. 69. 
 Elgin, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Duffy (111.), vol. 23, p. 361. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, 
 p. 628. 
 Kowalski v. Chicago G. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 
 32. 
 Crossings. 
 Care due .infirm person at 
 crossing. 
 
 Green v. Southern Pac. 'Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 13, p. 511. 
 Care required of person cross- 
 ing track. 
 
 Steele v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. IS, p. 
 129. 
 Duty of traveler to look and 
 listen at crossing. 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Crabtree (Ark.), vol. 
 20, p. 923. 
 Effect of failure to give sig- 
 nals and warning at cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Schweinfurth v. Cleveland, 
 C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 
 (Ohio), vol. 15, p. 73. 
 Error in instructing as to 
 comparative weight of posi- 
 tive and negative evidence 
 in regard to crossing sig- 
 nals. 
 
 Haun V. Rio Grande W. Ry. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 19, p. 370. 
 Instruction that trainmen 
 should exercise "greater 
 care", at crossing, too in- 
 definite. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Clark (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 408. 
 
424 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— Continued. INSTRUCTIONS— Co«ifz««erf. 
 
 Proximate cause of injury at 
 crossing. 
 Elgin, etc., Ry. Co. v. Duffy 
 
 (111.), vol. 23, p. 361. 
 Damages. 
 Assuming facts in defining 
 measure of damages for 
 personal injuries. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Harrington (III.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 429. 
 Charge to jury as to use of 
 mortality tables. 
 Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Austin (Ga.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. S39. 
 Damages in action for death 
 hy wrongful act. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Dixon (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 827. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kelly (111.), vol. 17, p. 52. 
 Elements of recovery in ac- 
 tion for personal injuries. 
 Beath v. Rapid Ry. Co. 
 
 (Mich.), vol. IS, p. 793. 
 Exemplar}' damages. 
 
 Garrick v. Florida Cent. & 
 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 13, p. Stl. 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ray (Tenn.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 174. 
 Exemplary damages for 
 wrongful ejection. 
 Lexington & E. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Lyons (Ky. ), vol. 11, p. 
 
 212. 
 Inaccurate instruction as to 
 measure of damages not 
 prejudicial where verdict 
 was not excessive. 
 Louisville Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Tucker (Ky.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 805. 
 Instruction as to method of 
 determining market value 
 of land in condemnation 
 proceedings. 
 Snouffer v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 11, p. 571. 
 Measure of damages. 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Bryant (Ga.), vol. 15, 
 
 p. 817. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Johnston (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 286. 
 Malott V. Shimer (Ind. ), 
 
 vol. 15, p. 774. 
 
 Measure of damages for 
 wrongful death. 
 Green v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 13, p. 511. 
 Method of ascertaining dam- 
 ages in action for personal 
 injuries. 
 
 Rooney v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 
 14, p. 425. 
 Permanent disability. 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Conway (111.), vol. 11, 
 p. 7. 
 Death by wrongful act, in 
 action for death at crossing 
 it is proper to refuse instruc- 
 tions requiring that deceased 
 should have exercised all the 
 care and caution. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Clark (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 407. 
 Defect cured by other instruc- 
 tions. 
 
 Travert". Spokane St. Ry. Co. 
 (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 759. 
 Defendant is estopped to com- 
 plain of an instruction given 
 for plaintiff where a similar 
 instruction has been given at 
 his request. 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Conway (111.), vol. 11, p. 
 7. 
 Definition of gross negligence 
 not properly given when it is 
 not involved in case. 
 Louisiana Western l)xten- 
 sion Ry. Co. v. Carstens 
 (tex. Civ. App.), vol. 12, 
 p. 782. 
 Discretion of court as to. 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol. 17, 
 p. 212. 
 Duty of court to instruct cor- 
 rectly when instructions not 
 requested are given. 
 Ford V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, p. 
 489. 
 
 Duty to give. 
 Mitchell V. Carolina Cent. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 13, 
 p. 201. 
 
 Effect of negligence, harmless 
 error. 
 Anderson v. Union Terminal 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 834. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 425 
 
 INSTRXJOTlO-NS—ConHnued. 
 Estoppel to complain of in- 
 struction. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe 
 (III.), vol. 11, p. 163. 
 Evidence. 
 
 Krroneous for failing to give 
 all the facts. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Harrington (III.), vol.23, 
 
 p. 429. 
 
 Erroneous instruction as to 
 
 burden of proof. 
 
 Morbey v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 12, p. 687. 
 
 Error in not refusing re- 
 quested instructions based 
 on hypothetical facts. 
 Sims V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 76. 
 
 Error not rendered harmless 
 
 by evidence on question not 
 
 submitted to jury. 
 
 Merrill v. Pacific Transfer 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 21, p. 143. 
 
 Error to give instruction 
 which is not justified by 
 the evidence. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & St. Ry. 
 Co. V. Jordan (Ark.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 681. 
 
 Giving undue prominence to 
 particular phase of evi- 
 dence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 224. 
 Ignoring material facts. 
 Price V. Chesapeake & O. 
 
 R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 399. 
 Instructions contrary to evi- 
 dence are reversible error. 
 Penny v. New York Cent. 
 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 180. 
 Instructions misleading as to 
 character of evidence nec- 
 essary are erroneous. 
 Weiss V. Bethlehem Iron 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 305. 
 Instructions not warranted 
 by evidence. 
 Smith V. St. Louis & S. F. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mq.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 609. 
 May be based on evidence 
 insufficient to support ver- 
 dict. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— Co«i;!!««ear. 
 Not objectionable as comment 
 upon evidence. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 
 759. 
 Refusal to instruct specifically 
 as to evidence to be consid- 
 ered by jury. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Pittman (Ky.), vol. 23, 
 p. 55. 
 Refusal to submit charge 
 justified by evidence. 
 Connelly v. Manhattan R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 2, p. 385. 
 Singling out circumstances 
 as evidence of negligence. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Cromer (Va.), vol. 23, p. 
 720. 
 Sufficiency of evidence on 
 which to base. 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, 
 p. 61. 
 Value of testimony. 
 
 Pomeroy v. Boston & M. 
 R. R. (Mass.), vol. 12, 
 p. 119. 
 Weight of evidence. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Hoover (Ind. Ter. ), vol. 
 23, p. 73. 
 Runyan v. Central R. Co. 
 of New Jersey (N. J.), 
 vol. 19, p. 290. 
 Where instruction requested 
 fails to present distinctly 
 a material fact which may 
 control, it is properly re- 
 fused. 
 
 Weiss V. Bethlehem Iron 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 12, p. 
 305. 
 Exceptions to. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 V. Lucas (Ga. ), vol. 16, p. 
 818 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 660. 
 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. 
 Co. V. Becker (Ark.), vol. 
 16, i). 348. 
 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Mar- 
 pole (Va.), vol. 16, p. 291. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Reeves (Va. ), vol. 16, p. 166. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Stevens (Va.), vol. 16, p. 
 468. 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 16, p. SSI. 
 
426 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— Continued. 
 Failure to except. 
 Robbins v. Brockton St. Ry. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 483. 
 Failure to give on issue not 
 raised by pleadings not error. 
 Sanders v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 281. 
 ■ Fires. 
 
 Origin of fire, 
 lyiverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. 
 V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. IS, p. S30. 
 Where the fact that engine 
 causing a fire passed along 
 defendant's road is undis- 
 puted, no error is committed 
 in assuming such to be the 
 case in instructing the 
 jury. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Glenny (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 839. 
 Harmless error in action for 
 killing live stock. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Hall 
 (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 276. 
 Instructions as to questions not 
 raised bj' pleadings. 
 Trezona v. Chicago G. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 12, 
 p. 104. 
 Instruction authorizing recov- 
 ery under either count of 
 declaration. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Glenny 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 839. 
 Instructions not warranted by 
 pleadings. 
 
 Fitzgibbon v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 270. 
 
 Instructions presenting leading 
 
 points of but one side are 
 
 erroneous. 
 
 Weiss V. Bethlehem Iron Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 12, p. 305. 
 Invasion of province of jury. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Nel- 
 son (111.), vol. 2, p. 385. 
 Irrelevant instructions. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. 
 V. Tripp (111.), vol. 14, p. 
 119. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Abrogation of rules. 
 Konold V. Rio Grande W. 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 17, 
 p. 450. 
 An instruction that servant 
 using appliances with 
 knowledge of defects, as- 
 sumes risk therefrom not 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— Continued. 
 
 inconsistent with one that 
 it is master's duty to see 
 that safe and suitable ap- 
 pliances are furnished. 
 Bussey v. Charleston & W. 
 C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 474. 
 Assumption of risk from de- 
 fective machinery. 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. R. Co. (S. 
 Car.), vol. 20, p. 622. 
 
 Assumption of risk must not 
 be ignored in charging jury 
 where there is evidence 
 tending to establish it, and 
 error in so doing is not 
 cured by another paragraph 
 in regard thereto. 
 Quinn v. Chicago, R. I. 
 & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 12, p. 512. 
 As to effect of violation of 
 
 rule by servant not rendered 
 erroneous by omission of 
 comma after word "not." 
 Jarvis v. Flint & P. M. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 312. 
 Care required in inspecting 
 yard. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 
 
 V. Delaney (111.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 859. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 
 engineer. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hiltner (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 279. 
 Duty of company as to bal- 
 lasting tracks. 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Morrissey (111.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 624. 
 Duty of master to furnish 
 safe place to work. 
 Rush V. Spokane Falls & 
 
 N. Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 285. 
 
 Duty to protect employee 
 from his own intemper- 
 ance. 
 
 Parker v. Winona & St. P. 
 R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, 
 p. 594. 
 
 Erroneous charge as to lack 
 of corroboration of testi- 
 mony not cured by doubt- 
 ful instruction. 
 Weiss V. Bethlehem Iron 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 305. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 427 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— Cowifjww^rf. INSTRUCTIONS— Coniinued. 
 
 In action by an employee to 
 recover for personal in- 
 juries, an instruction as to 
 latent defects is reversible 
 error where it was decided 
 on appeal that the defects 
 complained of were patent. 
 Fordyce v. Edwards (Ark.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. S21. 
 In action by servant to recover 
 for personal injuries caused 
 by obstruction on track, 
 refusal to instruct that 
 servant assumed the risk 
 of such accident, not error. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. 
 
 V. Bohau (Tex.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 492. 
 In action for death of em- 
 ployee, risks assumed need 
 not be specified. 
 Augusta Southern R. Co. v, 
 
 McDade (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 548. 
 Instructions in action for 
 death of employee that 
 recovery may be had if death 
 resulted from defective ap- 
 pliance should have pre- 
 sented defenses of con- 
 tributory negligence and 
 waiver. 
 Ford V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 11, p. 489. 
 Instruction that plaintiff as- 
 sumed "natural" risks of 
 employment not misleading 
 where correct instruction as 
 to risks assumed has pre- 
 viously been given. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. 
 
 V. Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, 
 
 p-. 492. 
 Irrelevant instruction as to 
 duty of master to instruct 
 servant given charge of ex- 
 plosives. 
 Rush V. Spokane Falls & 
 
 N. Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 285. 
 Right of recovery for death of 
 minor servant. 
 Middle Georgia & A. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Barnett (Ga.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 532. 
 Scope of employment. 
 
 Morbey v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 12, p. 688. 
 
 SufBciency of general in- 
 
 . struction as to liability of 
 
 master for furnishing un- 
 
 safe appliance where no 
 specific instruction is 
 asked. 
 
 Bussey v. Charleston & 
 W. C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 11, p. 474. 
 Mere abstraction. 
 
 LfOuisville R. Co. v. Park 
 (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 385. 
 Mere length of instruction 
 will not warrant reversal. 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, 
 p. 61. 
 Need not be a writing in fed- 
 eral court. 
 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., Lim- 
 ited, V. Glover (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 21, p. 272. 
 Need not set out all the evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Schmidt v. St. Louis R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 711. 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 Bowen v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 331. 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 340. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Harrington (111.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 429. 
 Milam v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 253. 
 Erroneous charge as to negli- 
 gence authorizing recovery. 
 ■ Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Nelson (111.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 385. 
 Erroneous definition of negli- 
 gence. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Vaughan (Ga.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 512. 
 Failure to fully charge as to 
 negligent conduct. 
 Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bell (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 385. 
 Instruction as to presump- 
 tion of negligence under 
 Georgia statute. 
 Augusta Southern R. Co; 
 
 V. McDade (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 549. 
 Instructions confined to neg- 
 ligence alleged. 
 Moss V. North Carolina R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 19. 
 
428 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— Continued. INSTRUCTIONS— Continued. 
 
 Instruction that company is 
 liable if its servants "failed 
 to do any thing that they 
 were required to do" is 
 error. 
 
 L/Ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Clark (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 407. 
 It is not reversible error for 
 the court after reciting the 
 nature of the action, the is- 
 sues, etc., to refer the jury 
 to the petition for a fuller 
 statement of the elements 
 of the negligence com- 
 plained of. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Sternberger (Kan.), vol. 
 12, p. 746. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Steele v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 15, p. 129. 
 
 Negligence and contributory 
 
 negligence, not warranted by 
 
 evidence. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Cromer (Va.), vol. 23, p. 
 720. 
 Hew trial because of conflicting 
 instructions. 
 
 Edwards v. Atlantic Coast 
 Line R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 23, p. 38. 
 Hew trial because of erroneous 
 instructions. 
 
 Daniels v. Florida Cent. & 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol.23, 
 p. 107. 
 Not given in form requested. 
 Wheeler v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 23, p. 84. 
 Objections. 
 
 Mickelson v. New East Tintic 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 20, p.. 
 8SS. 
 Rush V. Spokane Falls & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 20, 
 p. 285. 
 Peremptory instruction may be 
 given without depriving 
 plaintiff of constitutional 
 right of trial by jury. 
 Morris v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 368. 
 Presentation of issues. 
 
 Blackmore v. Mo. Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 360. 
 
 Presumption as to timeliness of 
 giving. 
 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 660. 
 
 Presumption that jury consid- 
 ered them as a whole. 
 Galesburg & G. E. R. Co. v. 
 
 Milroy (111.), vol. 19, p. 277. 
 Province of court. 
 Bussey v. Charleston & W. 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 474. 
 Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. 
 
 z/. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal. ), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 530. 
 Province of court to modify. 
 Cook V. Los Angeles & P. 
 
 Electric Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 69. 
 Proximate cause. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 476. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Brown (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 794. 
 Robertson v. Wabash R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 16. 
 Railroads in streets, failure 
 to instruct as to care to be 
 exercised by railroad company 
 in street. 
 Mcllhaney v. Southern R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 11, p. 100. 
 Reciting or referring to plead- 
 ings in. 
 Graybill v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 178. 
 Repetition. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Rv. Co. 
 
 V. Sturey (Neb.), vo'l. 13, 
 
 p. 849. 
 Nashville St. R. R. v. 
 
 O'Bryan (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 902. 
 Requested instructions covered 
 by instructions given. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kuhn (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 324. 
 Jarvis v. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 
 
 (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 312. 
 Kansas Citj', etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 McElroy (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 398. 
 Review of. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Bond (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 757. 
 McGraw v. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Neb.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 764. 
 
 Special instructions. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. V. Wil- 
 der (C. C. A.), vol. 13,. p. 
 520. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 429 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— Co«;z'»«^rf. INSTJ'RA.'NaE— Continued. 
 
 Special instruction as to ques- 
 tion covered by general in- 
 struction. 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Hellenthal (C. C. A.), vol. 
 13, p. 774. 
 Special verdict. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 16, p. 
 476. 
 Stock, liability for injury to 
 stock bj' special train. 
 Graybill v. Chicago, M. <% 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 20, p. 178. 
 Stock, speed in excess of ordi- 
 nance as affecting liability. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wood 
 (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 570. 
 Submission of theory of case. 
 I/ion V. Baltimore City Pass. 
 Ry. Co. (Md.), vol. 23, p. 
 538. 
 Sufficiency of assignment of 
 error as to instructions. 
 Atlantic Cons. St. R. Co. v. 
 Beauchamp (Ga. ), vol. 1, p. 
 279. 
 San Antonio R. Co. v. Mechler 
 (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 279. 
 Tending to confuse. 
 
 Trott z'. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 391. 
 Theory of case. 
 Rhoades v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 22, 
 p. 283. 
 Tickets and fares, sufficient 
 compliance with condition of 
 excursion ticket requiring 
 identification of holder. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 v. Cannon (Ga. ), vol- 14, 
 p. 405. 
 Trespassers. 
 Duty to trespasser on track. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Harby (C. C. A.), vol.15, 
 p. 737. 
 Weight of evidence. 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 Durham (Ga. ), vol. 16, p. 
 606. 
 
 INSULTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Damages. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 ■ Fires. 
 Relief Associations. 
 
 Effect of inability to procure 
 insurance where statute 
 makes company an insurer. 
 Dean v. Charleston & W. C. 
 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. SSS. 
 Indemnity to street railway 
 company^ on account of injury 
 resulting from accident. 
 Phillipsburg Horse Car Co. v. 
 
 Fidelity & Casualty Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 2, p. 41S. 
 Insurer's right to recover. 
 Omaha & R. V. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Granite State Fire Ins. Co. 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 14, p. 140. 
 L(ife insurance mitigating dam- 
 ages for wrongful death. 
 Clune V. Ristine (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 15, p. 761. 
 Subrogation of foreign insur- 
 ance company. 
 L,umberman's Mut. Ins. Co. 
 
 V. Kansas City, Ft. S. & 
 
 M. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 14^ 
 
 p. 127. 
 
 INTENTIONAL "WRONG. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 INTEREST. 
 See Bonds. 
 Damages. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Coupons. 
 
 Town Council of Lexington 
 V. Union Nat. Bank 
 (Miss.), vol. 9, p. 321. 
 Damages. 
 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 10, p. 306. 
 
 St. Louis, O. H. & C. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Fowler (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 405. 
 
 Interest on investment must be 
 
 included in valuation of road 
 
 by railroad commission for 
 
 purpose of fixing railroad 
 
 rates. 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 
 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. 
 
 (Tex.), vol. 13, p. 149. 
 
 On amount of judgment against 
 
 railroad for taxation. 
 
 Cumberland & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 State (Md.), vol. 20, p. 754. 
 
 INTERPRETERS. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 Competency of. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Bagley (Kan.), vol. 13, 
 p. 259. 
 
430 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 INTERROGATORIES. 
 See Railroads. 
 Assuming' negligence. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 Calling for evidentiary facts. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 Discretion of court to refuse. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.),, vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 Party not entitled to answers 
 to interrogatories as to what 
 particular possible witnesses 
 would testify. 
 
 Robbins v. Brockton St. Ry. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 
 483. 
 President refusing to answer 
 in action against his com- 
 pany for personal injuries. 
 Gunn V. New Yorls, N. H. & 
 H. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 14, 
 p. 830. 
 Scope of interrogatory as to 
 whether the act of plaintiff 
 in placing himself on foot- 
 board of the engine contrib- 
 uted to his injury. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 Submitting special interrogato- 
 ries. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Win- 
 ters (111.), vol. 12, p. 93. 
 Use of words "for the plain- 
 tiff." 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 
 INTERSECTING RAIL- 
 ROADS. 
 
 See Collisions. 
 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Injunctions. 
 
 INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
 See Foreign Corporations. 
 Rates. 
 Taxation. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Appeal from decree enforcing 
 order of interstate commerce 
 commission. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Behlmer (U. S.), vol. 10, 
 p. 778. 
 Authority of interstate com- 
 merce commission to institute 
 
 INTERSTATE COMMERCE— 
 
 Continued. 
 
 I^roceedings to enforce its 
 
 orders. 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. 
 R. Co. V. Interstate Com- 
 merce Commission (U. S. ), 
 vol. 4, p. 223. 
 Carriers of live stock, diseased 
 
 cattle. 
 
 Davis V. Texas & P. R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App. ), vol. 3, p. 
 426. 
 Carriers whose lines are wholly 
 
 within the state. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion V. Bellaire, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 768. 
 Commerce as subject of legis- 
 lation. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion V. Alabama Midland 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 3, 
 p. 638. 
 
 Competition. 
 
 Behlmer v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 9, 
 p. 620. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. S, 
 p. 702. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Alabama Mid- 
 land R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 3, p. 638. 
 
 Tex. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Inter- 
 state Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S.), vol. S, p. 87. 
 Actual and potential com- 
 petition. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Com- " 
 mission v. Alabama Mid- 
 land R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 3, p. 638. 
 Competition affecting. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Western & A. 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 298. 
 Provision prohibiting the 
 
 consolidation of parallel 
 
 competing railroads. 
 
 Louisville & Nashville R. 
 Co. V. Kentucky (U. S.), 
 vol. 3, p. S2S. 
 
 Southern railway and steam- 
 ship association, competi- 
 tion between lines. 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Alabama Mid- 
 land R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 3, p. 638. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 431 
 
 INTERSTATE COMMBROE- 
 Continued, 
 
 Water competition. 
 Behlmer v. I/ouisville & N. 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.),' vol. 
 9, p. 620. 
 Connecting carrier a proper, 
 but not necessary, party de- 
 fendant. 
 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S. ), vol. S, p. 86. 
 Constitutionality of city li- 
 cense tax where railroad is 
 engaged in interstate com- 
 merce. 
 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 City of Bessemer (Ala.), 
 
 vol. 6, p. 410. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 
 requiring trains to stop at 
 
 stations. 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. State of Ohio, Lawrence 
 (U. S.), vol. 16, p. 26. 
 Construction of interstate com- 
 merce law, 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S.), vol. 5, p. 
 700. 
 Construction of statutes. 
 
 Tex. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Inter- 
 state Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S.), vol. 5, p. 87. 
 
 Discrimination. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. S, 
 pp. 700, 702. 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Alabama Mid- 
 land R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 3, p. 638. 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Western & A. 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 298. 
 Aggregate charges, construc- 
 tion of interstate commerce 
 law. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S.), vol. S, 
 p. 701. 
 Beneficial to trade. 
 Behlmer v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 9, p. 620. 
 Circumstances and conditions 
 to be considered by commis- 
 sion. 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Inter- 
 
 INTERSTATB COMMERCE - 
 Continued. 
 
 state Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S. ), vol. S, p. 701. 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Alabama Mid- 
 land R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 3, p. 638. 
 Circumstances to be consid- 
 ered by the commission in 
 forming its judgment as to 
 whether a preference is un- 
 due or unreasonable. 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. S, 
 p. 87. 
 Cost of carriage, sufficiency 
 of evidence. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. 5, p. 
 700. 
 Custom a "circumstance." 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. S, 
 p. 700. 
 Difference in population and 
 traffic. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. S, 
 p. 701. 
 Discrimination in favor of 
 competitive point on ac- 
 count of competition which 
 compels reduction of rates 
 to those points below the 
 rate charged for shorter dis- 
 tances is not an undue or 
 unjust discrimination pro- 
 hibited by the act to regu- 
 late commerce. 
 E. T., V. & G. Ry. Co. v. 
 Interstate Commerce Com. 
 (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 729. 
 Dissimilarity of circum- 
 stances and conditions 
 warranting change of rate. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Behlmer (U. S.), vol. 18, 
 p. 167. 
 Equality of charges. 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com. 
 (U. S.), vol. 5, p. 701. 
 Interest of public and carriers 
 in certain traffic to be con- 
 sidered by commission. 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S.), vol. S, 
 p. 87. 
 
432 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 INTERSTATE COMMERCE- 
 Continued. 
 
 Ivocal rate as part of through 
 rate. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Alabama Mid- 
 land R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 3, p. 638. 
 L/ong and short hauls. 
 Behlmer v. L/Ouisville & N. 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 3, 
 p. 426. 
 Behlmer v. l/ouisville & N. 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 9, p. 620. 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. S, 
 p. 701. 
 Physical disadvantage of 
 carrier. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. S, p. 
 702. 
 Place of delivery to be con- 
 sidered. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Alabama Mid- 
 land R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 3, p. 638. 
 Question of fact. 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. S, 
 p. 700. 
 Recovery cannot be had for 
 loss of goods under contract 
 providing for unlawful dis- 
 crimination. 
 
 Church V. Minneapolis & 
 St. L,. Ry. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 21, p. 382. 
 Right of carrier, in fixing 
 rates, to consider facts not 
 found by commission. 
 E. T., V. & G. Ry. Co. V. 
 Interstate Commerce Com. 
 (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 729. 
 Interstate Commerce Com. 
 V. Clyde Steamship Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 751. 
 Undue preference a question 
 of fact. 
 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S.), vol. S, 
 p. 87. 
 Unjust discrimination. 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. S, p. 
 701. 
 
 INTERSTATE OOMMEBOB— 
 Continued. 
 What constitutes, 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Alabama Mid- 
 land R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 3, p. 638. 
 Enforcement of commerce or- 
 ders bj' courts. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S.), vol. 5, p. 702. 
 Enforcement of invalid orders. 
 Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion V. lyehigh Valley R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. S, p. 704. 
 Evidence, right to withhold. 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. 
 R. Co. V. Interstate Com- 
 merce Commission (U. S. ), 
 vol. 4, p. 223. 
 Evidence that contract was 
 illegal as violation of inter- 
 state commerce law is 
 admissible under general is- 
 sue. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Federal control. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Harrison 
 (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 270. 
 Foreign corporations. 
 Averill v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 5, p. 704. 
 Foreign corporations, whether 
 interference with interstate 
 commerce to require foreign 
 railroad corporation to be- 
 come resident corporation. 
 Com. V. Mobile & O. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 18S. 
 Indian Territory, whether act 
 applies. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Bowles (Ind. Ten), vol. 8, 
 p. 12. 
 
 Interference with carrier of 
 mail. 
 
 Illinois Central R. Co. v. 
 State of Illinois, Butler 
 (U. S.), vol. 4, p. 354. 
 Interstate commerce act, con- 
 tinuous line. 
 
 .Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Behlmer (U. S.), vol. 18, p. 
 167. 
 
 Interstate commerce commis- 
 sion a body corporate. 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Inter- 
 state Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S.), vol. S, p. 86. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 43:^ 
 
 INTERSTATE COMMERCE— INTERSTATE COMMBRCE- 
 Continued. Continued. 
 
 Issuance of thousand-mile 
 tickets. 
 
 Smith V. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 8, 
 p. 496. 
 It is a reasonable exercise of the 
 police power of a state and 
 no unconstitutional interfer- 
 ence with interstate commerce 
 or with the transportation of 
 the mails of the United 
 States, or the taking of the 
 property of a railway com- 
 pany without due process of 
 law, for a state to require by 
 statute that every regular pas- 
 senger train running wholly 
 within limits of the state, 
 shall stop at all stations at 
 county seats directly in its 
 course for a sufiBcient length 
 of time to take on and 
 discharge passengers with 
 safety. 
 
 Grladson v. State of Minne- 
 sota (U. S.), vol. 7, p. SS8. 
 Jurisdiction of federal courts. 
 Averill v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. S, p. 704. 
 License tax on railroad. 
 
 City of Anniston v. Southern 
 Ry. Co. (Ala.), vol. 9, p. 
 36. 
 Limiting liability. 
 
 Solan V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 2, 
 p. 167. 
 Necessary parties to injunction. 
 Averill v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. S, p. 704. 
 No recovery can be had for 
 breach of illegal contract for 
 interstate shipment. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Occupation tax on road en- 
 gaged in. 
 
 City of York v. Chicago, B. 
 & Q. R. Co. (Neb.), vol. 
 14, p. 200. 
 Order of railroad commissioners 
 requiring terminal company 
 to furnish facilities to railroad 
 engaged in interstate com- 
 merce and fixing rates is not 
 regulation of. 
 
 State, Lamar, Atty. Gen., v. 
 Jacksonville Term. Co. 
 (Fla.), vol. 16, p. 727. 
 Orders of the United States 
 ID— 28 
 
 commission should promote 
 welfare of all parties. 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Alabama Mid- 
 land R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 3, p. 638. 
 Passes, authority to issue. 
 Curry v. Kansas, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 7SS. 
 Pleading in action for penalties 
 for violation of interstate 
 commerce regulations pro- 
 hibiting the confinement of 
 stock in cars for longer than 
 t w e n t y-eight consecutive 
 hours. 
 
 United States v. St. Louis & 
 S. F. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, 
 p. 812. 
 Power of court to modify order. 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S. ), vol. S, p. 702. 
 Power of interstate commerce 
 commission. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Inter- 
 state Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S. ), vol. 5, p. 702. 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Inter- 
 state Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S. ), vol. 5, p. 86. 
 Power to validate illegal con- 
 tract for interstate ship- 
 ment. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Presumption that interstate 
 commerce commission has 
 complied with act. 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 Home (Tenn.), vol. 19, p. 
 509. 
 Prohibiting freight trains from 
 running on Sundays. 
 Hennington v. Georgia (U. 
 S.), vol. 4, p. 488. 
 Promotion of commerce the 
 object of the interstate com- 
 merce act. 
 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Inter- 
 state Commerce Commission 
 (U. S.), vol. S, p. 87. 
 Proof of rules on file with com- 
 mission. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co, v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Purpose of interstate com- 
 merce act. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion V. Alabama Midland 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 3, 
 p. 638. 
 
434 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 INTERSTATE OOMMEBCE— 
 Continued. 
 Kailroad subject to control of 
 interstate commerce com- 
 mission cannot limit that 
 control. 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. 
 R. Co. V. Interstate Com- 
 merce Commission (U. S.), 
 vol. 4, p. 223. 
 
 Rates. 
 
 Determination of reasonable- 
 ness of rates. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Colo- 
 rado F. & I. Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 559. 
 Effect of one connecting- car- 
 rier's failure to publish 
 
 joint rate on validity of 
 
 contract to carry. 
 
 Va. Coal & Iron Co. v. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. 
 (Va.), vol. 21, p. 261. 
 Evidence of approval of rates 
 
 by interstate commerce 
 
 commission. 
 
 Mouton V. LfOuisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 
 674. 
 Power of commission to fix 
 
 rates. 
 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. 
 R. Co. V. Interstate Com- 
 merce Commission (U. 
 S.), vol. 4, p. 223. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Alabama Mid- 
 land R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 3, p. 638. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. Northeastern 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 4, p. 23S. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. The Cincin- 
 nati, New Orleans, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ohio), vol. 4, p. 
 673. 
 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. 5, 
 p. 87. 
 Power of federal court to fix 
 
 rates. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Colo- 
 rado, F. & I. Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 559. 
 Power of interstate commerce 
 
 commission to fix rates. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Colo- 
 rado P. & I. Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 559. 
 
 INTERSTATE OOMMBRCB— 
 Continued. 
 
 Power of state to regulate 
 rates for shipments be- 
 tween points in same state, 
 but passing through an- 
 other state. 
 
 Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Board of Railroad Com'rs 
 
 (Ark.), vol. 21, p. 178. 
 
 Power to prescribe maximum 
 
 rates for transportation of 
 
 freight. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission V. The Cincin- 
 nati, New Orleans, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ohio), vol. 4, p. 
 673. 
 Rate war, necessary parties to 
 injunction. 
 
 Averill v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 5, p. 704. 
 Readjustment of rates. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. S, p. 
 702. 
 Reduced rates. 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Comm.erce Com- 
 mission (U. S. ), vol. 5, 
 p. 87. 
 Reduced valuation as consid- 
 eration for reduced rate. 
 Ward 71. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 
 30. 
 Sufficiency of restraining 
 order. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Colo- 
 rado P. & I. Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 559. 
 Unlawful freight rates, order 
 of commission binding on 
 successor. 
 
 Behlmer v. Louisville & N. 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 620. 
 
 Validity of agreement for 
 
 rates less than published 
 
 rates. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Har- 
 rison (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 270. 
 Validity of agreement for 
 reduced rates. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Bowles (Ind. Ter. ), 
 vol. 8, p. 12. 
 
 Validity of agreement for 
 special rates. 
 
 Kizer v. Texarkana & Ft. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. 
 13, p. 288. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 435 
 
 INTERSTATE COMMERCE- 
 Continued. 
 
 Validity of joint rate based 
 on mistake of connecting 
 carrier in quoting- its rate. 
 Va. Coal & Iron Co. v. 
 I^ouisville & N. R. Co. 
 (Va.), vol. 21, p. 261. 
 Reviewing acts of commission. 
 E. T., V. &G. Ry. Co. v. In- 
 terstate Commerce Com. 
 (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 730. 
 Interstate Commerce Com. v. 
 Clyde Steamship Co. (U. 
 S.), vol. 20, p. 7S1. 
 Scope of interstate commerce 
 acts. 
 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Inter- 
 state Commerce Commission 
 (U. S.), vol. S, p. 86. 
 State and federal statutes re- 
 specting diseased cattle. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Haber (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 471. 
 State comity in construction of 
 federal statutes regulating. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Har- 
 rison (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 270. 
 State statute as regulation of. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 McCann (U. S.), vol. 16, p. 
 185. 
 State statute forbidding over- 
 loading live stock. 
 Crawford v. Southern Rv. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 17. 
 State statute prohibiting the 
 transportation of infected 
 cattle through state. 
 Selvege v. St. Louis & S. F. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 4, p. 
 62S. 
 State statute providing a pen- 
 alty for delay in delivery of 
 certain freight in conflict 
 with interstate commerce 
 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. 
 
 Carden (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 448. 
 State statute providing for lia- 
 bility of initial carrier for 
 negligence of connecting 
 carrier. 
 McCann v. Eddy (Mo.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 633. 
 State statute providing for 
 stoppage of trains unconsti- 
 tutional. 
 Illinois Central R. Co. v. 
 
 State of Illinois, Butler 
 
 (U.S.), vol. 4, p. 352. 
 
 INTERSTATE COMMERCE— 
 Continued. 
 State statute providing for stop- 
 ping trains at county seats 
 invalid, mandamus to compel. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. People, Jett 
 
 (111.), vol. 14, p. 846. 
 State statute requiring license 
 for elevator in which grain 
 is stored for interstate ship- 
 ment is not, therefore, a 
 regulation of interstate com- 
 merce. 
 Cargill Co. v. Minnesota (U. 
 
 S. ), vol. 20, p. 658. 
 State statute requiring the 
 heating of passenger cars, 
 validity. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 
 Co. V. People of the State 
 
 of New York (U. S.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 172. 
 State statute requiring train 
 carrying interstate mails to 
 make an unnecessary devia- 
 tion, validity. 
 Illinois Central R. Co. v. 
 
 State of Illinois, Butler (U. 
 
 S.), vol. 4, p. 354. 
 Statute requiring passenger 
 trains to stop at county 
 seats a burden upon inter- 
 state commerce. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. People of State 
 
 of Illinois, Jett (U. S.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 227. 
 
 Trans-Missouri Freight Asso- 
 ciation. 
 
 The granting of an injunc- 
 tion against such an asso- 
 ciation does not give the 
 "Trust Act" a retroactive 
 effect, for, even though 
 such association, which was 
 entered into prior to the 
 passage of the act, may 
 have been legal at the time 
 of its formation, its con- 
 tinuation, after it has been 
 declared to be illegal, is a 
 violation of the act. 
 United States v. Trans-Mis- 
 souri Freight Association 
 (U. S.), voL 7, p. 388. 
 The memorandum of agree- 
 ment between railway com- 
 panies forming a freight 
 association recited that it ' 
 was entered into "for the 
 purpose of mutual protec- 
 tion by establishing and 
 
436 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 INTERSTATE OOMMEBOB— 
 Continued. 
 maintaining' reasonable 
 rates, rules and regulations 
 for freight traflSc, both 
 through and local." To 
 that end the association was 
 formed and a body created 
 which was to adopt rates, 
 which, when agreed to, 
 were to be the governing 
 rates for all the companies, 
 and a violation of which 
 subjected the defaulting 
 company to the payment of 
 a penalty. The parties to 
 such associations had the 
 right to withdraw from the 
 agreement on giving thirty 
 days' notice : held, that 
 the direct and necessary 
 effect of such agreement, 
 while in operation, was to 
 put a restraint upon trade 
 or commerce, within the 
 prohibition of the "Trust 
 Act." 
 
 United States v. Trans-Mis- 
 souri Freight Association 
 (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 388. 
 The prohibitions of the act 
 extend to all combinations 
 in restraint of trade or 
 commerce, whether in the 
 form of trusts or in any 
 other form, whatever, and 
 the language of the title of 
 the act, which is "to protect 
 trade and commerce against 
 unlawful restraints and 
 monopolies which were un- 
 lawful at common law," but 
 includes those made unlaw- 
 ful in the body of the stat- 
 ute, and also all contracts 
 in restraint of trade, 
 whether such restraint is 
 reasonable or unreasonable. 
 United States v. Trans- 
 Missouri Freight Asso- 
 ciation (U. S. ), vol. 7, p. 
 388. 
 The proper medium of inter- 
 pretation of the meaning of 
 the language of an act of 
 congress is not the debates 
 in that body at the time of 
 the passage of the act, but 
 the language of the act 
 and the history of the times 
 when it passed. 
 United States v. Trans-Mis- 
 souri Freight Association 
 (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 388. 
 The public policy of the gov- 
 
 INTBRSTATE COMMERCE^ 
 Continued. 
 
 ernment is to be found in 
 its statutes, and, when they 
 have not directly spoken, 
 then in the decisions of the 
 courts and the constant 
 practice of the govfernment 
 officials ; but when the law 
 making power speaks upon 
 a particular subject, over 
 which it has constitutional 
 power to legislate, public 
 policy, in such a case, is 
 what the statute enacts. 
 United States v. Trans-Mis- 
 souri Freight Association 
 (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 388. 
 There is nothing in the lan- 
 guage of the "Trust Act," 
 in contemporaneous history, 
 in the legal situation at the 
 time of its passage, in its 
 legislative history, or in 
 any general difference in 
 the nature or kind of trad- 
 ing or manufacturing com- 
 panies from Railroad com- 
 panies to warrant the 
 conclusion that the legisla- 
 ture, in prohibiting the 
 making of contracts in re- 
 straint of trade, did not 
 intend to include railroads 
 within the purview of the 
 act. 
 
 United States v. Trans-Mis- 
 souri Freight Association 
 (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 388. 
 The United States are in- 
 vested by the fourth section 
 of the "Trust Act", with 
 full power and authority to 
 bring an action to dissolve 
 a freight association, which 
 is in restraint of trade com- 
 merce, although they have 
 no pecuniary interest in the 
 result of the litigation, or 
 in the question to be decided 
 by the county. 
 United States v. Trans-Mis- 
 souri Freight Association 
 (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 388. 
 Undue preference a question of 
 fact. 
 
 Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Inter- 
 state Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S.), vol. S, p. 87. 
 Violation of interstate com- 
 merce law as a defence must 
 be pleaded. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Bagley (Kan.), vol. 13, 
 p. 259. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 437 
 
 INTERSTATE OOMMEROB— 
 Continued. 
 
 Visitorial power of state as to 
 interstate business. 
 State V. United States EJxp. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 41. 
 Welfare of locality to be con- 
 sidered by commission. 
 Tex. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Inter- 
 state Commerce Commis- 
 sion (U. S.), vol. S, p. 87. 
 What constitutes. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Vancleave (Ky. ), vol. 21, 
 p. 477. 
 When railroad situated -wholly 
 within state is subject to in- 
 terstate commerce act. 
 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. 
 Co. V. Interstate Commerce 
 Commission (U. S.),vol. 4, 
 p. 223. 
 "Wilson Act," construction. 
 State V. Intoxicating' Liquors 
 (Me.), vol. 20, p. 511. 
 
 INTERVENING CAUSES. 
 See Fires. 
 
 INTERVENTION. 
 See Mortgages. 
 Parties. 
 
 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Constitutionality of Maine 
 statute prohibiting the bring- 
 ing' of intoxicating liquors 
 into state. 
 
 State V. Intoxicating Liquors 
 (Me.), vol. 20, p. 511. 
 
 INTOXICATION. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Drunkenness. 
 Evidence. 
 Trespassers. 
 
 INVENTIONS. 
 See Patents. 
 Duty of railroad company to 
 avail itself of new inven- 
 tions. 
 
 Richmond R., etc., Co. v. 
 Garthright (Va.), vol. 4, 
 p. 264. 
 
 INVOICE COSTS. 
 
 What is within meaning of 
 contract of shipment. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 564. 
 
 ISSUES. 
 
 See Trials. 
 
 JEWELRY. 
 
 See Baggage. 
 
 JOHNSTOW^N FLOOD. 
 
 See Floods. 
 
 JOINDER. 
 
 See Actions. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Parties. 
 
 JOINT JUDGMENTS. 
 See Receivers. 
 
 JOINT LIABILITY. 
 
 See Personal Injuries. 
 
 Action by one company against 
 another to recover damages 
 paid by the former, and al- 
 leged to have been caused by 
 negligee ce of the latter. Suffi- 
 ciency of petition alleging pas- 
 senger's right to recover. 
 Cincinnati, New Orleans, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Louisville & Nash- 
 ville R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 
 409. 
 
 JOINT RATES. 
 
 See Interstate Commerce. 
 
 JOINT TORT FEASORS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Injury to passenger through 
 negligence of two companies. 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 Piper (111.), vol. 9, p. 147. 
 Release. 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 Piper (111.), vol. 9, p. 147. 
 
 JOINT USE OF TRACKS. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 1. 
 
 JOLTING. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 JUDGES. 
 Disqualification because of re- 
 lation to stockholders. 
 Robinson v. Southern Pacific 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 2, p. 44. 
 Trial judge not disqualified 
 merely because his son is pros- 
 ecuting suit for a percentage. 
 Allison V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 714. 
 
438 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 JUDGMENTS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Evidence. 
 Conclusiveness of former judp^- 
 ineut against railroad and an- 
 other party, in action by- 
 former against latter. 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Sargent 
 (N. H.), vol. 21, p. 335. 
 Effect of agreement by counsel 
 on judgment sustaining de- 
 murrer to both declaration 
 and bill of particulars where 
 judgment includes both. 
 King V. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. 
 (Va;), vol. 23, p. 701. 
 Entry nunc pro tunc. 
 McTavish v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 14, 
 p. 59. 
 Failure to serve process as de- 
 fense in action to enforce do- 
 mestic judgment. 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 Ball (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 186. 
 Form. 
 McTavish v. Great Ivlorthern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 14, 
 p. 59. 
 Joint judgments against two 
 railroads in action for personal 
 injuries. 
 
 Ivittle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stevenson (Ark.), vol. 5, p. 
 704. 
 Judgment in statutory action 
 for personal injuries conclu- 
 sive in subsequent common- 
 law action between same par- 
 ties for same injuries. 
 Clare v. N. Y. & N. E. R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 13, p. 569. 
 Receivers, payments. 
 Dillon V. Oregon, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Ore.), vol. 5, p. 713. 
 Sufficiency of proceedings to en- 
 force statutory duty to make 
 connections with other roads. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Common- 
 wealth (Va.), vol. 20, p. 360. 
 What constitutes judgment sus- 
 taining or overruling demur- 
 rer, upon which error can be 
 based. 
 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. 
 Western Ry. of Alabama 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 455. 
 
 JUDICIAL NOTICE. 
 See Evidence. 
 Richmond Union Pass. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Richmond, F. & P. R. Co. 
 
 (Va.), vol. IS, p. 206. 
 
 JUDICIAL NOTICE— a>«i!'rf. 
 Carriers of live stock, law of 
 foreign state. 
 
 Meuerw. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (S. Dak.), vol. 2, p. 493. 
 Clearance cards. 
 
 McDonald v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 20, p. 309. 
 Customs. 
 McKibbin v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 16, p. 
 155. 
 Eminent domain, deposit of 
 amount of award of commis- 
 sioner. 
 
 Foster V. Chicago, R. I. & T. 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 2. 
 Federal statutes. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. 
 Brown (Ark.), vol. 16, p. 440- 
 Laws of sister state. 
 Crandall v. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, p. 388. 
 Ex parte Northeastern R. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 99. 
 In re Mayo's Estate (S. Car.),, 
 vol. 21, p. 99. 
 Life tables. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Ryan (Kan.), vol. 21, p. 
 684. 
 Opening of railroad. 
 Knowlton v. New York, N. H> 
 & H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 
 16, p. 573. 
 Statute incorporating city. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, eXa.,. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 That unblocked frog could have 
 been seen by deceased brake- 
 man. 
 
 Jones v. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 21, p. 904. 
 
 JUDICIAL SALES. 
 See Sales. 
 
 JURISDICTION. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Conflict of Laws. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 Equity. 
 
 Federal Courts. 
 
 National Corporations. 
 
 Railroad Commissioners. 
 
 United States Courts. 
 
 Venue. 
 Action for injury to employee- 
 sustained in another state. 
 MacCarthy v. Whitcomb (Wis.)^ 
 vol. 20, p. 860. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 439 
 
 JURISDiaTION—Coniinuea. 
 Action to recover excess of 
 freight charges. 
 Conn V. Louisville & N. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 838. 
 Administrator may sue in circuit 
 court of county where deceased 
 resided, in action for wrongful 
 death, although the accident 
 occurred in another county. 
 LfOuisville & N. R. Co. v. Cooley 
 (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 553. 
 Certificate of state court as show- 
 ing that federal question as to 
 whether repeal of exemption 
 from taxation impaired obliga- 
 tion of contract was passed 
 upon. 
 
 Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. v. 
 Hewes (U. S. ) , vol. 23, p. SlO. 
 Citizenship requisite to give fed- 
 eral jurisdiction. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. 
 V. Louisville Trust Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 15, p. 345. 
 Company liable for death of in- 
 testate cannot contest juris- 
 diction of probate court. 
 Ex parte Northeastern R. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 99. 
 In re Mayo's Estate (S. Car.), 
 vol. 21, p. 99. 
 Court's jurisdiction over railroad 
 commissions. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth (Ky.), vol. 13, p. 
 125. 
 Court's jurisdiction to direct 
 location of union station. 
 Concord & M. R. R. v. Boston 
 & M. R. R. (N. H.), vol. 14, 
 p. 458. 
 Death caused by acts committed 
 without the state. 
 Rudiger v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 6, p. 50. 
 Equity has no jurisdiction of 
 combinations between carriers 
 of freight. 
 
 Post V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Teuu.), vol. 16, p. 201. 
 Equity jurisdiction of bill to ob- 
 tain cancellation of guaranty 
 of bonds. 
 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. 
 V. Louisville Trust Co. (U. 
 S.), vol. 15, p. 345. 
 Evidence of jurisdiction of 
 foreign court. 
 
 Robertson v. Stead (Mo.), vol. 
 4, p. 529. 
 Exaggeration of damages, prov- 
 ince of court. 
 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., Lim- 
 ited, V. Glover (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 21, p. 272. 
 
 JjyRlSDlOTlON— Continued. 
 
 Federal court decreeing receiver- 
 ship of a railroad, has juris- 
 diction to prevent the estab- 
 lishing in a state court of a 
 claim for negligence after 
 foreclosure sale and pending 
 delivery to purchaser. 
 Fidelity Insurance, Trust & 
 Safe-Deposit Co. v. Norfolk 
 & W. R. Co. (C. C. Va.), vol. 
 12, p. 874. 
 Federal jurisdiction of appoint- 
 ment of receiver. 
 International Trust Co. v. T. 
 B. Townsend Brick & Con- 
 tracting Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 15, p. 310. 
 Federal jurisdiction where cor- 
 poration of one state is subse- 
 quently created a corporation 
 of another. 
 
 Louisville N. A. & C. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Louisville Trust Co. 
 
 (U.S.), vol. IS, p. 345. 
 
 Federal jurisdiction where state 
 
 seeks to impose federal tax 
 
 not dependent on diversity of 
 
 citizenship. 
 
 Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 314. 
 Jurisdiction of appellate division 
 of New York court. 
 Judson V. Central Vermont R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 15, p. 7. 
 Jurisdiction of court of claims 
 where claims for value of 
 railroad property seized by 
 government during war are 
 to be determined. 
 United States v. Winchester, 
 etc., R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 4, p. 
 264. 
 Jurisdiction of justice of peace 
 in action for damage by fire. 
 Bagley v. Columbus, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ga.); vol. 5, p. 700. 
 Jurisdiction of state court where 
 federal court has possession of 
 property of street railroad. 
 City of Lincoln v. Lincoln St. 
 Ry. Co. (U. S.),vol. 6,p. 788. 
 Mandamus proceedings in cir- 
 cuit courts of Michigan. 
 Atty. Gen. ex rel. Moore v. 
 American Exp. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 13, p. 95. 
 Of federal courts, diverse citi- 
 zenship. 
 
 Boston & M. R. R. v- Hurd 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 674. 
 Of Ohio courts where death oc- 
 curred in Indiana. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Fox (Ohio), 
 vol. 21, p. 690. 
 
440 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 JURISDICTION— Continued. 
 
 Of supreme judicial court to 
 
 enjoin continuing trespass, 
 
 under Mass. Pub. St. c. 151, § 4. 
 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Sullivan 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 20, p. 356. 
 Passeng-er injured during- receiv- 
 ership may sue succeeding 
 corporation in state court of 
 competent jurisdiction, and is 
 not required to resort to court 
 which decreed receivership. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Cunningham (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 132. 
 Question of liability of resident 
 defendant should not be deter- 
 mined until final trial, where 
 it is contended that the court 
 is without jurisdiction over 
 nonresident defendant, be- 
 cause resident defendant is 
 not liable. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Brown (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 561. 
 Residence of railroad corpora- 
 tion. 
 Tobin V. Chester, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 5, p. 630. 
 Right of court to exercise. 
 
 Hickman v- Missouri, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 15, p. 375. 
 Right to deny. 
 International Trust Co. v. T. 
 
 B. Townsend Brick & Con- 
 tracting Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 310. 
 Waiver: 
 Eel River R. Co. v. State ex 
 
 rel. Kistler, Pros. Atty. 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 17, p. 595. 
 Waiver of failure to comply with 
 statutory requirements nec- 
 essary to acquire jurisdiction. 
 "Van Doren v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 577. 
 Where existence is inferred. 
 McCray v. Galveston, H. & S. 
 
 A. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 276. 
 Where death was inflicted in 
 foreign state, existence of 
 similar foreign statutes. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Fox (Ohio), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 690. 
 
 JURORS. 
 
 See Trials. 
 JURY. 
 
 See Jurors. 
 
 New Trial. 
 
 Questions of Law and Fact. 
 
 Trials. 
 
 JURY — Continued. 
 Effect of statement in jury room 
 as to offers to compromise. 
 Jackson & S. St. R. R. v. Sim- 
 mons (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 
 236. 
 
 Jurors. 
 
 Effort to disqualify must be 
 supported by proof. 
 McGeary v. Old Colony R. 
 R. (R. I.), vol. 14, p. 764. 
 Having had a claim against a 
 railway company does not 
 disqualify a person as a 
 juror, in an action against 
 such company. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Elliott (Ind. Ter.), vol. 14, 
 p. 587. 
 Impeachment. 
 111. Cent. R. Co. v. West 
 (Ky.), vol.21, p. 239. 
 Misconduct in visiting scene 
 of accident without permis- 
 sion of court. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Oyster (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 656. 
 Stockholders and employees of 
 lessee railroad company not 
 disqualified to act as jurors 
 in action against lessor. 
 Augusta So. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Dade (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 548. 
 Utah statute as to selection. 
 Williams v. Ore. Short-Iyine 
 R. Co. (Utah), vol. 12, p. 61. 
 
 JUSTICES OF PEACE. 
 
 See Appeal. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 In the absence of legislative 
 enactment a justice of the 
 ■peace has no authority to de- 
 termine the rate of freight 
 charges of a railroad corpo- 
 ration. 
 
 Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Pinnacle Coal Co. (W. 
 
 Va.), vol. 10, p. 358. 
 
 Dismissal of case. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Howard (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 15. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Jurisdiction. 
 Musick V. Kansas City, S. & 
 M. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 
 28. 
 Jurisdiction of justice. 
 Bagley v. Columbus, etc., R. 
 , Co. (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 700. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 441 
 
 JUSTICES OP FE&.OE~Coni'd. 
 Jurisdiction of justice of peace 
 in stock killing cases, not 
 exclusive. 
 
 Kansas City,' etc., R. Co. v. 
 Whitehead (Ala.), vol. 4, 
 p. 262. 
 
 KILLING STOCK. 
 
 See Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 LABOR CLAIMS. 
 
 See Preferential Claims. 
 
 I4AOHES. 
 
 See Injunctions. 
 Licenses. 
 Mortgages. 
 
 TiANDS. 
 
 See Public Lands. 
 
 LARCENY. 
 
 See Baggage. 
 
 Baggage. 
 
 Eiug-walt V. Wabash R. Co. 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 450. 
 Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v, 
 Clark (Kan.), vol. 2, p. 460. 
 Bill of lading. 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. Lowe 
 (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 398. 
 
 LATENT DEFECTS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 LAWS. 
 
 See English Law. 
 Legislature. 
 
 LA'WS OP THE ROAD. 
 See Street Railroads. 
 Electric railroads. 
 
 Galbraith v. West End St. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 628. 
 Street railways. 
 Plewelling v. Lewiston & A. 
 H. R. Co. (Me.), vol. 6, p. 
 SOI. 
 
 LA'WYERS. 
 
 See Attorneys. 
 
 Remarks of Counsel. 
 
 LEASED CARS. 
 See Leases. 
 
 LEASES AND RUNNING 
 POWERS. 
 See Car Trust Companies. 
 
 Car Trust Leases. 
 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 LEASES AND RUNNING 
 VO'^'EB.^— Continued. 
 
 Business of, as well as that of 
 main line considered in com- 
 pelling operation of passenger 
 train. 
 
 People ex rel. Cantrell v. St. 
 Louis A. & T. H. R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 227. 
 Competing lines, what consti- 
 tutes. 
 
 State ex rel. Nolan, Atty. 
 Gen., V. Montana Ry. Co. 
 (Mont.), vol. 11, p. 353. 
 Construction of contract grant- 
 ing trackage rights by one 
 road to another. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Louisville S. Ry. Co. (Ky.), 
 vol. 8, p. 161. 
 Construction of statute allowing 
 railroads to lease lines. 
 Eel River R. Co. v. State ex 
 rel. Kistler, Pros. Atty. 
 (Ind.), vol. 17, p. 595. 
 Contract construed as conveying 
 right of user and not of owner- 
 ship. 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Pere 
 
 Marquette R. Co. (Mich.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 864. 
 
 Duty of lessee to provide for 
 
 transportation of passengers 
 
 and freight. 
 
 People ex rel. Cantrell v. St. 
 Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 227. 
 Estoppel to plead that lease was 
 ultra vires. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Al- 
 toona, etc., R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 19, p. 614. 
 Landlord's lien upon rolling 
 stock of leased railroad. 
 Trust Co. of North America v. 
 Manhattan Trust Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 6, p. 220. 
 Lease of cars by receivers. 
 Mercantile Trust & Deposit 
 Co. V. Atlanta Stone, Coal 
 & Lumber Co. (Ala.), vol. 8, 
 p. 102. 
 Mercantile Trust & Deposit 
 Co. V. Southern Iron Car- 
 Line Co. (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 
 102. 
 Lease of land on its right of 
 way by railroad company not 
 affected by fact that it is a 
 common carrier. 
 Hartford Pire Ins. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 16, p. 779. 
 
442 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 LEASES AND RUNNING 
 VO^WE'RS— Continued. 
 
 Lease of laud to railroad com- 
 pany for stock yards, option of 
 purchaser. 
 Bacon v. Kentucky Cent. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 1,'p. 718. 
 Leases, sublease of cars by re- 
 ceivers. 
 Mercantile Trust & Deposit 
 
 Co. V. Atlanta Stone, Coal & 
 
 Lumber Co. (Ala.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 102. 
 Mercantile Trust & Deposit 
 
 Co. V. Southern Iron Car- 
 Line Co. (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 102. 
 Lessee as trustee of lessor and 
 its bond holders under lease 
 requiring lessee to set apart 
 certain portion of earnings 
 for lessor. 
 Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Cox 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 19, p. 327. 
 Lessee company not liable for 
 injury to abutting property 
 caused by construction of rail- 
 road in street. 
 Guinn v. Ohio River Co. (W. 
 
 Va.),vol. 13, p. 437. 
 Lessee of railroad must provide 
 for transportation of passen- 
 gers. 
 People ex rel. Cantrell v. St. 
 
 Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 227. 
 
 Lessor and lessee should be 
 
 made defendants to action to 
 
 subject railway to lessee's lia- 
 
 • bility. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Daniels (Ark. ) , vol. 19, p. 609. 
 Lessor estopped from setting up 
 lease providing for indemnity 
 against liability for injury to 
 lessee's employees. 
 Harden v. N. Car. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 895. 
 Lessor liable for injuries to 
 trespasser through ejection in 
 ■wrongful manner by lessee's 
 employee. 
 Pierce v. N. Car. R. Co. (N. 
 
 Car.), vol. 13, p. 666. 
 Lessor liable for negligence of 
 lessee. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Roller 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p. S9S. 
 Pierce v. N. Car. R. Co. (N. 
 
 Car.), vol. 13, p. 666. 
 Lessor's liability for lessee's 
 negligence in allowing ob- 
 struction in street in violation 
 of contract. 
 Anderson v. Union Terminal 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 834. 
 
 LEASES AND RUNNING 
 FOWERS— Continued. 
 Liability for injury to passen- 
 gers on leased line. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Posten (Kan.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 138. 
 Liability for loss of leased car. 
 Georgia, S. & F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Ry., etc., Co. (Ga.), 
 
 IS, p. 295. 
 Liability for negligence in kill- 
 ing stock of another company 
 permitted to use tracks. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Wood 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 906. 
 Liability for negligence of 
 lessee. 
 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Daniels (Ark. ) , vol. 19, p. 
 
 609. 
 Liability for torts of lessee. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Breeden (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 131. 
 Liability of company for expul- 
 sion of passenger by lessee of 
 train . 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Osborne (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 156. 
 Liability of lessee for injuries 
 caused by improper construc- 
 tion of road. 
 Lee V. Southern Pac. R. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 656. 
 Liability of lessor and city for 
 injury caused by defective 
 street car track. 
 Schaefer v. City of Fond du 
 
 Lac (Wis.), vol. 11, p. 342. 
 
 Liability of lessor for injuries to 
 
 lessee's employees caused by 
 
 negligence of fellow servant. 
 
 Banks v. Georgia R. & Bk. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 225. 
 Liability of lessor for negligence 
 of lessee. ' 
 
 Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Meech 
 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 667. 
 City of Raleigh v. N. Car. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 953. 
 Harden v. N. Car. R. Co. (N. 
 
 Car.), vol. 23, p. 895. 
 Lee V. Southern Pac. R. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 656. 
 Perry v. Western N. Car. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 659. 
 Pierce v. North Carolina R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 13, p. 666. 
 Liability of lessor of street rail- 
 way for injury caused by 
 defective track. 
 Schaefer v. City of Fond du 
 
 Lac (Wis.), vol. 11, p. 342. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 443 
 
 LEASES AND RUNNING LEASES AND RUNNING 
 'POWERB—Continued. FOWBUS— Continued. 
 
 Liability to other company for 
 negligence, where track is 
 used in common. 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. v. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 19, p. S13. 
 Liability of third party for rent. 
 East St. Louis Connecting Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Jarvis (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 4S9. 
 Obligations assumed by lessee. 
 People ex rel. Cautrell v. St. 
 
 Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 227. 
 Obligation of lessee to operate. 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Penalty for negligence in dis- 
 charging obligations of lease, 
 mitigated. 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Al- 
 
 toona, etc., R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 615. 
 Power of receiver to lease and 
 operate other roads. 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Carolina, C. G. & C. Ry. Co. 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. IS, p. 212. 
 Railway subject to sale to satisfy 
 liability of lessee. 
 Little Rock, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Daniels (Ark.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 609. 
 Restriction in grant to use track 
 as to receiving and shipping 
 freight, did not render the con- 
 tract void as against public 
 policy. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Black 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 864. 
 Rights of company leasing from 
 company prior to adoption of 
 California Civil Code. 
 Robinson v. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 2, p. 44. 
 Rights of dissenting stock- 
 holders. 
 Boston & M. R. R. z/. Graham 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 553. 
 Ultra vires lease cannot be re- 
 covered on. 
 East St. Louis Connecting Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Jarvis (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 4^9. 
 Validity of lease of nonconuect- 
 ing roads under Pennsylvania 
 laws. 
 Van Steuben v. Central R. Co. 
 
 of N. J. (Pa.), vol. 9, p. 485. 
 
 Whether stock of dissenting 
 stockholders must be pur- 
 chased under Mass. St. 1900, c. 
 426, in order to render lease 
 valid. 
 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Graham 
 (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 553. 
 
 LEGAL CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 See Pleading. 
 Allegation in complaint in an 
 action for wrongful ejection 
 from a car that defendant's 
 conductor wilfully, violently 
 and forcibly ejected com- 
 plainant from the car were 
 statements of mere legal con- 
 clusions of the pleader. 
 McGhee v. Reynolds (Ala.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 49. 
 Allegation of negligence. 
 
 Omaha & R. V. Ry. Co. w. 
 
 Wright (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 9. 
 
 LEGAL TENDER. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 Passenger's fare. 
 
 Atlanta Consol. St. Ry. Co. 
 V. Keeny (Ga.), vol. S, p. 
 305. 
 
 LEGISLATURE. 
 
 See Municipal Corporations. 
 Rates. 
 Entire proclamation convening 
 legislature in special session 
 should be considered in deter- 
 mining whether the act is 
 germane to object stated in 
 executive call. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Wolfe (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 26. 
 Power to transact business at 
 special session. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R- Co. v. 
 
 Wolfe (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 26. 
 
 Sec. 3, art. 1, ch. 72, Comp. St. 
 
 of Nebraska was properly 
 
 passed at special session. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Wolfe (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 26. 
 
 LESSEES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 LEX FORI. 
 See Actions. 
 
444 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 LEX LOCI. 
 
 See Actions. 
 
 Fellow Servants. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Liability for wrongful death 
 governed by law of state 
 where inflicted. 
 Cowen V. Ray (C. C. A.), vol. 
 21, p. 531. 
 
 LICENSEES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Children. 
 Crossings. 
 Freight Trains. 
 Abandonment of right of way, 
 occupation under parol license, 
 right of company to reoccupy 
 land afterwards purchased by 
 third party. 
 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Har- 
 grove (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 667. 
 Acquisition of right of way by 
 license. 
 
 Hanlon v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. 
 (Neb.), vol. l,p. 701. 
 Bundle thrown from car strik- 
 ing licensee standing on plat- 
 form. 
 
 McGrath v. Eastern Ry. Co. 
 of Minn. (Minn.), vol. 13, p. 
 768. 
 Care due licensees. 
 
 Tully V. Phila, etc., R. Co. 
 (Del.), vol. 23, p. 209. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Nonsuit properly ordered not- 
 withstanding defend a n t's 
 negligence in action for 
 injury sustained by one at 
 station merely for his own 
 convenience. 
 
 Davis V. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 21, p. 821. 
 Stepping on track on depot 
 grounds. 
 
 Chattanooga, R. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Downs (C. C. A.), 
 vol.21, p. 493. 
 Delay in revoking license. 
 Harrelson v. Kansas City & 
 A. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 
 848. 
 Duties owing to licensees at 
 depot. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Wood 
 
 (Va.), vol. 21, p. 317. 
 
 Duty as to warning where track 
 
 within city used as footpath. 
 
 Connell v. Chesapeake & O. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 236. 
 
 Duty of company to keep plat- 
 
 TilCEXiSEZS— Continued. 
 
 form free from ice, for use of 
 
 1 1C61!1 S€6 
 
 Clarke v. Howard (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 13, p. 743. 
 Duty to inspect appliances, 
 instructions. 
 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & Nav. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 21, p. 624. 
 Duty to licensees crossing track 
 at invitation of company. 
 Weldon v. Phila. W. & B. R. 
 Co. (Del.), vol. 13, p. 759. 
 Duty to licensees crossing track 
 without invitation. 
 Weldon v. Phila. W. & B. R. 
 Co. (Del.), vol. 13, p. 759. 
 Duty to look out for on railroad 
 premises. 
 
 Fleming v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, p. 549. 
 Duty to maintain lookout where 
 track has been used as foot- 
 path for twenty-five years. 
 Morgan v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 372. 
 Duty to- maintain station plat- 
 form in safe condition. 
 Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. 
 Aller (Ohio), vol. 21, p. 304. 
 Duty to person riding on train 
 by invitation of fireman. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Thornton (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 
 229. 
 Effect of mere failure to object 
 to persons crossing right of 
 way. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. O'Con- 
 nor (111.), vol. 20, p. 816. 
 Evidence of use of track as 
 pathway. 
 
 McCall V. So. Ry. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 23, p. 760. 
 Existence of license to use rail- 
 road as footpath, 
 Jones V. Charleston, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, p. 261. 
 Eailure to allege company's 
 knowledge of defect in action 
 for injury to licensee from de- 
 railment of train. 
 Cederson v. Ore. R. & Nav. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 21, p. 624. 
 Injury to licensee at depot. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Spencer (Colo.), vol. 10, p. 
 536. 
 Injury to licensee on track. 
 Stanley v. Durham & N. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 9, p. 208. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 445 
 
 TjIOENSBES— Continued. 
 
 Liability for defect in rigpht of 
 way permitted to be used as 
 street. 
 
 Neal V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 20, p. 941. 
 Liability for injuries to, from 
 dang-erous premises. 
 Atchison, etc.,R. Co. v. Whit- 
 beck (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 778. 
 Irouisville & N. R. Co. v. Sides 
 (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 90. 
 Liability for injury to ice com- 
 pany's employee caused by ice 
 and snow on roof of car he 
 was loading. 
 
 Baker v. Louisville & N. Ter- 
 minal Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, 
 p. 946. 
 Liability for injury to licensee 
 on depot platform. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Wood 
 (Va.), vol.21, p. 317. 
 Liability for injury to licensee 
 on rigfht of way happening- 
 under circumstances which 
 made defendant only liable for 
 wantonness or wilfulness. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Mar- 
 tin (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 449. 
 Liability for injury to licensee 
 on right of way, sufficiency of 
 evidence. 
 
 Jones V. Charleston, etc., R. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, p. 261. 
 Liability of company for injury 
 to licensee. 
 
 Lingenfelter v. Baltimore & 
 
 O. S. W. Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 690. 
 
 Liability of railroad company 
 
 for injury to licensee on freight 
 
 train. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Best (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 660. 
 License to use right of way as 
 footpath, sufficiency of evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Cederson v. Ore. R. & Nav. Co. 
 (Ore.), vol. 21, p. 625. 
 Mere failure to prohibit employ- 
 ees from using spur track run- 
 ning to mine as footpath does 
 not entitle them to rights of 
 licensees. 
 
 Egan V. Montana Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Mont.), vol. 20, p. 72. 
 No implied license to cross tracks 
 in railroad yard through spaces 
 casually left between cars. 
 Grady v. Ga. R. R. & Banking 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 400, 
 
 LICENSEES— a7«/2««frf. 
 
 No liability for injury to mere 
 licensee using path across 
 company's lot, in the absence 
 of wilfulness or wantonness. 
 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Arnola 
 (Miss.), vol. 20, p. 945. 
 Notice to servant of habitual use 
 of track as notice to master. 
 Comer v. Hill (Ga.),vol. 11, p. 3. 
 One assisting departing passen- 
 ger. 
 
 Whitley v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 210. 
 Parol license to enter ou land. 
 Minneapolis, St. Paul & S. 
 Ste. M. Rv. Co. V. Marble 
 (Mich.), vol. 7, p. 780. 
 Pleading negligence in action 
 for injury to licensee caused 
 by derailment of train. 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & Nav. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 21, p. 624. 
 Presumption of negligence from 
 happening of accident to licen- 
 see, instructions. 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & Nav. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 21, p. 625. 
 Public could acquire no right to 
 use as footpath track not in 
 highway. 
 
 Floyd V. Paducah Ry. & Light 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 167. 
 Right of way, acquisition of 
 easement. 
 
 Minneapolis Western Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Minn. & St. L. R. Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. 1, p. 725. 
 
 Right of way, revocation of 
 
 license void under statute of 
 
 frauds. 
 
 Hewlins v. Shipham (Eng.), 
 vol. 1, p. 728. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to neg- 
 ligence in action for injuries 
 caused by iron leaning against 
 freight house falling upon 
 licensee. 
 
 Carter v. Boston & A. R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 21, p. 492. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 whether there was failure to 
 inspect car wheel. 
 Cederson v. Ore. R. & Nav. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 21, p. 624. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of defect 
 in track, in action for injury to 
 ice company's employee. 
 Baker v. Louisville & N. Ter- 
 minal Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, p. 
 946. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of right 
 to use railroad as footpath. 
 Jones V. Charleston, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, p. 261. 
 
446 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 LICENSES. 
 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 Exemption from Taxa- 
 tion. 
 Coflstitutionality of city license 
 tax where railroad is engaged 
 in interstate commerce. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. City 
 of Bessemer (Ala.), vol. 6, 
 p. 410. 
 Duty of acceptor of license to 
 comply with state law repug- 
 nant to fe<5eral constitution. 
 Cargill Co. v. Minnesota (U. 
 S.), vol. 20, p. 658. 
 Statute requiring a license for 
 elevator in which grain is 
 stored for interstate shipment 
 not a regulation of interstate 
 commerce. 
 
 Cargill Co. v. Minnesota 
 (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 658. 
 
 LIENS. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods, 
 Receivers. 
 Carrier's lien on goods attached 
 in its warehouse. 
 Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. Bossut 
 (N. Mex.), vol. 19, p. 683. 
 Claims for personal injuries. 
 Veatch v. American Loan^ & 
 Trust Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 795. 
 Contractors furnishing labor are 
 not laborers within meaning 
 of Arkansas statute giving 
 lien. 
 
 Little Rock, H. S. &T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Spencer (Ark.), vol. 12, 
 p. 861. 
 Enforceability at law of lien 
 upon gross earnings of rail- 
 road company. 
 
 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Cent. 
 Vt. R. Co. (Vt.), vol. 11, p. 
 693. 
 Inchoate interests and liens not 
 displaced by private convey- 
 ance of laud for right of way. 
 Farrow v. Nashville, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. S, p. 704. 
 Judgment for personal injuries. 
 Fidelity Loan & Trust Co. v. 
 Douglas (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 713". 
 Landlord's lien upon rolling 
 stock of leased railroad. 
 Trust Co. of North America 
 V. Manhattan Trust Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 220. 
 Liability of owner of railroad 
 for lien for labor. 
 Adams v. G. I., etc., R. Co. 
 (S. Dak.), vol. 8, p. 765. 
 
 LIENS — Continued. 
 
 Lien on railroad property where 
 foreclosure of mortgage. 
 Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. 
 Harrison (C. C. A.), vol. 15, 
 p. 272. 
 Property liable to sub-contract- 
 or's lien. 
 
 Adams v. G. I., etc., R. Co. 
 (S. Dak.), vol. 8, p. 76S. 
 Stoppage in transitu. 
 Penn. Steel Co. v. Georgia R. 
 & Banking Co. (Ga.), vol. 2, 
 p. 685. 
 Whether claims for personal 
 injuries are liens. 
 Baltimore Trust & Guarantee 
 Co. V. Hofstetter (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 10, p. 783. 
 
 LIFE INSURANCE. 
 See Insurance. 
 
 LIFE TABLES. 
 See Damages. 
 Evidence, 
 fudicial Notice. 
 Mortality Tables. 
 
 LIGHTS. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Crossings. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 LIMITATIONS. 
 
 See Actions. 
 
 Adverse. Possession. 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 See Actions. 
 
 Consolidation. 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Accrual of right to damages for 
 obstruction of stream by in- 
 sufficient culvert on right of 
 way. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Andree- 
 son (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 536. 
 Action for failure to construct 
 farm crossing not barred by. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Pitt- 
 man (Ky.), vol. 18, p. 329. 
 Action to recover for overcharge 
 for carriage of goods. 
 Murray v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 278. 
 Amendment of declaration con- 
 stituting a departure so as to 
 render action barred by lim- 
 itations. 
 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Kurd 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 674. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 447 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS— 
 Continued. 
 
 Appropriation proceeding's. 
 Fries v. Wheeling & I,. E. Ry. 
 Co. (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 489. " 
 Consolidation as affecting. 
 
 Kansas City, W. & N. W. R. 
 Co. V. Way (Kan.), vol. 13, 
 p. 363. 
 Damages to land caused by over- 
 flow of water arising from con- 
 struction of railroad. 
 Parker v. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 6, p. 716. 
 Death by wrongful act. 
 Carden v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 872. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Haw- 
 kins (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 
 2, p. 380. 
 Death by wrongful act, com- 
 mon-law limitation. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Bass 
 (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 608. 
 Death by wrongful act, stat- 
 utory limitation. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Bass 
 (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 608. 
 Defective summons effective 
 to cause running to start 
 afresh. 
 
 Ketterman v. Dry Fork R. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 19, p. 
 446. 
 Effect of statute passed after 
 commencement of suit. 
 Nichols V. Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 8, p. 768. 
 Injuries to passengers. 
 
 Patterson v. Augusta & Sa- 
 vannah R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 
 2, p. 342. 
 Injuries to property by railroad 
 in street. 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Lersch (Ohio), vol. 14, p. 
 835. 
 Kentucky St., ? 819, applies to 
 action for charging more for 
 short than long haul. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Walker (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 473. 
 Loss caused by fire. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Spring- Water Distilling Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. IS, p. S27. 
 North Carolina statute constitu- 
 tional. 
 
 Narron v. Wilmington & W. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 852. 
 
 Petition may be amended after 
 
 statutory limitations for time 
 
 LIMITATION OP ACTIONS— 
 Continued. 
 
 of bringing of action has 
 
 elapsed. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Moffatt (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 397. ^ 
 
 Pleading want of knowledge 
 for purpose of bringing ac- 
 tion within the statute. 
 Murray v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 278. 
 Recovery of present and future 
 damage caused by operation 
 of railroad. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. O'Neill (Neb.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 371. 
 
 Where injuries to low land were 
 
 caused by railroad bridge, 
 
 there was a continuous injury. 
 
 Eells V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 21, p. 668. 
 
 LIMITATION OP LIABILITY. 
 See Baggage. 
 
 Bills of Lading. 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 ' Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Common Carriers. 
 Conflict of Laws. 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Drover's Pass. 
 Express Companies. 
 Live Stock. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 LIQUIDATION. 
 
 See Corporations. 
 LIVE STOCK. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 
 Fences. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. 
 See Street Railways. 
 Burden of proving that ordi- 
 nance was legally passed. 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Board Waterworks (Ark.), 
 vol. 20, p. 265. 
 Company's grain elevators 
 leased to and operated by ten- 
 ants, if used exclusively in 
 storing and taking in grain 
 for shipments over its road, 
 are exempt as railroad's real 
 estate used exclusively in op- 
 eration of the road. 
 Hertert, Treasurer, v. Chi- 
 cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 672. 
 
448 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 LOCAL ASSESSMENTS— Co«- 
 Hnued. 
 Liability of abutting- property. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Nehan (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 201. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 in possession of wharf prop- 
 erty, owned by city, from 
 which it derives revenue. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Nehan (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 201. 
 Property not used for railroad 
 purposes subject to local as- 
 sessments only, under laws 
 of New Jersey. 
 In re Jersey City & B. Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 23, p. 281. 
 Railroad right of way cannot 
 be assessed for local improve- 
 ments unless benefit is 
 shown. 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Board Waterworks (Ark.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 265. 
 Right of way cannot be sold to 
 enforce payment of local as- 
 sessments, under Arkansas 
 statute. 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Board Waterworks 
 
 (Ark.), vol. 20, p. 265. 
 Validity of assessment on rail- 
 road for street improvement. 
 City of New Whatcom v. Bell- 
 
 ingham Bay & B. C. R. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 6, p. 419. 
 111. Cent. R. Co. v. City of 
 
 Kankakee (111.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 417. 
 Where portion of lands adjacent 
 to railroad right of way owned 
 by railroad is used for rail- 
 road purposes, the part so 
 used is not subject to local 
 taxation. 
 In re Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 178. 
 
 LOCAL CARRIERS. 
 
 See Injunctions. 
 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS. 
 See Street Railways. 
 
 LOCUS IN QUO. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 LONG AND SHORT HAULS. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 Railroad Commissioners. 
 
 LOOK AND LISTEN. 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 
 LOOKOUTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Children. 
 Crossings. 
 Negligence. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Street Railways. 
 At rear of car. 
 Cookson V. Pittsburg & W, 
 K. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 339. 
 Contributory negligence a de- 
 fense to negligence in failing- 
 to comply with statutory pro- 
 vision as to maintaining- 
 lookout. 
 
 Lttle Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Smith (Ark.), vol. 13, p. 
 699. 
 Duty as to. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Warren (Ark.), vol. 13, 
 p. 729. 
 Duty of engineer. 
 Omaha & R. V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Wright (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 9. 
 Duty to keep lookout where 
 track is habitually used by 
 pedestrians. 
 
 Garner v. Trumbull (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 15, p. 589. 
 Duty to station lookout while 
 switching cars. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Fox worth (Fla.), vol. 13, 
 p. 469. 
 Failure of employee to keep 
 lookout not negligence where 
 it was not one of his duties. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Creighton (Ky.), vol. IS, 
 p. 713. 
 
 On rear of car. 
 Green v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, p. 
 317. 
 
 Presumption as to performance 
 of duty. 
 
 Johnson v. Rio Grande W. 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 13, p. 
 691. 
 
 Punitive damages not recover- 
 able for killing of child and 
 injury of person attempting 
 to rescue, by reason of fail- 
 ure to keep lookout. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Creighton (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 713. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 449 
 
 X.OO-K.OVrS— Continued. 
 
 Statute requiring, degree of 
 care. 
 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. 
 Russell (Ark.), vol. 3, p. 
 653. 
 Tennessee statute. 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. House 
 (Tenn.), vol. 4, p. 261. 
 
 LUNATICS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Authority to contract for non 
 compos mentis. 
 Page V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 1. 
 
 MACHINERY. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 MAIL. 
 
 See Interstate Commerce. 
 Taxation. 
 
 Construction of mail contracts. 
 
 Johnson v. Boston & M. R. 
 
 Co. (Vt.), vol. 10, p. 374. 
 
 Mailing points for transfer. 
 
 Johnson v. Boston & M. R. 
 
 Co. (Vt.), vol. 10, p. 374. 
 
 MAIL AGENTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 MAIL CLERKS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 As passen'gers. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kingman (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 
 401. 
 Not passengers within mean- 
 ing of Pennsylvania statute. 
 Foreman v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 17, p. 246. 
 Passengers. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kingman (Ky.), vol. S, pp. 
 401, 405. 
 
 MAIL CRANES. 
 
 See Structures near Track. 
 
 MALICE. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Malice implied where carrier 
 carelessly repudiated valid 
 ticket. 
 
 Winters v. Cowen (C. C. 
 Ohio), vol. 12, p. 40. 
 
 I D— 29 
 
 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. 
 Action for malicious prosecu- 
 tion where defendant tore 
 up the track on right of way 
 claimed by him as his own. 
 Strieker 'v. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 758. 
 Wichita & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Quinn (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 217. 
 Company's ratification of con- 
 ductor's act in arresting pas- 
 senger. 
 Lezinsky v. Metropolitan St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 55. 
 Conductor's employment does 
 not extend to leaving car, 
 in order to have passenger 
 arrested for failure to pay 
 fare. 
 Lezinsky v. Metropolitan St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 55. 
 
 MANDAMUS. 
 See Bridges. 
 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Business of leased lines as well 
 as of main line considered in 
 compelling operation of sepa- 
 rate passenger train. 
 People ex rel. Cantrell v, St. 
 Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 227. 
 Carriage of goods compelled. 
 Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. 
 V. Morgan's L. & T. R. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 13, p. 71. 
 Carriage of goods compelled 
 where shipper refuses to pay 
 for revenue stamp. 
 Atty. Gen. ex rel. Moore v. 
 American Exp. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 13, p. 95. 
 Circuit court has jurisdiction 
 of mandamus proceedings 
 against "association" as 
 well as corporation. 
 Atty. Gen. ex rel. Moore v. 
 American Exp. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 13, p. 95. 
 Compelling erection of depot. 
 State ex rel. Smart f. Kansas 
 City, S. & G. Ry, Co. 
 (La.), vol. 14, p. 461. 
 Compelling express companies 
 to affix revenue stamps. 
 American Exp. Co. v. May- 
 nard, Atty. Gen. (U. S.), 
 vol. 17, p. 530. 
 
450 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 yLK^'DA.yinS— Continued. 
 
 Compelling trains to stop at 
 countj' seats. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. 
 Ry. Co. V. People ex. rel. 
 Jett (111.), vol. 14, p. 846. 
 Effect of having remedy in 
 equity. 
 
 People V. K. Y. Cent., etc., R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 23, p. 175. 
 Knforcemetit of order of rail- 
 road commissioners. 
 State ex rel. Lamar, Atty. 
 Gen., z;. Jacksonville Term. 
 Co. (Fla.), vol. 16, p. 727. 
 Equipment and operation of 
 railroads. 
 
 People ex rel. Cantrell v. St. 
 Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 227. 
 Maintenance of terminals. 
 Sherwood v. Atlantic & D. 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol.6, p. 670. 
 Mandamus to compel carrier to 
 grant equal facilities. 
 State ex rel. Cumberland, T. 
 & T. Co. V. Tex. & P. Ry. 
 Co. (L,a.), vol. 18, p. 399. 
 Mandamus to compel carrier to 
 perform public duties. 
 State ex rel. Cumberland, 
 T. & T. Co. V. Texas & P. 
 Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 18, p. 399. 
 Mandamus to compel street rail- 
 ways to pave. 
 
 City of Lansing v. Lansing, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 S, p. 719. 
 Mandamus to terminal company 
 to compel observance of reg- 
 ulation of railroad commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 State ex rel. Lamar, Atty. 
 Gen., z;. Jacksonville Term. 
 Co. (E'la.), vol. 16, p. 727. 
 Mandamus will lie at the in- 
 stance of an abutting owner 
 to compel a street railway to 
 operate its line. 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co. 
 (Wash.), vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Nature of trial of question as to 
 granting application by abut- 
 ting owner for mandamus to 
 compel operation of street 
 railway line. 
 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co. 
 (Wash.), vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Operation of separate passenger 
 train. 
 
 People ex rel. Cantrell v. St. 
 Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 227. 
 
 TAA.TU'DA.TiinJS— Continued. 
 Parties in mandamus proceed- 
 ings to compel lessee of rail- 
 road to remove obstruction 
 in street. 
 
 People V. Northern Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol.21, p. 192. 
 Proper remedy to compel resto- 
 ration of highway by railroad. 
 People V. Northern Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 192. 
 Relators. 
 
 State ex rel. Lamar, Atty. 
 Gen., V. Jacksonville Term. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 16, p. 727. 
 SufiSciency of allegation of pe- 
 tition for writ of mandamus. 
 People V. N. Y. Cent., etc., 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 23, p. 
 175. 
 To railroad to compel removal 
 of obstruction, sufficiency of 
 affidavit under N. Y. statute. 
 People V. Northern Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 192. 
 Trial of application for man- 
 damus to compel operation 
 of street railway line is that 
 of an action at law. 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co. 
 (Wash.), vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Where damages would not 
 afford adequate relief. 
 People V. N. Y. Cent., etc., R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 23, p. 
 175. 
 Whether a railroad company 
 may be forced to operate a 
 passenger instead of a 
 mixed train by mandamus. 
 People V. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. (111.), vol.6, p. 241. 
 
 MANHOOD. 
 See Children. 
 
 MARKET REPORTS. 
 See Damages. 
 
 MARRIED -WOMEN. 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 Recovery of damages by. 
 Tex. & P. Ry. Co. v. Humble 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 17, p. 83. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 See Assaults. 
 Baggage. 
 Brakemen. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Conflict of Laws. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 451 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 Continued. Continued. 
 
 See Coupling Cars. 
 Damages. 
 Electric Railroads. 
 Employees' Liability Acts. 
 Evidence. 
 
 Exemplary Damages. 
 Fellow Servants. 
 Fences. 
 Foreign Cars. 
 Garnishment. 
 Imputable Negligence. 
 Leases and Running Pow- 
 ers. 
 Pleading. 
 Private Railroads. 
 Release. 
 
 Relief Departments. 
 Sleeping Car Companies. 
 Trespassers. 
 Witnesses. 
 Absence of dead woods must 
 be proximate cause of injury 
 to brakeman coupling cars. 
 Hannigan v. Lehigh & H. 
 R. Ry. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, 
 p. 60S. 
 Absence of evidence of negli- 
 gence or contributory negli- 
 gence in action for death of 
 employee crossing track. 
 Elliott V. Western & A. R. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 889. 
 Action for injury to employee, 
 transitory. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Am- 
 pey (Va.), vol. S, p. 706. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to defect in track, in action 
 for injury to employee. 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 Wilson (111.), vol. 20, p. 
 164. 
 Alabama statute allowing in ac- 
 tion by master as if he were 
 a stranger. 
 
 Louisville & N. H. R. Co. 
 V. Graham (Ala.), vol. 3, 
 p. 433. 
 
 Appliances. 
 
 Absence of proper appliances, 
 question for jury. 
 Wright V. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 157. 
 Appliances that are ordinarily 
 or generally used are all 
 that a master is required to 
 furnish. 
 
 Shadford v. Ann Arbor St. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, 
 p. 584. 
 
 Best appliances. 
 
 Shadford v. Ann Arbor 
 St. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 6, p. 584. 
 Care required in furnishing 
 appliances. 
 
 Benson v. N. Y., N. H. & 
 H. R. Co. (R. L), vol. 
 
 22, p. 299. 
 
 Care required of master as 
 to appliances. 
 Baldwin v. Atlantic City R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 486. 
 Care to be exercised by master 
 as to roadbed, machinery 
 and appliances. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 
 
 V. Oyster (Neb.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 656. 
 Direction of verdict for de- 
 fendant where evidence that 
 unblocked frogs are not 
 unsafe. 
 Kilpatrick v. Choctaw, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 244. 
 
 Duty of company to use self- 
 couplers. 
 
 Greenlee v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 11, p. 45. 
 Duty of master. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 Lash (Va.), vol. 3, p. 
 569. 
 Creswell v. Wilmington & 
 N. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 
 14, p. 625. 
 Seldomridge v. C. & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 14, 
 p. 639. 
 Duty of master as to appli- 
 ances. 
 
 Bland v. Shreveport Belt Ry. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 4, p. 349. 
 Duty of master to furnish 
 safe appliances. 
 Gaulden v. Kansas City 
 S. Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 
 23, p. 909. 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ampey (Va.), vol. 5, pp. 
 706, 707. 
 Duty to ballast switch tracks. 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 Morrissey (111.), vol. 12, 
 . p. 624. 
 
 Duty to furnish safe tools and 
 appliances. 
 
 Kent V. Yazoo & M. V. R. 
 , Co. (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 
 332. 
 
452 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued^ 
 
 I'ailure to furnish automatic 
 car-couplers is negligence 
 per se. 
 
 Troxler v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 711. 
 fences, where a statute re- 
 quires railway companies 
 to erect fences on their 
 rights of way through all 
 enclosed lauds or lots, it 
 does not render such com- 
 panies liable for injuries 
 done to employees conse- 
 quent upon failure to 
 fence, but only for damages 
 done to stock. 
 Carper v. Receivers of Nor- 
 folk & W. R. Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 7, p. 95. 
 Hand-bar not machinery 
 within meaning of employ- 
 ers' liability act. 
 . Clements v. Ala. Great 
 Southern R. Co. (Ala.), 
 vol. 19, p. 266. 
 Injury to brakeman, suflS- 
 ciency of allegation of neg- 
 ligence as to furnishing air 
 brakes. 
 
 Crandall v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 21, p. 388. 
 Liability of master for de- 
 fects. 
 
 Clements v. Alabama Great 
 Southern R. Co. (Ala.), 
 vol. 19, p. 266. 
 Ma&ter liable for neglect of 
 agent as to appliances. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 Co. V. 0'L,eary (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 718. 
 Master not insurer of safety 
 of appliance. 
 
 Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 p. 780. 
 Master not liable for injuries 
 received by servant through 
 defects in appliances sub- 
 stituted by fellow servant 
 in place of safe and suit- 
 able appliance furnished by 
 master. 
 
 Campbell v. New Jersey 
 Dry Dock & Tiansp. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 11, p. 12. 
 Negligence in furnishing ap- 
 pliances not chargeable to 
 fellow servant. 
 Troxler v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 711. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Negligence of employee in- 
 trusted with superintend- 
 ence in using improper 
 appliances, 
 l/ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 224. 
 Proper appliances, tests of 
 what are in action for in- 
 jury to employee. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 224. 
 Tools and machinery. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 
 Kelly (Tex. Civ. App. ), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 439. 
 Use by several companies not 
 sufficient test of what are 
 proper appliances. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 224. 
 
 Whether master is negligent 
 in using equipment in gen- 
 eral use is question for 
 jury. 
 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 660. 
 Assault on trespasser, question 
 for jury whether its com- 
 mencement was on car, and 
 therefore in brakeman's line 
 of employment. 
 Girvin v. N. Y. Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 20, 
 p. 547. 
 
 Assumption of Risk. 
 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Carroll (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 759. 
 Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. ». 
 
 Kernochan (Ohio), vol. 
 
 7, p. 774. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 
 Ginnis (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 774. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. McCarty (Neb.), vol. 
 
 5, p. 507. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Soderburg (Neb.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 761. 
 
 Durand v. N. Y. & L. B. R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 21, p. 208. 
 Huffman v. Mich. Cent. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. S, p. 
 
 S42-. 
 McGhee v. Bell (Ky.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 345. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 453 
 
 JMASTER AND SERVANT — 
 Continued. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Spellmau (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 438. 
 Narramore z/. Cleveland, C, 
 
 C. & St. Iv. Ry. Co. (C. 
 
 C. A.), vol. 17, p. 502. 
 
 Oliver v. Ohio River R. Co. 
 
 . (W.Va.), vol. 6, p. 783. 
 
 Reese v. Wheeling-, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 783. 
 Rittenhouse v. Wilmington 
 
 St. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 783. 
 
 Southern Kan; Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Michaels (Kan.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 761. 
 Stockwell V. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 12, p. 576. 
 ■Texas Central Ry. Co. ». 
 
 Lyons (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 316. 
 "Williams v. Delaware, Iv. 
 
 & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 147. 
 Winkler v. St. Louis Bas- 
 ket, etc., Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 7, p. 774. 
 
 Worlds V. Georgia R. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 514. 
 Absence of headlights on 
 backing engine. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Year- 
 gin (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 p. 459. 
 Absence of knowledge of 
 negligence. 
 
 O'Neill V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 
 578. 
 Assumption by servant of 
 risk from defective appli- 
 ances. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cooley (Ky.), vol. 12, 
 p. 553. 
 Assumption by servant of risk 
 from defective appliances, 
 questions for jury. 
 Cameron v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 
 12, p. 520. 
 Assumption of risk from ob- 
 structions. 
 
 Erslew V. New Orleans & 
 N. E. R. Co. (La.), vol. 
 6, p. 436. 
 Assumption of risk must be 
 pleaded and proven. 
 Walker v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 vol. 11, p. 738. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Assumption of risk of fellow 
 servant's negligence. 
 O'Neill V. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 415. 
 Assumption of risk of injury 
 from chute near track. 
 Phelps V. Chicago & W. M. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 302. 
 Assumption of risk of injury 
 from cinders in yard. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Vestal (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 633. 
 Brakeman. 
 Texas Central Railway Co. 
 
 V. Frazier (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 381. 
 Young V. W. Va., C. & P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 
 4, p. 134. 
 Brakeman's assumption of 
 risk. 
 Boyd V. Harris (Pa.), vol. 
 
 4, p. 472. 
 Young V. W. Va., C. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 134. 
 Brakeman continuing to work 
 with knowledge of defective 
 rails. 
 Arnold v. Louisville & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 272. 
 Brakeman does not, as matter 
 of law, assume risk from 
 defects on coupling mech- 
 anism of cars by merely 
 attempting to couple them 
 with knowledge of defect. 
 Youngblood v. S. Car. 
 
 & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Brakeman injured by hook 
 on rear of tender the 
 presence of which he was 
 chargeable with notice. 
 Crawford v. Detroit, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Mioh. ), vol. 22, p. 42. 
 Brakeman knowing that 
 culverts are uncovered as- 
 sumes risk of injury there- 
 from. 
 West V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 447. 
 Brakeman not chargeable 
 with notice that track is 
 unsafe. 
 
 111. Cent. R. Co. v. San- 
 ders (111.), vol. 11, p. 861. 
 
454 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SBBVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Burden of proof. 
 Burnham v. Concord & M. 
 R. R. (N. H.), vol. 16, p. 
 320. 
 Care required of master as 
 to machinery. 
 Konold V. Rio Grande W. 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 17, 
 p. 450. 
 Carrying ties. 
 I/ee V. Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 783. 
 Cattle guards are among as- 
 sumed risks of railway em- 
 ployment. 
 
 Fuller V. Lake Shore & M. 
 S. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 3, 
 p. S89. 
 Choosing dangerous method 
 of working. 
 
 Gaulden v. Kansas City S. 
 Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 23, p. 
 909. 
 Chute near track. 
 Phelps V. Chicago & W. M. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 16, 
 p. 302. 
 Coal bin near track. 
 Pahlan v. Detroit, G. E. 
 & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 16, p. 309. 
 Coal shed causing injury to 
 brakeman on car ladder. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Stevens (111.), vol. 20, p. 
 182. 
 Collision of hand cars. 
 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. 
 Jones ( Ala. ),vol. 8, p. 383. 
 Collision of trains of different 
 roads at a crossing. 
 Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Ransom (Kan.), vol. 3, 
 p. 259. 
 Conductor does not assume 
 risk of defective roadbed. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Price (C. C. A.), vol. 16, 
 p. 324. 
 Conductor of street car hav- 
 ing knowledge that cars 
 were not provided with life 
 guards. 
 
 Denver Tramway Co. v. 
 Nesbit (Colo.), vol. 4, p. 
 605. 
 Constitutional provision that 
 knowledge of defective 
 machinery shall not pre- 
 vent recovery by employees. 
 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Ihlen- 
 berg(C. C. A.), vol. 5, p. 
 573. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Couplers on foreign cars. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. ». 
 
 Curtis (Neb.), vol. 8, p> 
 
 762. 
 Coupling appliances, questiott 
 for jury. 
 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. R. Co. (S. 
 
 Car.), vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Coupling cars. 
 Hodges V. Kimball (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 19, p. 755. 
 So. Ry. Co. V. Arnold 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 864. 
 Danger from cattle chute- 
 near track. 
 Keist V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 297. 
 
 Danger not apparent and 
 
 against which servant has. 
 
 not been warned. 
 
 Daly V. Kiel (La.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 320. 
 
 Danger to brakeman from 
 
 pile of stones near track 
 
 was not sufBciently obvious. 
 
 Donahue v. Boston & M. 
 
 R. R. (Mass.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 526. 
 Dangerous premises. 
 Middle Ga. & A. Ry. Co. ». 
 
 Barnett (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 532. 
 Defect in machinery, instruc- 
 tions. 
 Youngblood v. S. Car. & 
 
 G. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 622. 
 Defect in track. 
 Lake Erie <& W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Wilson (111.), vol. 20, pi 
 
 164. 
 Defective appliances. 
 
 Box V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 527. 
 Bussey v. Charleston & W. 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 474. 
 Creswell v. Wilmington <Sr 
 
 N. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 625. 
 Ford V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 11, p. 489. 
 Fordyce v. Edwards. 
 
 (Ark.), vol. 11, p. S21. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 
 Co. V. O'Leary (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 718. 
 Pennsylvania Co. w. 
 
 Ebaugh (Ind.), vol. 14,. 
 
 p. 701. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 4SS 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued, 
 
 Pitts V. Florida Cent., etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.),vol. 8, p. 762. 
 Quinn v. Chicago, R. I. 
 
 & P. R3'. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 12, p. 512. 
 Seldomridge v. C. & O. 
 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 639. 
 Thompson v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Neb.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 762. 
 Union Stock-Yards Co. v. 
 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 503. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bradford (Ga.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 298.. 
 Defective appliances, question 
 for jury. 
 Cameron v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 
 
 12,_p. 520. 
 Defective crossing. 
 Fluhrer v. Lake Shore & 
 
 M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 463. 
 Defective roadbed, where 
 trainman is not chargeable 
 with notice. 
 Wilkie V. Raleigh & C. F. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 295. 
 Doctrine of, rendered inap- 
 plicable by statute. 
 Coley V. North Carolina 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 891. 
 Effect of constitutional provi- 
 sion that servant's knowl- 
 edge of defect in appliance 
 used by him and causing 
 his injury, shall be no de- 
 fense in action for such in- 
 jury- 
 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. R. Coi (S. 
 
 Car.), vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Effect of injured brakeman's 
 knowledge of defect in sta- 
 tion j'ard. 
 Hurst V. Kansas City, P. 
 
 & G. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 899. 
 Employee not bound to know 
 later defects. 
 Bland v. Shreveport Belt 
 
 Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 349. 
 Emplo3'ee struck by car 
 standing on parallel track. 
 Content v. N. Y., N. H. & 
 
 H. Ry. Co. (Mass.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 369. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Employers' liability acts as 
 affecting. 
 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Wagner (Ind. ), 
 vol. 14, p. 706. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Moore (Ind.), 
 vol. 14, p. 678. 
 Excavations. 
 Bradley v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. R. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 8, p. 728. 
 Larsson v. McClure (Wis.), 
 vol. 8, p. 763. 
 Existence of danger not 
 known to plaintiff. 
 Hollonbeck v. Missouri 
 Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 3, p. 350. 
 Eailure- to provide station, 
 assumption of risk by em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Chaddick v. Lindsay 
 (Okla.), vol. 8, p. 755. 
 Failure to signal to engineer 
 to notice danger. 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
 Kelly (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 444. 
 Foreign cars. 
 
 Union Stock- Yards Co. v. 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 
 12, p. 502. 
 From defective couplings. 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ampey (Va.), vol. 5, 
 p. 707. 
 From falling embankment. 
 Reiter v. Winona & St. P. 
 R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 11, 
 p. 31. 
 From obstructions. 
 Erslew V. New Orleans & 
 N. E. R. Co. (La.), vol. 
 6, p. 436. 
 From overhead structures. 
 Gusman v. Caffery Cent. 
 Refinery & Railroad Co., 
 Limited (La.), vol. 8, 
 p. 463. 
 Handling defective cars. 
 C. & O. R. Co. V. Hennessey 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 16, p. 515. 
 Improper placing of bridge 
 not a risk assumed by serv- 
 ant. 
 
 Hardy ». Boston & M. R. 
 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 565. 
 
 Incompetency or negligence 
 
 of fellow servant. 
 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 
456 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Injuries to employee on track. 
 McPeck V. Central Vt. R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 828. 
 Injury from cattle getting on 
 fenced track. 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
 
 Quill (Tex.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 736. 
 Injury from insufficient train 
 crew. 
 Creswell v. Wilmington & 
 
 N. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 625. 
 Injury to brakeman, defect in 
 station yard. 
 Hurst V. Kansas City, P. & 
 
 G. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 899. 
 Instructions as to assumption 
 of risk from defective ma- 
 chinery. 
 Youngblood v. S. Car. & G. 
 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 622. 
 Instruction as to duty of fur- 
 nishing safe cars properly 
 refused as having no limi- 
 tation as to place where 
 like cars were used. 
 Benson v. N. Y., N. H. & 
 
 H. R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 299. 
 Instruction as to when em- 
 ployee was chargeable with 
 knowledge of defect in 
 switch target. 
 Durand v. N. Y. & T-,. B. R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 208. 
 Instruction in action for 
 death of employee that re- 
 covery may be had if death 
 resulted from defective ap- 
 pliance should present de- 
 fences of contributory 
 negligence and waiver. 
 Ford V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 11, p. 489. 
 Instruction must not ignore 
 
 defense of. 
 
 Quinn v. Chicago, R. I. 
 & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 12, p. S12. 
 Instruction that servant hav- 
 ing knowledge of defects in 
 appliance assumes risk 
 therefrom, and instruction 
 that it is master's duty to 
 see that the appliances are 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 safe and suitable are not in- 
 consistent. 
 
 Bussey v. Charleston & W. 
 C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 11, p. 474. 
 Insufficient space between 
 tracks. 
 
 Voorhees v. Lake Shore & 
 M. S. Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 16, p. 316. 
 Insufficient yard force. 
 Young V. Syracuse, B. & 
 N. Y. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 21, p. 11. 
 Knowledge by servant of one 
 of two concurring causes of 
 injury. 
 
 St. Louis & S. W. R. Co. 
 V. Threat (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 p. 3S8. 
 Knowledge of defect. 
 Pierce v. Camden, etc., R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 
 S48. 
 Knowledge of defect in Ap- 
 pliance. 
 
 Bodie V. Charleston, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 22, p. 818. 
 Knowledge of defects in 
 equipments. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. 
 Yeargin (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 4S9. 
 Knowledge of defective track. 
 
 Lawhorn z;. Millen, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ga. ), vol. S, p. 
 551. 
 
 Loading cars. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Mauzy 
 (Va.), vol. 20, p. 647. 
 Loading lumber on car. 
 Bryan v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 542. 
 Low bridge. 
 
 Hardy v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 12, p. 565. 
 Myers v. Chicago, St. P., 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 749. 
 Making incision in steel 
 beam by "chipping" in- 
 stead of "blocking." 
 Smith V. Wilmington & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 467. 
 
 Meeting of drawheads. 
 Hanuigan v. Lehigh & H. 
 R. Ry. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 12, p. 60S. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 457 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Mismatched couplings. 
 McDonald v. Norfolk & W. 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. 8, p. 
 552. 
 Modification of instruction. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Kinnare (111.), vol. 21, 
 p. 328. 
 Negligence of fellow servant 
 in inspection of cars. 
 C. & O. R. Co. V. Hennes- 
 sey (C. C. A.), vol. 16, 
 p. 515. 
 Negligence of fellow servant 
 is a risk assumed, 
 O'Neill V. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, 
 p. 415. 
 Negligence of foreman in 
 loading hand car. 
 Ward V. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 462. 
 Notice of defect. 
 Brown v. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 
 11, p. 408. 
 Obeying order to arrest tres- 
 passer, by employee acting 
 outside scope of employ- 
 ment. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Kinnare (111.), vol. 21, 
 p. 328. 
 Obstructions near track. 
 Crandall v. N. Y., etc., R. 
 Co. (R. I.), vol. S, p. 
 S43. 
 Whipple V. N. Y., etc., R. 
 Co. (R. I.), "vol. 5, p. 
 517. 
 Obstruction on track. 
 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. 
 z;. Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, 
 p. 490. 
 Ordinary dangers. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 Ebaugh (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 701. 
 Ordinary perils. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Lyons (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 p. 610. 
 Patent defects. 
 
 Seldomridge v. Chesapeake 
 & O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 
 vol. 14, p. 639. 
 Pleading absence of, in ac- 
 tion for injury from _ de- 
 fective appliance sustained 
 in sister state, where it is 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 not shown that common law 
 prevails therein. 
 Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. 
 V. Miller (Ga. ), vol. 21, 
 p. 339. 
 Pole falling on lineman. 
 Bland v. Shreveport Belt- 
 Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 4, p. 
 349. 
 Proximity of bridge. 
 
 Hughes V. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 12, 
 p. 560. 
 Question for jury. 
 Youngblood v. S. Car. & 
 G. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 20, p. 622. 
 Question whether a defect 
 was so obvious as to render 
 servant chargeable with 
 notice is one for jury where 
 evidence is conflicting. 
 Valley Ry. Co. v. Keegan 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 11, p. 507. 
 Question whether employee 
 had knowledge of defect one 
 for jury. 
 
 Judd V. C. & O. Ry. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 517. 
 Question whether employee 
 . should have discovered de- 
 fect in engine, one for 
 jury. 
 
 Fordyce v. Edwards 
 (Ark.), vol. 11, p. 521. 
 Railroad employee injured 
 while boarding a car which 
 was moving round on a turn 
 table, assumes the risk, 
 whether he is injured 
 through his own want of 
 ordinary care or the act of 
 a fellow servant. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Ferguson (Kan.), 
 vol. 10, p. 634. 
 Risks assumed. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Tuohey (Ark.), 
 vol. 16, p. 453. 
 Risks assumed need not be 
 specified in charging jury. 
 Augusta Southern R. Co. 
 V. McDade (Ga.), vol. 
 12, p. 548. 
 Risk from failure to comply 
 with ordinance regulating 
 the running of trains is not 
 assumed by track repairer. 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Peterson (Ind.), vol. 20, 
 p. 887. 
 
458 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Risk not ordinarily incident 
 to employment. 
 Bonnet v. Galveston, H. & 
 S. A. R. Co. (Tex.), 
 vol. 3, p. 437. 
 Risk of drawheads meeting-, 
 assumed. 
 
 Hannigan v. lyehigh & H. 
 R. Ry. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 12, p. 60S. 
 Risk of injury from overhead 
 bridg-e not assumed by serv- 
 ant. 
 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cooley (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 SS3. 
 Risk of injury from unblocked 
 rail assumed where servant 
 is chargeable with notice. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Ray 
 (Ind.), vol. 12, p. 593. 
 Risk of obstruction on track 
 not assumed by servant. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. 
 V. Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, 
 p. 492. 
 
 Section man. 
 Hinz V. Chicago, B. & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 611. 
 
 Servant coupling cars in yard 
 
 does not assume risk of 
 
 injury from ashes on track. 
 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Vestal (Ky.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 633. 
 
 Servant does not assume risk 
 of injury by failing to ex- 
 amine repairs made at his 
 instance. 
 Quimby v, Boston & M. R. 
 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 S17. 
 
 Servant does not assume risk 
 of injury from bridge in 
 dangerous' proximity to 
 track. 
 
 Hughes V. Ivouisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 S60. 
 
 Servant does not assume risk 
 of injury from failure to in- 
 spect car. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Brown (Ark.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 440. 
 Servant injured while shov- 
 eling coal by fall of coal. 
 Casey v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 361. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Servant's knowledge of dan- 
 ger, a question for jury. 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 660". 
 Servant not chargeable as a 
 matter of law with notice of 
 defect in track in a yard 
 a mile long and havingj^ 
 twenty-two tracks. 
 Valley Ry. Co. v. Keegan 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 507. 
 Servant not chargeable with 
 notice does not assume risk 
 of injury from unballasted 
 switch. 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Morrissey (111.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 624. 
 Servant obeying a command 
 which orders him into 
 obvious danger assumes 
 the risk. 
 Whatley v. Macon & N. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 425. 
 Servant sitting on top ^of 
 freight car with feet hang- 
 ing over assumes risk of 
 collision with mail crane 
 where rate of speed of train 
 causes car to oscillate. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Milliken (Ky.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 742. 
 
 Servant tearing down wall 
 does not assume risk of in- 
 jury from falling thereof. 
 Wolf 'v. Great Northern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 619. 
 Servant who is chargeable 
 with notice of defect as- 
 sumes risk of injury there- 
 from. 
 Walker v. Atlanta & W. P. 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 498. 
 Slippery condition of car to 
 be loaded with ice. 
 Baker v. Louisville & N. 
 
 Terminal Co. (Tenn.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 946. 
 Sufliciency of evidence. 
 
 Walker v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 738. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of serv- 
 ant's protest against ex- 
 posure to danger in action 
 for his injury while com- 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 4S9 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 pelled to ride on footboard 
 
 of engine. 
 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 642. 
 Switchman. 
 Wright V. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 5, p. 
 
 S60. 
 Switch stand near track. 
 Southern Kan. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Michaels (Kan.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 761. 
 S. Car. Const., art. 9, g 115, 
 providing that assumption 
 of risks by employee can- 
 not be set up applicable to 
 action by section master for 
 personal injuries from fail- 
 ure of company to furnish 
 sufBcient number of persons 
 to perform work. 
 Bodie V. Charleston, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 818. 
 Telegraph poles near track. 
 Potter V. Detroit, G. H. & 
 
 M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 264. 
 Tower-man not chargeable 
 with notice of defective 
 condition of track near 
 tower. 
 Ivake Shore & M. S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Conway (111.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 7. 
 Unballasted track. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bowcock (Ky.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 421. 
 Unblocked frogs. 
 Gillin V. Patten & S. R. 
 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 508. 
 Under employers' liability 
 act of North Carolina. 
 Coley v'. North Carolina R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 885. 
 Using appliance after knowl- 
 edge of defect. 
 McGhee v. Bell (Ky.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 519. 
 Voluntary assumption of 
 dangerous risk. 
 Rittenhouse v. Wilmington 
 
 St. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), 
 
 vol. 6, p. 783. 
 What must appear in order to 
 authorize presumption that 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 servant assumed risk of de- 
 fective roadbed. 
 Valley Ry. Co. v. Keegan 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol.11, p. 507. 
 What risks are assumed. 
 Slavens v. Northern Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 406. 
 Where an employee is injured 
 by reason of a defect o;f 
 the existence of which he 
 is chargeable with notice, 
 the master's liability is a 
 question for the jury. 
 Walker v. Atlanta & W. P. 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 498. 
 Where contributory negli- 
 gence of brakeman in board- 
 in train, and negligence in 
 failing to provide safe sta- 
 tion yards. 
 Hurst V. Kansas City, P. 
 
 & G. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 899. 
 Where it is admitted that 
 deceased knew that an ap- 
 pliance was defective, bur- 
 den then is on plaintiff to 
 show that his decedent 
 was justified in running risk 
 of injury from such defect. 
 Ford V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 11, p. 489. 
 Where the proximate cause of 
 the accident was the wholly 
 unexpected straying of a 
 horse upon defendant's, 
 track in a populous city, an 
 order of such city prohib- 
 iting stock to be at large 
 therein, defendant was not 
 responsible for the death of 
 its employee resulting there- 
 from, deceased as a rail- 
 road employee having as- 
 sumed the risk of such 
 accidents. 
 Bowes V. Hopkins (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 9, p. 641. 
 Whether employee assumed 
 risk of defects in track of 
 another company. 
 Story V. Concord & M. R. 
 
 R. (N..H.), vol.20, p. 91. 
 
 Whether servant assumes risk 
 
 of telegraph poles near track 
 
 is for jury. 
 
 Potter V. Detroit, G. H. 
 
 & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.)> 
 
 vol. 16, p. 264. 
 
460 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Working in dangerous place. 
 Seldomridge v. C. & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 14, p. 
 639. 
 Working on repair train. 
 Wilson V. l/ouisiana & N. 
 W. E. Co. (I/a.), vol. 
 14, p. 648. 
 Working with knowledge of 
 defect in appliances. 
 Gaulden v. Kansas City 
 S. Ey. Co. (La.), vol. 23, 
 p. 909. 
 Authority of conductor to em- 
 ploy physician. 
 Adams v. Southern Ey. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 16, p. 369. 
 Authority of general superin- 
 tendent to make contract of 
 employment for railroad 
 company. 
 
 Sax V. Detroit, etc., Ey. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 653. 
 Authority of servant to protect 
 master's property. 
 Welsh V. West Jersey & S. 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. IS, p. 
 674. 
 Authority of station agent to 
 hire assistants. 
 Lipscomb v. Houston & T. 
 C. Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 23, p. 401. 
 eiacklisting. 
 
 Clearance cards, judicial 
 notice of. 
 
 McDonald v. 111. Cent. E. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 20, p. 309. 
 SufBciency of declaration in 
 action for. 
 
 McDonald v. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 20, p. 
 309. 
 Blocking frogs. 
 
 Hauss V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 864. 
 Brakeman killed by steel rail. 
 McCray v. Galveston, H. & 
 S. A. E. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 3, p. 276. 
 Breach of contract of employ- 
 ment. 
 
 Sax V. Detroit, etc., Ey. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 6S3. 
 Bridges, failure to construct 
 bridge so that employee can 
 pass under while standing 
 erect. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cooley (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 SS3. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Bridges, failure to construct, 
 so that servants standing on 
 top of train can safely pass 
 under, is negligence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cooley (Ky.),vol. 12, p.;sS3. 
 Bridges, servant does not as- 
 sume risk of injury from low 
 bridge caused by improper 
 height of bridge guard. 
 Hardy v. Boston & M. R. 
 R. (N. H.), vol. 12, p. S6S. 
 Burden of proof as to absence 
 of negligence. 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Jack- 
 son (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 296. 
 Care due employee using tracks 
 as passway. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Simpson (Ky. ), vol. 23, p. 
 592. 
 Care due from master in em- 
 ploying fellow servant. 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 Care due from master to em- 
 ployee of private railroad. 
 Lynn v. Antrim Lumber Co., 
 Limited (La.), vol. 21, p. 
 598. 
 Care due in running train on 
 unsafe track. 
 
 Wilson V. Louisiana & N. W. 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 14, p. 
 648. 
 Care due in starting trains. 
 Wilson V. Louisiana & N. W. 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 14, p. 648. 
 Care required of master as to 
 condition of yard tracks. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Ross (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 432. 
 Care required of master as to 
 custody of explosives. 
 Rush V. Spokane Palls & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 20, p. 
 285. 
 Care required of railroad to- 
 wards servants. 
 McGeary v. Old Colony R. 
 R. (R. I.), vol. 14, p. 
 764. 
 
 Care required of trainmen to 
 avoid injuring employee 
 alighting from, or boarding 
 another train. 
 
 Wabash E. Co. v. Skiles 
 (Ohio), vol. 21, p. 881. 
 
 Cattle chutes near track, neg- 
 ligence. 
 
 Keist V. Chicago G. W. Ey. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 297. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 461 
 
 MASTBB AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Cause of accident by which 
 servant wa# injured, a ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 Fluhrer v. Lake Shore & M. 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 463. 
 Collateral interest as to ap- 
 pointment of receiver in ac- 
 tion for injury to employee. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 429. 
 Combination pf causes, causing 
 injury does not render master 
 liable. 
 Creswell v. Wilmington & 
 
 N. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 625. 
 Complaint alleging that brake- 
 man was injured through 
 negligence of engineer and 
 foreman states cause of ac- 
 tion. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Arnold 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 864. 
 Concurring negligence of mas- 
 ter and fellow servant. 
 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. 
 
 Co. V. Becker (Ark.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 348. 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 16, p. 551. 
 Constitutional law, contract 
 of exemption from liability 
 for negligence under South 
 Carolina constitution. 
 Johnson v. Charleston & S. 
 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 761. 
 Construction of contract to em- 
 ploy injured employee. 
 Tenn. Coal, Iron & Railroad 
 
 Co. V. Pierce (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 742. 
 Contract between railway and 
 express company exempting 
 former from liability for in-- 
 jury to express company's 
 employee valid. 
 Blank v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (III.), vol. 16, p. 6. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 McCarty (Neb.), vol. S, p. 
 
 507. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Cowles (Neb.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 33. 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kernochan (Ohio), vol. 
 
 7, p. 774. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Conway v. Chicago, etc.^ 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 7S5. 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Smock (Colo.), vol. 7. 
 
 p. 775. 
 Holt V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 7, p. 775. 
 Penn. R. Co. v. Snyder 
 
 (Ohio), vol. 7, p. 775. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Baston 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 755. 
 Texas Central Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Lyons (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 316. 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. An- 
 drews ( Ala. ),vol. 8, p. 755. 
 Wright V. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 5, p. 559. 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 tending to show that de- 
 ceased employee knew that 
 coupling could not be made, 
 where it is claimed that in- 
 jury was caused either by 
 engineer mistaking signal 
 intended for another en- 
 gineer, or by act of .de- 
 ceased giving signal for 
 purpose of coupling cars. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. z-. 
 
 York (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 470. 
 Alighting from moving train 
 at command of superior. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Egeland (U. S.), vol. 4» 
 
 p. 259. 
 Assumption of risk and con- 
 tributory negligence under 
 employers' liability act of 
 North Carolina. 
 Coley V. North Carolina 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 885. 
 Boarding moving car. 
 Kilpatrick v. Grand Trunk 
 
 Ry. Co. (Vt.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 300. 
 Boarding moving car in 
 obedience to foreman's 
 order is not contributory 
 negligence per se on part 
 of servant. 
 Chattanooga Elec. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Lawson (Tenn.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 669. 
 Book of rules as evidence ia 
 action for death of en- 
 gineer in collision. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Martin (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 485. 
 
462 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Brakeman choosing- more 
 dangerous method of draw- 
 ing pin from between cars 
 in motion. 
 
 Morris v. Duluth, etc., Ry. 
 Co. {C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 p. 45. 
 Brakeman going between cars 
 before seeing that signals 
 were observed. 
 Cambron v. Omaha, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 23, p. 
 634. 
 Brakeman going between 
 moving cars. 
 
 O'Neill V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Neb.), vol: 22, p. 
 578. 
 Brakeman injured while be- 
 tween cars by other cars 
 bearing down upon him. 
 Tibbs V. Ala., etc., R. Co. 
 (AlaJ, vol. 5, p. 4S8. 
 Brakeman 's knowledge of 
 danger from obstruction 
 near track, question for 
 
 . jury- 
 
 Donahue v. Boston & M. R. 
 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 526. 
 Brakeman . raising his head 
 while passing under a low 
 bridge of which he knew is 
 ' guilty of contributory neg- 
 ligence. 
 HafEner v. Chesapeake & O. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Va.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 556. 
 Brakeman who fails to use 
 ordinary care in coupling 
 cars cannot recover for in- 
 juries. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Arnold 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 864. 
 Burden of proof in action for 
 injury to employee. 
 Chattanooga S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Myers (Ga.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 V76. 
 Haltom V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 19, p. 776. 
 Burden of proof in federal 
 courts. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burris (C. C. A.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 912. 
 Burden of proving due care 
 where employee is killed 
 on track. 
 Uyer v. Fitchburg R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 11, p. 473. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Burden of proving its ab- 
 sence. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Cromer (Va.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 720. 
 Care required of employee 
 crossing track at station to 
 board train. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Skiles 
 
 (Ohio), vol. 21, p. 882. 
 Care required of lineman in- 
 jured by live wire. 
 Jackson & S. St. R. R. v. 
 
 Simmons (Tenn.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 236. 
 Care required of track re- 
 pairer in looking and lis- 
 tening for trains. 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. z'. 
 
 Peterson (Ind. ), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 887. 
 Care to be exercised by em- 
 ployee. • 
 Bradley v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 728. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Mooney (Fla. ), vol. 
 
 12, p. 722. 
 Car inspector going under 
 car, after dark, without 
 notice. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Roach (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 869. 
 Catching foot in switch. 
 International & G. N. R. 
 
 Co. V. Lee (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. ), vol. 3, p. 441. 
 Choosing a more dangerous 
 method of coupling cars. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Mooney (Fla.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 722. 
 Moore v. Kansas City, Ft. 
 
 S. & M. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. S80. 
 Choosing a more dangerous 
 method of discharging duty 
 is evidence of. 
 Carrier v. Union Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 513. 
 Moore v. Kansas City, Ft. 
 
 S. & M. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 580. 
 Morris v. Duluth, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 45. 
 Quirouet v. Alabama G. S. 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 SSI. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 463 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Company's neglect to perform 
 statutor3' duty as to main- 
 tenance of ladders on side of 
 car did not relieve injured 
 employee from proving that 
 his own negligence did not 
 contribute to his injuries. 
 Kilpatrick v. Grand Trunk 
 Ry. Co. (Vt.), vol. 20, p. 
 300. 
 Contributory negligence as 
 defense to action under em- 
 ployers' liability act. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Har- 
 bin (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 692. 
 Contributory negligence in 
 coupling cars. 
 Brown v. Liouisville, H. & 
 St. Iw. Ry. Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 23, p. 883. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 servant choosing more haz- 
 ardous way. 
 
 Seal V. Atchison, T. & S. 
 F. Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 
 18, p. 7S1. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 servant going between cars 
 to make coupling in viola- 
 tion of rule. 
 
 Shorter v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 
 761. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 servant in failing to guard 
 against danger from over- 
 head bridge. 
 
 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. 
 Marpole (Va.), vol. 16, 
 p. 291. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 servant selecting more haz- 
 ardous way to perform duty. 
 Quirouet v. Alabama G. S. 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, 
 p. SSI. 
 Contributory negligence pf 
 servant using standard in 
 mounting car. 
 Quirouet v. Alabama G. S. 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 
 SSI. 
 Coupling cars by hand, evi- 
 dence as to customs. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 York (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 470. 
 Death of employee arising 
 from dangerous premises. 
 Grimmelman v. Union Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 8, 
 p. 321. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Disregard of rules in coupling 
 cars. 
 
 Hodges V. Kimball (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 19, p. 7SS. 
 Doing act negligent per se is 
 not excused by commands 
 of superior. 
 
 Georgia v. Mobile, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 4, p. 257. 
 Due care in riding on foot- 
 board of engine. 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 p. 642. 
 Duty of brakeman to look out 
 for fish chutes near main 
 track. 
 
 Phelps V. Chicago & W. 
 M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 20, p. 137. 
 Duty of employee loading 
 timber on car to look and 
 listen for other trains. 
 Freeman v. 111. Cent. R. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 49. 
 Duty of engineer killed by 
 train running at high rate 
 of speed to know whether 
 ordinance regulating speed 
 was habitually violated. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. 
 L. Ry. Co. V. Martin 
 (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 48S. 
 Duty to look out Jfor signals 
 when switching cars. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 218. 
 Effect of, where proximate 
 cause of injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Mauzy 
 (Va.), vol. 20, p. 647. 
 Employee injured by tele- 
 graph pole near track. 
 Crandall v. New York, etc. , 
 R. Co. (R. I.), vol. S, p. 
 543. 
 Whipple V. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 5, p. 
 517. 
 Employee injured on track. 
 St. Jean v. Boston & M. 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 10, 
 p. 444. 
 Employee killed by a train 
 which he could have seen 
 for a mile before it reached 
 him. 
 
 Fisher v, Louisville, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 6, 
 p. 782. 
 
464 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Employee unable to see where 
 he is walking while carry- 
 ing a hand car. 
 Terry v. Louisville, N. A. 
 
 & C. E. Co. (Ind. App.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 442. 
 Employee voluntarily placing 
 himself in dangerous posi- 
 tion. 
 Atchison, T. & S. P. R. 
 
 Co. V. Tindall (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 6, p. SS7. 
 Employee walking in un- 
 lighted round hoUse killed 
 by falling in pit of which 
 he knew. 
 McDonnell v. Illinois Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 534. 
 Employee working in yard 
 failing to inform fellow 
 employees when about to 
 enter or climb upon stand- 
 ing car. 
 Lumpkin v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 4, p. 458. 
 
 Engineer using defective 
 
 drain pipe on tender as 
 
 handhold, question for 
 
 jury- 
 
 Coley V. North Carolina 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 891. 
 Engineer violating rule 
 prescribing the distance 
 train in front shall be fol- 
 lowed. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hiltner (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 579. 
 Erroneous instruction as to 
 contributory negligence of 
 servant falling from foot- 
 board of engine. 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 642. 
 Evidence as to whether 
 duties of brakeman required 
 him to be on top of car. 
 Quinlan v. Chicago, R. I. 
 
 &P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 21, p. 385. 
 Eailure of brakeman to look- 
 out for structures near 
 main track is not. 
 Phelps V. Chicago & W. 
 
 M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 137. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Failure of engineer to com- 
 ply with statutory require- 
 ment, cause of collision at 
 intersection. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bryan 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 7. 
 Failure of flagman to look for 
 train and absence of look- 
 out on rear of train. 
 Coleman v. Pittsburg, C, 
 C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 453. 
 Failure of servant to dis- 
 cover defect in appliance 
 when reasonable care would 
 have enabled him to do so. 
 Hannigan v. Lehigh & H. 
 R. Ry. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 12, p. 605. 
 Failure of servant to dis- 
 cover defect not patent is 
 not contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Leak v. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 14, 
 p. 739. 
 Failure of track repairer to 
 look and listen for trains, 
 question for jury. 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Peterson (Ind.), vol. 20, 
 p. 887. 
 Falling asleep on end of 
 cross-tie. 
 
 Stewart v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 
 601. 
 Fireman's going under 
 engine without notifying 
 engineer, contrary to estab- 
 lished custom, is proximate 
 cause of his injuries. 
 Crane v. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 5, p. 
 706. 
 Going between rails to couple 
 cars. 
 
 Carrier v. Union Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 17, p. 
 513. 
 Grasping handle of hand car 
 with one hand. 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 8,- p. 
 384. 
 In action for injury to conduc- 
 tor going on track without 
 noticing signals. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Burris (C. C. A.), vol. 
 23, p. 912. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 465 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Injuries resulting- from ob- 
 vious dangers. 
 Sours V. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 457. 
 Injury to employee by ob- 
 structions near track. 
 New York, C. & St. L,. R. 
 
 Co. V. Ostman (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 6, p. 588. 
 Injury to ser%'ant jumping 
 from moving car to escape 
 danger. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Tuohey (Ark.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 453. 
 Injury to switchman. 
 Ferguson v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 241. 
 Instructions. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co, 
 
 V. Perkersou (Ga.), vol. 21 
 
 p. 63. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hiltner (Ky.), vol. 20, p 
 
 279. 
 McCreery v. Ohio River R, 
 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 20, p, 
 
 875. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Jack- 
 sou (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 296. 
 Instruction as to effect of vio- 
 lation of rules not rendered 
 erroneous by omission of 
 comma after word "not." 
 Jarvis v. Flint & P. M. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 312. 
 Instruction in action for death 
 of employee that plaintiff 
 may recover if death was 
 caused by defective appli- 
 ance should present defenses 
 of contributory negligence 
 and waiver. 
 Ford V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 489. 
 Instructions on theory of sud- 
 den emergency properly re- 
 fused. 
 
 Jackson & S. R. R. v. Sim- 
 mons (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 236. 
 Judicial notice that unblocked 
 frog could have been seen 
 by deceased brakeman. 
 Jones V. Flint & P. M. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 21, p. 904. 
 Jumping from train to avoid 
 danger. 
 Cowen V. Ray (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 531. 
 
 ID— 30 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Jumping on moving engine, 
 question for jury. 
 Donahue v. Boston & M. R. 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 20, p. 526. 
 Killing of employee on track. 
 Foss V. Old Colony R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 11, p. 41. 
 Knowledge of defect in track. 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Sutton 
 (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 772. 
 
 Knowledge of defective appli- 
 ances. 
 McGhee v. Bell (Ky.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 345. 
 Parker v. South Carolina & 
 G. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 6, p. 731. 
 Liability for injury to servant 
 of another company caused 
 by negligence in leaving 
 switch open as affected by 
 contributory negligence in 
 being in dangerous position 
 on engine. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol.23, p. 429. 
 Master giving a servant a 
 command requiring the do- 
 ing of an act not within the 
 servant's duty. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Carty (Neb.), vol. 5, p. 507. 
 Must be proximate cause of 
 injury. 
 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 20, p. 622. 
 
 Must be proximate cause to 
 defeat recovery. 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Negligence in failing to fur- 
 nish derailing switch and 
 contributory negligence of 
 employee in running train 
 at prohibited speed. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Cromer (Va.), vol. 23, p. 
 720. 
 No defense to count in com- 
 plaint, under employers' lia- 
 bility act of Alabama, for 
 wilfulness, wantonness or 
 intentional wrong. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 York (Ala.) , vol. 23, p. 470. 
 Nonsuit properly ordered in 
 action for injury to yard- 
 master knocked from mov- 
 
466 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 ing- train by electric light 
 pole too near track in yard 
 with which he was familiar. 
 Blackstone v. Central of 
 Georgia Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 
 20, p. 36S. 
 Obedience to order requiring 
 performance of hazardous 
 act. 
 
 Allison V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 714. 
 Obstructions, section man re- 
 maining on track for pur- 
 pose of removing obstruction 
 endangering an approach- 
 ing train. 
 
 Blomquist v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, p. 
 439. 
 Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. 
 Krayeubuhl (Neb.), vol. 4, 
 p. 483. 
 Of conductor in failing to ob- 
 serve rules concurring with 
 company's negligence in al- 
 lowing derrick to swing over 
 track. 
 
 McCreery v. Ohio River R. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 20, p. 
 875. 
 Of employee of bridge com- 
 pany constructing railroad 
 bridge. 
 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. Ry. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, p. SSI. 
 Of engineer in allowing fire- 
 man to have charge of en- 
 gine. 
 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Scanlon (Ky.), vol. 2!2, p. 
 833. 
 Of section hand riding on 
 hand car, in failing to hold 
 on to lever, did not preclude 
 recovery for his death caused 
 by negligence of his foreman 
 having knowledge of such 
 failure, in suddenly check- 
 ing it. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Josey 
 (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 869. 
 Of servant, prevents recovery 
 for injuries or death. 
 Seldomridge v. Chesapeake 
 & O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 14, p. 639. 
 
 Oiling engine by hand not con- 
 tributory negligence on part 
 of employee. 
 Stdckwell V. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 12, 
 
 p. S76. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Oiling engine by hand when 
 automatic oiler is broken 
 not contributory negligence. 
 Stockwell V. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 12, 
 p. S76. 
 On part of brakeman. 
 Clyde V. Richmond & D. R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 446. 
 Opinion evidence as to habit- 
 ual carefulness on part of 
 engineer. 
 
 Mosnat v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 609. 
 Opinion evidence as to whether* 
 engineer killed in collision 
 was properly obeying signals 
 of his fireman. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. I<. 
 Ry. Co. V. Martin (Ind.), 
 vol. 23, p. 485. 
 Orders of master. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Carty (Neb.), vol. S, p. 507. 
 Passing between cars. 
 Murray v. Fitchburg R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 444. 
 Presumption as to object of 
 brakeman in crossing track 
 where he was killed. 
 Jones V. Flint & P. M. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 21, p. 904. 
 Proper use of magnetic bell 
 and test set furnished line- 
 men, question for jury. 
 Jackson & S. St. R. R. v. 
 Simmons (Tenn.), vol. 23, 
 p. 236. 
 Question for jury. 
 Bradley v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 8, 
 p. 728. 
 Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, p. 
 780. • 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. 
 Kasischke (C. C. A.), vol. 
 19, p. 406. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Milliken (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 742. 
 Southern Ry. in Kentucky 
 V. Cooper (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 231. 
 "Walker v. Shelton (Ky.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 15. 
 Wilkie V. Raleigh & C. F. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 19, 
 p. 296. 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. Hern- 
 don (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 124. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 467 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Question for jury, in action 
 for injury to conductor in 
 alighting from car caused by 
 projecting ties. 
 Whitcher v. Boston & M. R. 
 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 540. 
 Question for jury in action 
 for killing of brakeman. 
 Jones V. Flint & P. M. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 21, p. 904. 
 Question for jury, where 
 brakeman was injured by 
 reason of excavation near 
 track. 
 Jarvis v. Flint & P. M. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 312. 
 •Question for jury, whether 
 brakeman injured by reason 
 of unblocked guard rail, 
 while uncoupling cars by 
 hand because lever wads e- 
 fective, was guilty of. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 
 391. 
 Eailway obstruction near 
 • track. 
 New York, C. & St. 1,. R. 
 
 Co. V. Ostman (Ind.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 588. 
 JRecklessness in use of machin- 
 ery by employees. 
 Coley V. North Carolina R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 885. 
 Ueliance on fellow servant to 
 give warnings of danger is 
 not. 
 Hooper v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 1. 
 Reliance on performance of 
 duty by fellow servant is 
 not. 
 Merritt v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 775. 
 Reliance on promise to repair 
 appliance, question for jury. 
 Mann v. L/ake Shore & M. 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 325. 
 Riding on footboard of 
 engine. 
 Lemasters v. Southern Pac. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 20, p. 296. 
 Riding on footboard of 
 switch engine. 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 23,lp. 642. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Riding on locomotive in viola- 
 tion of rule, effect of custom. 
 Chattanooga S. R. Co. v. 
 Myers (Ga.), vol. 19, p. 776. 
 Riding on platform of last 
 freight car negligence per 
 se on part of employee re- 
 lying upon custom permit- 
 ting employee to ride on 
 freight trains. 
 
 Coyle V. Pittsburgh, C, C. 
 & St. L. R. Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 22, p. 874. 
 Right of employee to assume 
 that master has exercised 
 due care for his protection. 
 O'Neill V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 578. 
 Right to conclude that brake- 
 man injured by overhead 
 bridge was on top of the car 
 in discharge of duty. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Tucker (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 876. 
 Rules, sufficiency of evidence 
 of violation of. 
 TuUis V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 20, p. 
 336. 
 Section foreman injured by 
 tie falling on him when he 
 knew ties were improperly 
 loaded. 
 
 Texas Cent. Ry. Co. v. 
 Lyons (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 316. 
 Section foreman, in standing 
 near track when struck by 
 defective car door, not guilty 
 of. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Cul- 
 len (111.), vol.19, p. 523. 
 Section hand killed while 
 stooping over rail. 
 Sharp V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 47. 
 Servant cannot recover if his 
 negligence contributed to 
 his injury, although master 
 was also negligent. 
 McGeary v. Old Colony R. 
 Co. (R. I.), vol. 14, p. 764. 
 Servant deprived of capacity 
 to act by imminent danger 
 not guilty of contributory 
 negligence in failing to 
 obey signal. 
 
 Louisiana Western Exten- 
 sion Ry. Co. V. Carstens 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 12, 
 p. 782. 
 
468 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Servant's duty to protest 
 against use of defective ap- 
 pliances. 
 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, p. 642. 
 Servant failing^ to g-uard 
 against danger from over- 
 head bridge. 
 
 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Mar- 
 pole (Va.), vol. 16, p. 291. 
 Servant guilty of, cannot re- 
 cover for injuries. 
 Seldomridge v. Chesapeake 
 & O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 
 vol. 14, p. 639. 
 Servant injured by cattle 
 guard as to proximity of 
 which to track he was not 
 chargeable with notice was 
 not guilty of contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Wood V. l/ouisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 11, p. 
 525. 
 Servants may do work in cus- 
 tomary manner and yet do it 
 in such manner as to con- 
 tribute to his injury. ' 
 Bodie V. Charleston, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, 
 p. 818. 
 Servant not guilty of contrib- 
 •utory negligence in assum- 
 ing dangerous position in 
 obedience to orders when 
 his duty could not be other- 
 wise performed. 
 Ivouisville So. R. Co. v. 
 Tucker (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 805. 
 Servant obeying order of vice 
 principal and going into post 
 of obvious danger, relying 
 on promise by vice principal 
 of protection, not guilty of 
 contributory negligence, as 
 matter of law unless danger 
 was so great that a person of 
 ordinary prudence would 
 have refused to obey. 
 LfOuisiana Western Exten- 
 sion Ry. Co. V. Carstens 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 12, 
 p. 781. 
 Servant using defective appli- 
 ances with knowledge of 
 defect is not guilty of con- 
 tributory negligence unless 
 he knew such defect ren- 
 dered it dangerous. 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 Knapp (111.), vol. 14, p. 828. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Servant walking over un- 
 blocked frogs. 
 
 Gillin V. Patten & S. R. Co. 
 (Me.), vol. 16, p. 508. 
 Servant working for master 
 when he knows of master's 
 reckless habits, is guilty of. 
 Beal V. Atchison, T. & S. F. 
 Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 18, 
 p. 751. 
 Sitting on brake wheel. 
 Wilson V. Penn. R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 491. 
 Standing near track when 
 struck by defective car door. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Cul- 
 len (111.), vol. 19, p. 523. 
 Standing on footboard of en- 
 gine, question for jury. 
 Chicago & A. R . Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 Station agent killed by freight 
 cars left uubraked and un- 
 checked, set in motion by 
 sudden storm. 
 
 Brunswick, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ga.), vol. S. p. 
 695. 
 Structure near track. 
 Bryce v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, 
 p. 832. 
 Wood V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (C. C. Tenn.), vol. 11, 
 p. 525. 
 Sufficiency of complaint. 
 Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Howell (Ind.), vol. 6, p. 
 783. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 Knapp V. Chicago & W. M. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 857. 
 Merritt v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 775. 
 Rinard v. Omaha, K. C. & 
 
 E. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 34. 
 Sheltrawn v. Mich. Cent. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 711. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Hern- 
 don (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 464. 
 Sufficiency of evidence in ac- 
 tion for death of engineer of 
 switch engine colliding with 
 another train. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Martin (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 485. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 469 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 SuflRciency of evidence of plain" 
 tiff's protest ag-ainst expos" 
 ure to dang^er in action for 
 injury to servant caused by 
 fall from footboard of en- 
 gine. 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, p. 642. 
 Sufl&ciency of evidence to bar 
 recovery. 
 Sours V. Great Northern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, p. 457. 
 Sufficiency of evidence where 
 employee loading timber on 
 flat car was injured by back- 
 ing train. 
 Freeman v. 111. Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 49. 
 Sufficiency of instruction as 
 to contributory negligence 
 of employee which was not a 
 proximate cause of his in- 
 jury. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 
 391. 
 Sufficiency of instruction 
 silent as to contributory 
 negligence of employee, 
 which was not proximate 
 cause of his injury. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 
 391. 
 Sufficiency of notice that dig- 
 ging is being done between 
 ties which does not warn 
 brakeman that frog 'is un- 
 ■falocked. 
 Hauss V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 864. 
 Uncoupling moving cars. 
 Hollenbeck v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 278. 
 Unnecessarily cleaning engine 
 at end of trip without wait- 
 ing for instructions, where 
 inspection would have dis- 
 covered defect causing in- 
 jury. 
 Patton V. Texas & Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 148. 
 Using defective drainpipe in 
 climbing upon engine. 
 Coley V. North Carolina R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 885. 
 Violation of rules by employee. 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ritchie (Ala. ) , vol. 5, p. SS4. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Violation of rules by employee 
 is not per se. 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ey. 
 
 Co. V. Adams (Tex.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 274. 
 Violation of rule prohibiting 
 servants from going be- 
 tween cars to couple them is 
 contributory negligence. 
 Fluhrer v. Lake Shore & M. 
 
 5. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 17, p. 463. 
 
 Violation of rule requiring 
 employee to be on top of 
 cars is not, where he was 
 injured while in a safer 
 place. 
 TuUis V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 336. 
 Violation by engineer of rule 
 regulating speed. 
 Lonzer v. Lehigh Val. R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 333. 
 Voluntarily riding on locomo- 
 tive in violation of rules. 
 Chattanooga S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Myers (Ga.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 776. 
 Voluntary assumption of dan- 
 gerous risk. 
 Rittenhouse v. Wilmington 
 
 St. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 783. 
 
 Whether brakeman's igno- 
 rance of defect in roadbed 
 must be pleaded. 
 Chesapeake & N. R. Co. v. 
 Venable (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 450. 
 Whether employee was so 
 reckless as to preclude him 
 from asserting reliance on 
 promise to repair was for 
 jury. 
 
 Mann v. Lake Shore & M. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 21, 
 p. 325. 
 Wilfully encountering known 
 dangers. 
 
 Reese v. Wheeling (W. Va.), 
 vol. 6, p. 783. 
 Contributory negligence in 
 failing to use coupling stick. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Veach (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 24. 
 Custom relative to switching^ 
 cars, question for jury. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 429. 
 
470 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 _Con,tinued. 
 Damages. 
 Elements of recovery for in- 
 jury received by employee. 
 Bussey v. Charleston & W. 
 C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 11, p. 474. 
 Evidence as to capacity of 
 injured brakeman to earn 
 wages. 
 
 Wimber v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 476. 
 Evidence as to previous earn- 
 ings. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Perkerson (Ga.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 63. 
 
 Instructions limiting future 
 
 earning power to manual 
 
 labor. 
 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 391. 
 Measure of, in action for 
 breach of contract releasing 
 claim for damages for per- 
 sonal injuries in consider- 
 ation of future employment. 
 Rhoades v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 22, 
 p. 283. 
 Punitive damages cannot be 
 recovered of master for wan- 
 ton or malicious act of serv- 
 ant. 
 
 Haver v. Central R. Co. of 
 
 N. J. (N. J.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 490. 
 
 Recovery of punitive damages 
 
 for malicious or wanton acts 
 
 of servant under Colorado 
 
 statute. 
 
 Ristine v. Blocker (Colo.), 
 vol. 18, p. 139. 
 Release by widow in consider- 
 ation of benefits from relief 
 department no bar to action 
 by administrator. 
 Cowen V. Ray (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 21, p. 531. 
 Wantonness, recklessness or 
 wilfulness of employee may 
 render master liable for puni- 
 tive damages. 
 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Robinson (Ala.), vol. 
 19, p. 357. 
 Defective couplings. 
 Thompson v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 
 762. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Defects. 
 Assumption of risk. 
 
 Quinn v. Chicago, R. I. & P- 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 12, p. 
 512. 
 Vining V. N. Y. & N. E. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 65. 
 Assumption of risk a question 
 for jury. 
 
 Cameron v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 12^ 
 p. 520. 
 Assumption of risk f rom^ latent 
 defects. 
 
 Union Stock Yards Co. v. 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 p. 502. 
 Burden of proof as to knowl- 
 edge of defects in action for 
 death of servant. 
 Judd V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 517. 
 Burden of proving negligenc& 
 in furnishing defective car. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Burris (C. C. A.), vol. 23, 
 p. 912. 
 Care required of each as to- 
 defective appliance. 
 Leak v. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 
 739. 
 Cattle chutes near track. 
 Keist V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 297. 
 Coal bin near track. 
 Pahlan v. Detroit, G. H. & 
 ■ M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) , vol. 16^ 
 p. 309. 
 Conductor of freight train 
 ■\vhose duty it is to inspect 
 condition of train before 
 taking charge, not expected 
 to discover latent defects. 
 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Hilliard 
 (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 539. 
 Defect in appliances, question 
 for jury. 
 
 Doing V. New York, O. & W. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 9, p. 
 69. 
 Walker v. Gillett (Kan-.), vol. 
 10, p. 140. 
 Defect in foreign car renders, 
 master liable. 
 
 L,eak v. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 739. 
 Defect in track, admissibility 
 of evidence. 
 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 Wilson (111.), vol. 20, p> 
 164. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 471 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued, 
 
 Defective appliances, question 
 for jury. ' 
 
 "Wright V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 157. 
 Duty of master as to appli- 
 ances. 
 
 Cameron v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 12, 
 p. 520. 
 Duty of railroad to consult 
 safety in constructing- farm 
 crossings under contract. 
 Lrouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Pittman (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 56. 
 Duty to furnish safe place to 
 work. 
 
 Norfolk & W.' Ry. Co. v. 
 Cromer (Va.), vol. 23, p. 
 720. 
 Elevators, injury to employee 
 through defective elevator. 
 McNee v. Coburn Trolley- 
 Track Co. (Mass.), vol. 10, 
 p. 765. 
 Failure to keep headlight in 
 good repair. 
 
 San Antonio & A. P. Ry. 
 Co. V. Harding (Tex.) , vol, 
 3, p. 389. 
 Injury caused by defective 
 machinery of hand car. 
 Clare v. N. Y. & N. E. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 6, p. 76. 
 Injury to brakeman from de- 
 fective railing on bridge 
 while alighting. 
 Southern Ry. in Kentucky 
 V. Cooper (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 231. 
 Injury to employee by low 
 bridge. 
 
 Williams v. Del., L. & W. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 10, p. 147. 
 Injury to employee by obstruc- 
 tions near track. 
 New York, C. & St. Iv. R. 
 Co. V. Ostman (Ind.), vol. 
 6, p. 588. 
 Injury to employee from de- 
 fective grab-iron. 
 Jones V. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. 
 Co. (R. I.), vol. 11, p. 414. 
 Inspection of handholds, care 
 required. 
 
 Thompson v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 19, p. 421. 
 Insufficient space between 
 sidings. 
 
 Voorhees v. Lake Shore & 
 M. S. Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 16, p. 316. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Knowledge of defective appli- 
 ances. 
 
 Broslin v. Kansas City, M. 
 & B. R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 9, 
 p. 99. 
 Knowledge of defective track. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Tindall (Kan.), vol. 6, 
 p. 557. 
 Knowledge of defects as af- 
 fecting right to recover 
 under South Carolina con- 
 stitution. 
 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. 
 V. Thurman (Ga.), vol. 14, 
 p. 727. 
 Knowledge of servant of ex- 
 istence of dangerous appli- 
 ance does not render him 
 chargeable with notice as to 
 its location. 
 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Buudy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 660. 
 Latent defects. 
 Fulton V. Bullard (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 547. 
 Union Stock-Yards Co. v. 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 502. 
 Liability. 
 Roberts v. Boston & M. R. 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 3; p. 439. 
 Liability for defect in track of 
 another company. 
 Story V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 90. 
 Liability for defective car 
 door, in action for injury to 
 section foreman. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Cul- 
 len(Ill.), vol. 19, p. 523. 
 Liability for failure to furnish 
 safe place to work, where 
 pile of stones was allowed to 
 remain near track for sev- 
 eral months, where brake- 
 man was required to jump 
 on moving engine. 
 Donahue v. Boston & M. R. 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 20, p. 526. 
 Liability for injury to con- 
 ductor alighting from car, 
 caused by projecting ties. 
 Whitcher v. Boston & M. R. 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 540. 
 Liability for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Box V. Chicago, K. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 
 527. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cur- 
 tis (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 762. 
 
472 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. 
 Doing z'.'N. Y., O. & W. Ry. 
 ■ Co. (N. Y.), vol. 9, p. 69. 
 I,ouisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Howell (Ind.), vol. 6, p. 786. 
 Pitts V. Florida Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 762. 
 St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hedge (Neb.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 382. 
 Thompson v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 762. 
 Liability for injuries to em- 
 ployee caused by defective 
 tools. 
 Savannah & S. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Pughsley (Ga), vol. 22, p. 
 
 446. 
 L/iability for injury to servant 
 caused by his stumbling 
 over an obstruction on track 
 of which he had not notice. 
 Iviuck V. Ivouisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 831. 
 Liability for injury to train- 
 men caused by fish chutes 
 near main track. 
 Phelps V. Chicago & W. M. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 137. 
 Liability for transfer of de- 
 fective car where employee 
 is injured. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sny- 
 der (Ohio), vol. 7, p. 769. 
 Liability of company for fail- 
 ure to furnish safe places to 
 work as affected by time of 
 going to work. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Tucker (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 876. 
 Liability of master. 
 Port Blakely Mill Co. v. 
 
 Garrett (C. C. A.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 363. 
 Liability of railroad for injury 
 to brakeman by structure 
 near track. 
 Brvce v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 832. 
 Liability where coal shed neat 
 track collided with brake- 
 man on car ladder. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v, 
 
 Stevens (111.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 182. 
 IfOcation of telegraph poles as 
 negligence. 
 Potter V. Detroit, G. H. & 
 
 M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 264. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Master bound to use only 
 those tests ordinarily used 
 to discover defects in ma- 
 chinery. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Bar- 
 rett (U. S.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 867. 
 Master's knowledge of. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 476. 
 Master liable for agent's neg- 
 lect in furnishing safe ap- 
 pliances. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 
 Co. V. O'Leary (C. a 
 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 718. 
 Master's neglect to maintain 
 safe couplings must be prox- 
 imate cause to warrant re- 
 covery where there is also 
 negligence of fellow serv- 
 ant. 
 McCoy V. Norfolk & C. R. 
 
 Co. (Va. ), vol. 22, p. 
 
 838. 
 Master's negligence a ques- 
 tion for jury where servant 
 is injured by reason of a de- 
 fect with notice of which 
 he was chargeable. 
 Walker v. Atlanta & W. P. 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 498. 
 Master not an insurer. 
 
 Lincoln St. Ry. Co. v. Cox 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 273. 
 Master not guilty of negli- 
 gence in allowing small 
 splinter of steel to remain 
 on rail. 
 Barrett v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 742. 
 Master not liable for death 
 of servant from low bridge 
 where there has been no 
 negligence on master's 
 part. 
 Myers v. Chicago, St. P. 
 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 749. 
 Master not liable for defects 
 of which he has no notice. 
 Lincoln St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Cox (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 273. 
 Master not liable for neces- 
 sary proximity to track of 
 mail crane located by gov- 
 ernment. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Millikeu (Ky.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 742. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 473 
 
 MASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Master not negligent in al- 
 lowing small projecting 
 splinter to remain on rail. 
 Barrett v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 742. 
 Master without knowledge of, 
 or opportunity of acquiring 
 knowledge of defect, not 
 liable to servant injured by 
 such defect. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ey. 
 
 Co. V. Taylor (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 733. 
 Mere fact that appliance was 
 defective does not entitle 
 servant injured to recover 
 if it does not appear that 
 his injury was caused by 
 the defect. 
 Hannigan v. Ivehigh & H. 
 
 R. Ry. Co. (N. y.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 60S. 
 Negligence, a question for 
 jury where brakeman was 
 injured by reason of defect- 
 ive coupling. 
 Thompson v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Neb.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 762. 
 Negligence in maintaining 
 over -head bridge, in action 
 for death of brakeman 
 struck while on top of car. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Tucker (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 876. 
 Negligence of fellow servants 
 contributing to the in- 
 jury arising from unsafe 
 appliances. 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ampey (Va.), vol. 5, 
 
 p. 707. 
 Not duty of company to en- 
 close roundhouse pits where 
 such enclosure would render 
 pits useless. 
 McDonnell v. Illinois Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 534. 
 Notice of defects. 
 Bland v. Shreveport Belt- 
 
 Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 349. 
 "Out of order" placed on 
 freight cars. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Lash (Va.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 569. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Pleading and proof as to de- 
 fective coupling appliances. 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 lina & G. R. Co. (S. 
 
 Car.), vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Pleading that defective brake 
 on foreign car was proxi- 
 mate cause of injury. 
 Sheltrawn v. Michigan 
 
 Cent. R. Co. (Mich.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 711. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 from injury to brakeman 
 from defect in handhold 
 on engine. 
 Southern Ry. in Kentucky 
 
 V. Cooper (Ky.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 231. 
 Presumption of servant as 
 to safety of appliance. 
 Union Stock- Yards Co. v. 
 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 503. 
 Question for jury. 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Kasischke (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 19, p. 406. 
 Walker v. Gillett (Ky.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 140. 
 Railroad company permitting 
 an electric car company to 
 place wires over its track 
 in such a manner as to in- 
 jure its servants. 
 Erslew V. New Orleans & 
 
 N. E. R. Co. (La.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 436. 
 Roadbed, failure to properly 
 construct and maintain 
 negligence per se, where 
 trainman injured in derail- 
 ment. 
 Wilkie V. Raleigh & C. F. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 295. 
 Roadbed need not be main- 
 tained perfectly ballasted 
 for servants. 
 Kerrigan v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 835. 
 Servant injured by reason of 
 defect in appliance cannot 
 recover if by exercising 
 reasonable care he could 
 have discovered such defect 
 before using the appliance. 
 Hannigan v. Lehigh & H. 
 
 R. Ry. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 605. 
 
474 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SEBVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Servant may assume that 
 appliances are safe. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 Co. V. O'lveary (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 718. 
 Servant using defective ap- 
 pliance with knowledge of 
 defect not guilty of con- 
 tributory negligence unless 
 he knew such defect ren- 
 dered it dangerous. , 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 Knapp (111.), vol. 14, p. 
 828. 
 SufBciency of evidence. 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. 
 Kasischke (C. C. A.), vol. 
 19, p. 406. 
 SufBciency of evidence to 
 show that absence of brake 
 shoes was cause of injuring 
 brakeman coupling cars. 
 Cambron v. Omaha, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 23, p. 634. 
 SufBciency of evidence to 
 show that master was 
 chargeable with notice of 
 defect in track. 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Victory (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 538. 
 SufBciency of inspection a 
 question for jury. 
 Fulton V. Bullard (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 547. 
 Telegraph pole placed so near 
 track as to involve risk of 
 injury to employee. 
 Crandall v. New York, etc. , 
 R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 5, 
 p. 543. 
 Whipple V. New York, etc. , 
 R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 5, p. 
 517. 
 Tests necessary to discover 
 defect. 
 
 Union Stock- Yards Co. v. 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 p. 503. 
 
 Unreasonable period for leav- 
 ing gravel piles causing 
 injury to brakeman, be- 
 tween tracks in station 
 yard. 
 Hurst V. Kansas City, P. 
 
 & G. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 899. 
 
 Unusual but reasonable size 
 of blocking between guard 
 rail and main rail no evi- 
 dence of negligence where 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 brakeman was injured by 
 stumbling because of. 
 Morris v. Duluth, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 p. 45. 
 Use of uneven couplings or 
 deadwoods on freight cars. 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 Ebaugh (Ind.), vol. 4, p. 
 200. 
 When evidence of nature of 
 defect is conflicting, it is 
 a question for the jury. 
 Valley Ry. Co. v. Keegan 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 11, p. 
 507. 
 Where ordinary care has been 
 exercised to furnish safe 
 machinery, master not 
 liable for injuries from de- 
 fects, unless his agents 
 were chargeable with notice 
 of defects and plaintiff was 
 free from contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Barrett (U. S.), vol. 11, 
 p. 867. 
 Whether notice to ofiBcers of 
 a preceding board of man- 
 agement is notice to present 
 manager. 
 
 Bland v. Shreveport Belt 
 Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 4, p. 
 349. 
 Derailment of train, where a 
 shipper had built a cattle pen 
 upon the right of way of a 
 railroad which was so con- 
 structed that cattle escaped 
 from it and derailed a train, 
 killing an employee, it was 
 held that the fact that the pen 
 was on the right of way did 
 not render the company lia- 
 ble. 
 
 Carper v. Receivers of Nor- 
 folk & W. R. Co. (C. C. 
 , A.), vol. 7, p. 95. 
 
 Derailment of train by snow- 
 slides. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Pilgrim (Colo.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 249. 
 
 Direction of verdict for plaintiff 
 in action for injury to fire- 
 man in a collision. 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., Lim- 
 ited, V. Glover (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 21, p. 272. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 475 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Direction of verdict in action 
 for injury to switchman in 
 coupling' cars. 
 Brown v. I^ouisville, H. & 
 
 St. ly. Ry. Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 883. 
 
 Discharge List. 
 
 Master may communicate 
 cause of discharge to other 
 companies. 
 
 Hundley v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 749. ^ 
 
 Master may keep record of 
 causes for which it dis- 
 charged servant. 
 Hundley v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 749. 
 Discretion of court to grant 
 separate trial in action for 
 injury to servant caused by 
 defect in track of another 
 company. 
 
 Story V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 90. 
 Ditch in track within knowledge 
 of defendant's section fore- 
 man. 
 
 HoUenbeck v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 
 350. 
 
 Duty of master a question for 
 jury. 
 
 Walker v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 vol. 11, p. 738. 
 Duty of master as to protect- 
 ing servant a question for 
 jury- 
 Walker V. McNeill (Wash.), 
 vol. 11, p. 738. 
 Duty of master to furnish safe 
 place to work. 
 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Bundy (Ind. ), vol. 14, p. 
 660. 
 King V, Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 14, 
 p. 659. 
 Duty of station agent to protect 
 other employe es against_ 
 robbery. 
 
 Lipscomb v. Houston, etc., 
 Ry; Co. (Tex.), vol. 23, p. 
 401. 
 Duty to employees riding on 
 passes. 
 
 Whitney v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 184. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Duty to have safe roadbed can- 
 not be delegated. 
 Wright V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 717. 
 Dutj' to inspect roadbed. 
 Chesapeake & N. R. Co. v. 
 Venable (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 450. 
 Duty to instruct inexperienced 
 servant. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Miller (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 500. 
 Duty to instruct servant non- 
 assignable. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Miller (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 501. 
 Duty to protect employee from 
 effects of his own intemper- 
 ance. 
 
 Parker v. Winona & St. P. R. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, p. 594. 
 Duty to warn servant. 
 
 Daly V. Kiel (La.), vol. 22, 
 p. 320. 
 Duty to warn servant working 
 in dangerous place. 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 660. 
 Effect of a finding of the exist- 
 ence of negligence unsup- 
 ported by evidence, in action 
 for injury to employee. 
 Crane v. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 22, p.. 
 869. 
 Employees as passengers, 
 lonne v. New York, N. H. & 
 H. R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 16, 
 p. 359. 
 McNulty V. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 685. 
 Employee in charge of engine 
 not bound to compel fireman 
 off duty to cease riding on 
 footboard of engine. 
 Lemasters v. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 20, p. 296. 
 i;mplo3'ee riding free by per- 
 mission of conductor in viola- 
 tion of rule, is not a tres- 
 passer. 
 
 Chattanooga Rapid-Transit 
 
 Co. V. Venable (Tenn.), 
 
 vol. 19, p. 768. 
 
 Employee struck by a lump of 
 
 coal thrown from an engine. 
 
 Anderson w. Union Pac, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Colo.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 786. 
 
476 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— MASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. Continued. 
 
 Employee whose negligence 
 
 was cause of injury need not 
 
 be designated in complaint. 
 
 Rinard v. Omaha, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 34. 
 
 Employers' Liability Acts. 
 
 Constitutionality of employ- 
 ers' liability act of Indiana. 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. 
 Co. V. Houlihan (Ind. ), 
 vol. 21, p. 91S. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 preventing employees from 
 waiving benefit of em- 
 ployers' liability act. 
 Coley V. North Carolina 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, 
 p. 885. 
 Construction of employers' 
 liability act of Indiana. 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. 
 Co. V. Houlihan (Ind.), 
 vol. 2J, p. 915. 
 Construction of employers' 
 liability act of Mexico. 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., 
 Limited, v. Glover (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 21, p. 272. 
 Construction of employers' 
 liability act, provision of 
 Iowa Code. 
 
 Akeson v. Chicago, B. & 
 Q. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 p. 430. 
 Reddington v. Chicago, M. 
 & St. P. R. Co. (Iowa), 
 vol. 11, p. 440. 
 Consttuction pf provision of 
 South Carolina constitution 
 providing that employee's 
 knowledge of defect shall be 
 no defense in action for 
 his injuries. 
 
 Youngblood v. S. Car. & G. 
 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 622. 
 
 Evidence of notice to master 
 
 of danger from appliance 
 
 admissible. 
 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, 
 p. 660. 
 Eellow-servant rule and as- 
 sumption of risk as affected 
 by. 
 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Waguer (Ind.), 
 vol. 14, p. 706. 
 Indiana act is constitutional. 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 Ebaugh (Ind.), vol. 14, 
 p. 701. 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Hosea (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 692. 
 Liability for death of fireman 
 in collision caused by failure 
 of brakeman of other train 
 to place danger signals on 
 track, under employers' lia- 
 bility act of Indiana. 
 Cowen V. Ray (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 531. 
 Question for jury whether 
 work of clearing wrecked 
 car from track causing its 
 roof to fall upon section 
 hand was being executed so 
 as to expose him to peculiar 
 hazards, within meaning of 
 Minn. Gen. St. 1849, sec. 
 2701, making railroads lia- 
 ble for negligence of fellow 
 servants. 
 Kreuzer v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 912. 
 Repeal of act enlarging the 
 liability of domestic cor- 
 porations to their servants 
 by constitutional provision 
 declaring that no foreign 
 corporation shall enjoy any 
 greater rights or privileges 
 than those enjoyed by do- 
 mestic corporations. 
 Crisswell v. Montana Cent. 
 
 R. Co. (Mont.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 652. 
 Ropes do not constitute a 
 part of the waj's, ma- 
 chinery, etc., of a railroad, 
 within the meaning of 
 employers' liability act of 
 Alabama. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Moore 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 896. 
 Texas Rev. St. art. 3017, giv- 
 ing right of action for death 
 not applicable in action for 
 death of employee. 
 Lipscomb V. Houston & T. 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 401. 
 
 Wages of discharged em- 
 ployees, constitutionality of 
 Arkansas statute. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Paul (U. S.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 755. 
 
 Employment, sufBciency of 
 evidence where trafBc 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 477 
 
 MASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 arrangement between com- 
 panies. 
 
 Goodrich v. Kansas Citj', 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 19, p. 137. 
 Engineer could recover for in- 
 juries received in collision 
 caused by gross negligence 
 of train dispatcher. 
 Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co.'s 
 Receiver v. Roberts (Ky.), 
 vol. 21, p. 322. 
 Engineer obeying order of con- 
 ductor with no notice that 
 such obedience imperilled 
 plaintiff, was held not neg- 
 ligent. 
 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ritchie (Ala.), vol. 5, p. 
 SS4. 
 Engineer's failure to see sig- 
 nals. 
 
 Eairman v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 83. 
 Evidence. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Green (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 
 786. 
 Admissibility of evidence for 
 plaintiff to show how an- 
 other company loaded cars 
 in action for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Mauzy 
 (Va.), vol. 20, p. 647.- 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 negligence not alleged, 
 lyouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Scanlon (Ky.), vol. 22, 
 p. 833. 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 of plaintiff's understand- 
 ing as to length of ties, 
 in action by conductor for 
 his personal injuries caused 
 by their projection where 
 he was alighting. 
 Whitcher v. Boston & M. R. 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 
 540. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 servant's knowledge of 
 proximity of cattle chute. 
 Keist V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 
 297. 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 that injured brakeman 
 falsely represented himself 
 to be married. 
 Wimber v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 476. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence to 
 show that engineer in 
 charge of train was com- 
 petent, in action for in- 
 juries to person on track. 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. SSI. 
 As to condition of other rails 
 than that causing injury to 
 employee. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 21, p. 391. 
 As to whether engineer was 
 a careful man. 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 
 Burden of proof in action 
 
 against receiver for injury 
 
 to servant. 
 
 Robinson v. Huidekoper 
 
 (Ga.), vol. S, p. 216. 
 Burden of proof to show mas- 
 ter's negligence. 
 Louisville &. N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Victory (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 S38. 
 Burden of proving absence of 
 negligence, in action for 
 injury to trainman, thrown 
 on defendant by admission 
 that roadbed was defective. 
 Wilkie V. Raleigh & C. F. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 29S. 
 Burden of proving negligence 
 in action for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 Railey v. Garbutt (Ga.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 211. 
 Burden on servant in action 
 for personal injuries, to 
 show negligence of master 
 in construction and main- 
 tenance of culvert causing 
 injury, and in failing to 
 discover defect in. 
 Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14. 
 
 p. 780. 
 Cause of brakeman's death, 
 sufficiency of evidence. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. w. 
 
 Harris (Miss.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 119. 
 Credibility of railroad em- 
 ployees as witnesses. 
 Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Wiggins (Ga.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 588. 
 
478 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Custom in switch yard in 
 action for injuries to plain- 
 tiff. 
 
 Pier V. Chicag-o, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. S, p. 407. 
 
 Declarations of employees 
 
 whether acting within the 
 
 scope of their authority. 
 
 Atchison T. & S. F. R. 
 
 Co. V. Consolidated Cattle 
 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 10, p. 368. 
 
 Declarations of engineer 
 
 showing' malice, in action 
 
 for injury to cattle in 
 
 transit. 
 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 19, 
 p. 17. 
 Evidence as to custom in re- 
 gard to delivery of cars in 
 foreign yard, in action for 
 injury to employee of an- 
 other company. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Harrington (111.), vol. 
 23, p. 429. 
 
 Evidence of customs govern- 
 ing operation of trains, in 
 action for death of engineer 
 in a collision. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. D. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Martin (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 485. 
 Evidence of custom to disre- 
 gard rules. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Scanlon (Ky.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 833. 
 
 Evidence of defect in engine 
 in action for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 Rush V. Spokane Palls & 
 
 N. Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 285. 
 Evidence of defective condi- 
 tion of track and notice to 
 master thereof. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Victory (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 538. 
 Evidence that cars like the 
 one causing injury were in 
 common use, admissible as 
 bearing on credibility of 
 witnesses. 
 Benson v. New York, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (R. L), vol. 22, p. 
 
 299. 
 
 Evidence that witness is 
 working under fellow serv- 
 ant whose alleged negli- 
 
 MASTBR AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 gence caused accident. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 York (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 470. 
 Expert testimony as to what 
 constitutes a safe condition 
 of track in action for in- 
 jury to brakeman caused by 
 gravel pile in station yard. 
 Hurst V. Kansas City, P. & 
 
 G. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 899. 
 Harmless error. 
 Hicks V. Southern. Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 Southern Ry. in Ky. v. 
 
 Cooper (Ky. ), vol. 21, p. 
 
 231. 
 Harmless error in admitting 
 evidence of statement of in- 
 jured employee to conductor 
 which should have been 
 made to superintendent. 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 Harmless error in admitting 
 expert testimony to show 
 what constitutes safe con- 
 dition of tracks, in action 
 for injury to brakeman 
 caused by gravel pile in 
 railroad yard. 
 Hurst V. Kansas City, P. & 
 
 G. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 899. 
 Harmless error in rejecting 
 declarations of engineer 
 tending to show that de- 
 ceased brakeman was not 
 upon top of car in discharge 
 of duty. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. • v. 
 
 Tucker (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 876. 
 Hearsay evidence tending to 
 enhance damages. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 21, p. 391. 
 
 Instruction as to duty of 
 furnishing safe cars prop- 
 erly refused as having no 
 limitation as to place where 
 like cars were used. 
 Benson v. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 299. 
 Killing employee on track, 
 burden of proving due care. 
 Tumalty v. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 468. 
 
General index 
 
 479 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Knowledge of fellow servant's 
 incompetency. 
 Parker v. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 10, p. 614. 
 Nonsuit, sufBciency of evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 
 217. 
 Opinion evidence as to au- 
 thority to start engine, in 
 action for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Wimber v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 476. 
 Opinion evidence as to cause 
 .of injury to employee. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 21, p. 391. 
 Opinion evidence as to com- 
 petency of engineer. 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 _(S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 Opinion evidence as to power 
 of station agent to employ 
 guard for the station. 
 Ivipscomb V. Houston, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 23, 
 p. 401. 
 Pleading and proof as to 
 defect in brake. 
 St. Louis, P. & N. Ry. Co. 
 V. Dorsey (III.), vol. 21, 
 p. 280. 
 Eelease from claim for per- 
 sonal injuries cannot be 
 contradicted by parol evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. 
 V. Houlihan (Ind.), vol. 
 21, p. 916. 
 Right to argue interest of 
 witness as an employee, to 
 conceal his own negli- 
 gence, in action for injury 
 to another employee. 
 Wimber v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 
 476. 
 Secondary evidence, entries 
 in car inspector's books as 
 to condition of car inflict- 
 ing injury. 
 
 Hicks V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 21, p. 217. 
 
 SufBciency of evidence of 
 
 defect in brake. 
 
 St. Louis, P. & N. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Dorsey (111.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 280. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 gross negligence of en- 
 gineer causing injury to 
 switchman. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 874. 
 
 That cars causing injury were 
 in common use. 
 Benson v. N. Y., N. H. & 
 H. Ry. Co. (R. I.), vol. 
 22, p. 299. 
 Where the evidence as to the 
 manner in which an acci- 
 dent occurred is purely cir- 
 cumstantial, the case is for 
 the jury. 
 
 Hughes V. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 560. 
 
 Whether injured brakeman 
 had never been discharged. 
 Wimber v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 476. 
 Excess of speed in city limits, 
 injuring servant. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Moore (Ind.), 
 vol. 14, p. 678. 
 Exemption from liability, for 
 result of failure to inspect 
 cars. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hil- 
 liard (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 539. 
 Explosives, care required of 
 master as to custody of. 
 Rush V. Spokane Falls & 
 N. Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 
 20, p. 285. 
 
 Express or implied consent of 
 servant necessary for trans- 
 fer of services. 
 Delaware, L. & W. R: Co. 
 
 V. Hardy (N. J.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 577. 
 Failure of plaintiff to allege 
 that he was engaged in the 
 performance of his duty when 
 injured. 
 Broslin v. Kansas City, M. & 
 
 B. R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 99. 
 Failure of superintendent, who 
 has been notified that forest 
 fire is raging on road, to 
 notify trainmen, is negli- 
 gence. 
 Bateman v. Peninsular Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 679. 
 
480 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Failure to furnish automatic 
 car-couplers, negligence per 
 se. 
 
 Troxler v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 711. 
 Failure to keep headlight in 
 good repair. 
 
 San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Harding (Tex.), vol. 3, 
 p. 389. 
 Failure to provide butt post on 
 stub track as negligence. 
 Chicago & B. I. R. Co. v. 
 Driscoll (111.), vol. 12, p. 644. 
 Foreign Cars. 
 
 Eaton V. New York, C. & H. 
 R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 18, 
 p. 391. 
 Fulton V. Bullard (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 547. 
 Lellis V. Michigan C. R. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 18, p. S4S. 
 Assumption of risk. 
 Union Stock- Yards Co. v. 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 p. 502. 
 Authority of station agent to 
 furnish cars. 
 
 Nichols V. Oregon Short 
 LineR. Co. (Utah), vol. 23, 
 p. 654. 
 Company against whom its 
 employee had recovered 
 could not recover over 
 against connecting carriers 
 where both were guilty of 
 negligence iu failing to in- 
 spect defective car. 
 Galveston, H. & S. A, Ry. 
 Co. V. Nass (Tex.), vol. 20, 
 p. 306. 
 Defect in, renders master lia- 
 ble for injury to servant. 
 L,eake v. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 
 739. 
 Discrimination in furnishing. 
 Nichols V. Oregon Short 
 Line R. Co. (Utah), vol. 
 23, p. 654. 
 Duty of company furnishing 
 cars to employees of other 
 companies. 
 
 Sheltrawn v. Michigan 
 Cent. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 23, p. 711. 
 Duty to furnish foreign cars, 
 as affected by inability to 
 procure kind specified. 
 Nichols V. Oregon Short 
 Line R. Co. (Utah), vol. 
 23, p. 654. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued, 
 
 Inspection of foreign cars. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Carroll (C. C. A.), vol. 9, 
 p. 759. 
 Louisville & W. R. Co. v. 
 Veach (Ky.), vol. 11, p. 24. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Brown (Ark.), vol. 16, 
 p. 440. 
 Union Stock- Yards Co. v. 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 p. 502. 
 Liability for defects in foreign 
 cars. 
 
 Youngblood v. South Car- 
 olina &G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Liability for failure to furnish 
 cars in time. 
 
 Nichols V. Oregon Short 
 
 Line R. Co. (Utah), vol. 
 
 23, p. 654. 
 
 Liability for injury to servant 
 
 caused by defect in foreign 
 
 car. 
 
 Youngblood v. South Car- 
 olina & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Liability of company failing 
 to discover defect in foreign 
 car. 
 
 Jones V. New York, N. H. & 
 H. R. Co. (R. L), vol. 11, 
 p. 414. 
 Liability of company furnish- 
 ing cars to employees of 
 other companies as affected 
 by duty to have knowledge 
 of defect. 
 
 Sheltrawn v. Michigan 
 Cent. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 23, p. 711. 
 Liability of company trans- 
 ferring cars for death of 
 servant of receiving com- 
 pany. 
 
 Lellis V. Michigan C. R. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 18, p. 545. 
 Liability of company trans- 
 ferring cars for injury to 
 servants of other company. 
 Teal V. American Min. Co. 
 (Minn.), vol. 23, p. 314. 
 Liability of connecting car- 
 riers for negligence in load- 
 ing and failure to inspect 
 car causing injury to serv- 
 ant. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Merrill (Kan.), vol. 17, p. 
 470. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 481 
 
 MASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Necessity of pleading and 
 proving' that station agent 
 had authority to furnish for- 
 eign cars. 
 
 Nichols V. Oregon Short 
 I<ine R. Co. (Utah), vol. 23, 
 p. 654. 
 Proximate cause of injury to 
 employees of other company. 
 Sheltrawn v. Michigan Cent. 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 
 711. 
 -Ultra vires contract to furnish. 
 Nichols V. Oregon Short 
 Line R. Co. (Utah), vol. 
 23, p. 654. 
 Frogs, judicial notice that un- 
 blocked frogs could have been 
 seen by deceased brakeman. 
 Jones V. Flint & P. M. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 21, p. 904. 
 General reputation of employee 
 for incompetency, not suffi- 
 cient to charge fellow servant 
 with knowledge. 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Johnson 
 (Tenn.), vol. 4, p. 441. 
 Harmless error in instructing as 
 to liability for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Coleman v, Pittsburg, C, C. 
 & St. L. Ry. Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 21, p. 453. 
 How far master chargeable with 
 knowledge of servants. 
 St. Louis & S. W. R. Co. v. 
 Threat (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 358. 
 Hypothetical questions as _ to 
 proper position on engine 
 pushing cars. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 429. 
 Immature age of employee 
 seventeen years of age cannot 
 be considered as bearing on 
 question of contributory neg- 
 ligence. 
 
 Lemasters v. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 20, p. 296. 
 Implied notice of danger to 
 servant handling car on repair 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hennessey (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 515. 
 Implied ratification of unauthor- 
 ized employment. 
 Mickelson v. New East Tintic 
 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 20, p. 
 
 855. 
 In action against a railway 
 company to recover for in- 
 
 ID— 31 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued, 
 
 jury caused to an employee by 
 alleged negligence in plank- 
 ing a crossing, evidence of 
 the condition upon which com- 
 pany received its street rights 
 is admissible. 
 Valley Ry. Co. v. Keegan 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 11, p. 507. 
 In action to recover for personal 
 injuries caused by alleged de- 
 fective engine, burden is on 
 plaintiff to show that it was 
 unsuitable and that the defects 
 caused his injuries. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Barrett 
 
 (U. S.), vol. 11, p. 867. 
 Incompetency of fellow servant. 
 Morrow v. St. Paul City Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 12, p. 836. 
 Parker v. New York Cent. & 
 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 614. 
 Texas M. R. Co. v. Whitmore 
 
 (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 438. 
 
 Inference of negligence from 
 
 injury to brakeman by reason 
 
 of gravel pile in station yard. 
 
 Hurst V. Kansas City, P. & G. 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 899. 
 
 Injuries caused by unauthorized 
 
 use of hand car by servant 
 
 does not render master liable. 
 
 Branch v. International & G. 
 
 N. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 378. 
 Injuries to employee walking 
 near track after finishing his 
 day's work, from a stick of 
 wood being negligently thrown 
 from a passing train, by a co- 
 employee. 
 Fletcher v. Baltimore & P. R. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 9, p. 229. 
 Injury in coupling cars. 
 
 Smith V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 6, p. 78. 
 Injury incurred while violating 
 orders of master. 
 Rittenhouse v. Wilmington St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 784. 
 Injury to brakeman coupling 
 cars. 
 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Sanders 
 
 (111.), vol. 11, p. 861. 
 Injury to employee by backing 
 train against cars which he 
 was chaining. 
 Pier V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Wis.), vol. 5, p. 407. 
 
482 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Injury to engineer running- his 
 engine at spfeed in excess of 
 that allowed by ordinance. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Roberts (Tex. App.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 21. 
 Injury to servant from defective 
 roadbed, allegation of proxi- 
 mate cause. 
 Baker v. Great Northern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, p. 396. 
 Injury to servant while engaged 
 in incidental duties. 
 Ean V. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 9, p. 475. 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. 
 
 V. Gormley (Tex.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 468. 
 Inspection, care required in in- 
 spection of boilers. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 16, p. 476. 
 Inspection, failure of company 
 to discover defect in valve, 
 whereby plaintiff was obliged 
 to expose himself to injurious 
 heat in remedying the conse- 
 quences of such defect, was 
 not the proximate cause of 
 injuries resulting from the 
 exposure. 
 Stockwell V. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 12, p. 576. 
 Inspection, liability of railroad 
 for failure to inspect cars. 
 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Hilliard 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 539. 
 Inspection of cars by transfer- 
 ring company. 
 Glynn v. Central R. R. of N. 
 
 J. (Mass.), vol. 17, p. 482. 
 Inspection of tracks, care re- 
 quired of master to discover 
 defects in track. 
 Xfouisville & N. R. Co. v. Ross 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 432. 
 Instructions as to duty of master 
 to provide safe place to work. 
 Rush V. Spokane Falls & N. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 285. 
 
 Instruction as to liability for 
 negligence of train dispatcher 
 under Mo. Rev. St. 1889, sec. 
 4425, properly refused. 
 Rinardz). Omaha, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 35. 
 
 Instructions as to liability of 
 company for falling in of tun- 
 nel. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mat- 
 tingly (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 319. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Instructions as to negligence of 
 engineer in not obeying sig- 
 nal in action for injury to 
 brakeman coupling cars. 
 Cambron v. Omaha, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 23, p. 634. 
 Intemperate habits of servant 
 does not warrant recovery for 
 death of another servant if 
 such habit was in no way con- 
 nected with the cause of the 
 death. 
 
 Welsh V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 14, p. 569. 
 Irrelevant instructions as to 
 duty of master in regard to 
 shipping explosives. 
 Rush V. Spokane Falls & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 20, p. 
 285. 
 Issues in action for death of 
 employee. 
 
 Iiouisville & N. R. Co. v. Jones 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 224. 
 Joinder of master and negligent 
 servant as defendants in action 
 under Ky. St. § 6, giving right 
 of action for death. 
 Winston v. 111. Cent. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 454. 
 Joining agent and principal as 
 defendants in an action to 
 recover damages for a negli- 
 gent act. 
 
 Warax v. Cincinnati, N. O. & 
 T. P. R. Co. (U. S. ) , vol. 3, 
 p. 650. 
 Joint liability of railroads jointly 
 using road for injury to serv- 
 ant. 
 
 lYOuisville & N. R. Co. v. C. & 
 O. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 539. 
 "Kicking back" cars not negli- 
 gence per se. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Mooney (Fla.), vol. 12, p. 722. 
 Killing of employee on track. 
 St. Lfouis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Miles (C. C. A.), vol. 10, p. 
 585. 
 Killing of employee on track, 
 contributory negligence. 
 Foss V. Old Colony R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 11, p. 41. 
 Knowledge of master of incom- 
 petency of servant. 
 Tex. & P. R. Co. V. Johnson 
 (Tenn.), vol. 4, p. 441. 
 Lex loci, in action for injury to 
 employee. 
 
 Brewster v. Chicago & N. W . 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol; 21, p. 399. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 483 
 
 FASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. 
 lyiability jEor death of employee 
 arising from dang-erous prem- 
 ises. 
 
 Grimmelman v. Union Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 8, p. 321. 
 
 Liability for death of employee 
 
 caused by collision of hand 
 
 cars. 
 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 383. 
 •Liability for death of employee 
 caused by excessive speed 
 within city limits. 
 East St. Louis Connecting 
 Ry. Co. V. Eggmau (111.), 
 vol. 9, p. 438. 
 Liability for death of employee 
 from overhead bridge. 
 Fitzgerald v. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 
 9, p. 434. 
 Liability for ejection of tres- 
 passer from moving train by 
 brakeman acting without au- 
 thority. 
 
 Cook V. Southern Ry. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 21, p. 591. 
 Xiability for failure to furnish 
 automatic couplers. 
 Harden v. North Carolina R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 89S. 
 Xfiability for failure to keep road- 
 bed in repair in action for in- 
 jury to brakeman. 
 Chesapeake & N. R. Co. v. 
 Venable (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 449. 
 Xiability for failure to warn 
 servant. 
 
 Daly V. Kiel (La.), vol. 22, p. 
 320. 
 Liability for incompetency of 
 servant. 
 
 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Johnson 
 (Tenn.), vol. 4, p. 441. 
 Liability for injury to employee 
 from sudden checking of train. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 218. 
 Liability for injury to employee 
 using defective drain pipe in 
 climbing upon engine. 
 Coley V. N. Car. R. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 23, p. 885. 
 liability for injury to switch- 
 man caused by gross negli- 
 gence of engineer. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Stewart 
 (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 874. 
 Liability for intentional killing 
 by employee guarding prop- 
 erty, o n\ 1^ 
 Lipscomb V. Houston & T. C. 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 23, p. 401. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Liability for negligence of em- 
 ployees in allowing child to 
 ride on car loaded with loose 
 earth. 
 
 Burke v. Ellis (Tenn.), vol. 19, 
 p. 69S. 
 Liability for negligence of fel- 
 low servant under statute of 
 Georgia. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Johnson 
 (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 840. 
 Liability for wanton or wilful 
 misconduct of employees to 
 each other, under employers' 
 liability act of Alabama. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Moore 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 896. 
 Liability of pompany for acts of 
 employee not in actual employ- 
 ment. 
 
 Blevins v. Atchison, Topeka, 
 etc., R. Co. (Okla.), vol. 2, p. 
 329. 
 Liability of company for injury 
 to person on train at instance 
 of unauthorized employee. 
 Chicago, St. Paul, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Bryant (C. C. A.), vol. 2, 
 p. 319. 
 Liability of company for injury 
 to third person where the act 
 is within the scope of the serv- 
 ant's employment though the 
 particular act was not author- 
 ized. 
 Gray v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 481. 
 Larsson v. McClure (Wis.), 
 vol. 8, p. 763. 
 Liability of company for loss of 
 servant's luggage containing 
 master's property. 
 Meux V. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 
 (Eng.), vol. 2, p. 464. 
 Liability of electric railroad com- 
 pany where an employee is 
 injured by grasping a span 
 wire which passed over the 
 trolley wire and, not having 
 been insulated, shocked the 
 employee. 
 
 McAdam v. Central Ry. & 
 Electric Co. (Conn.), vol. 5, 
 p. 7. 
 Liability of master depends upon 
 proKiraate cause. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Edwards (Ga.), vol. 19, p. 
 779. 
 Liability of master for acts of 
 servant. , „ „ 
 
 Rowell V. Boston & M. R. Co. 
 (N. H.), vol. 16, p. 571. 
 
484 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. 
 Liability of master for assault 
 by servant not within scope of 
 employment. 
 
 Turley v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 440. 
 Liability of master for death of 
 brakeman on foreign car pass- 
 ing under bridge as affected by 
 fact that company had cars of 
 same height. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Tucker (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 876. 
 Liability of master for injury to 
 servant employed by conductor 
 in an emergency. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Gin- 
 ley (Tenn.), vol. 11, p. 443. 
 Liability of master for injury to 
 servant while riding to dinner 
 on hand car. 
 
 Benson v. Chicag-o, St. P., M. 
 
 & O. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 
 16, p. S46. 
 
 Liability of master for injury to 
 
 third person by negligence of 
 
 servant. 
 
 McCann v. Consolidated Trac- 
 tion Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 280. 
 Liability of master for manner 
 of ejection of person from car. 
 ' Rowell V. Boston & M. R. Co. 
 (N. H.), vol. 16, p. 571. 
 Liability of master for negli- 
 gence of fellow servant. 
 Creswell v. Wilmington & N. 
 R. Co. (Del.), vol. 14, p. 625. 
 Smith V. St. Louis & S. F. Ryi 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 609. 
 Liability of master for negli- 
 gence of independent con- 
 tractor. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Stev- 
 ens (Va.), vol. 16, p. 468. 
 Liability of master for personal 
 injury caused by unauthorized 
 act of servant. 
 
 Wilson V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 16, p. 835. 
 • Liability of master for servant's 
 error of judgment when con- 
 fronted by sudden emergency. 
 Lewis V. Long Island R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 18, p. 1. 
 Liability of master for wilful 
 torts of servant. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Brown (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 561. 
 Liability of master for wrongful 
 act of employee. 
 Columbus, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Christian (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 
 584. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Liability of master, question for 
 jury. 
 
 Hooper v. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 1. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for acts of employees. 
 Chicago, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 Parkinson (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 464. 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Rich- 
 mond (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 707. 
 Liability of railroad for act of 
 its conductor in expelling pas- 
 senger. 
 
 Higgins V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 694. 
 Liability of railroad for homi- 
 cide of employee. 
 Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Chris- 
 tian (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 584. 
 Liability of railroad for injury 
 to employee under age. 
 Taylor v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 4, p. 
 115. 
 Liability of railroad where em- 
 ployee working near track is 
 injured by a chunk of coal fall- 
 ing from a passing engpine. 
 Croll V. Atchison, etc., R. Co. 
 (Kan.), vol. 5, p. 608. 
 Liability of receivers for inju- 
 ries to employees. 
 Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 7, p. 1. 
 Liability where servant injures 
 himself in obeying command 
 in lifting a cross tie which 
 was too heavy for him. 
 Worlds V. Georgia R. Co. 
 "(Ga.), vol. 5, p. 514. 
 Making flying switch not negli- 
 gence per se. 
 Fox V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 18, p. 198. 
 Hunt V. Hurd (C. C. A.), vol. 
 18, p. 741. 
 
 Master liable for death of serv- 
 ant caused , by burning of 
 trestle ignited through its neg- 
 ligence in allowing inflam- 
 mable debris to accumulate 
 around it. 
 
 Bateman v. Peninsular Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 12, p. 678. 
 
 Master liable for injury to serv- 
 ant where negligence of vice 
 principal was proximate cause, 
 although negligence of fellow 
 servant was also contributory. 
 Felton V. Harbeson (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 20, p. 131. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 485 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Master not liable for -wanton or 
 malicious acts of employees. " 
 McAnally v. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 17, p. 741. 
 Master not liable though negli- 
 gent, for injury to employee, 
 if such negligence was not the 
 proximate cause of the injury. 
 Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. 
 
 Barry (C. C. A.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 4S3. 
 Master not required to remove 
 all snow from switchyards. 
 Fay V. Chicago, St. P., M. & 
 
 O. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 641. 
 Master ordering servant to per- 
 form dangerous tasks not 
 within the scope of his duty. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 
 Carty (Neb.), vol. 5, p. 507. 
 Master, though negligent not 
 liable for injury to servant if 
 his negligence was not prox- 
 imate cause of injury. 
 Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. 
 
 Barry (C. C. A.), vol. 11. p. 
 
 453. 
 Measure of master's duty. 
 
 Oliver v. Ohio River R. Co. 
 
 (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 783. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence as question of law. 
 Haltom V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 19, p. 776. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence when questions of 
 law, and when questions for 
 jury. 
 Ketterman v. Dry Fork R. Co. 
 
 (W. Va.), vol. 19, p. 445. 
 Negligence a question for jury. 
 Bonnet v. Galveston, H. & S. 
 
 A. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 437. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. San- 
 der (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 528. 
 Wood V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. S, p. 706. 
 Negligence, bill of exceptions. 
 Lemerv v, Boston & M. R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 11, p. 17. 
 Negligence, conductor ordering 
 brakeman to scotch moving 
 car with rock. 
 Haltom V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 19, p. 776. 
 Negligence in action for injury 
 to employee. 
 Wood V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. S, p. 706. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Negligence in failing to furnish 
 derailing switch and contrib- 
 utory negligence of employee 
 in running train at prohibited 
 speed. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Cromer (Va.) , vol. 23, p. 720. 
 Negligence in injuring switch- 
 man. 
 
 Ferguson v. Chicago M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 8, p. 
 241. 
 Negligence in loading lumber 
 on car, sufficiency of evidence. 
 Bryan v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 21, p. 542. 
 Negligence in issuing train or- 
 ders. 
 
 Fairman v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 83. 
 Negligence in running hand- 
 cars together was a question 
 for jury. 
 
 Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 383. 
 Negligence of engineer in stop- 
 ping train before he was sig- 
 naled. 
 DeWhirst v. Boston, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol.6, p. 785. 
 
 Reese v. Wheeling, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 6, p. 786. 
 
 Negligence of fellow servant 
 
 concurring with negligence 
 
 of master. 
 
 Fluhrer v. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 17, p. 
 463. 
 Negligence of master in not 
 giving information to servant. 
 Mitchell V. Boston, etc., R. Co. 
 (N. H.),vol. 4, p. 256. 
 Negligence of superintendent, 
 injuries to employee. 
 Fairman v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 83. 
 Negligence of superior servant 
 engaged in manual labor 
 must be gross to create lia- 
 bility. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cole- 
 man (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 285. 
 Negligence of tower man. 
 Fairman v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 83. 
 Negligence of track foreman 
 causing collision between hand 
 car and train as negligence of 
 company. 
 
 Allison V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 714. 
 
486 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Neg-ligence of train dispatcher 
 in failing to notify of approach 
 of another train. 
 Rinard v. Omaha, K. C. & E. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 34. 
 Negligence of vice principal. 
 Chattanooga Elec. Ry. Co. v. 
 Lawson (Tenn.), vol. 12, p. 
 669. 
 Negligence, question for jury in 
 action for death of employee 
 caused by. collision between 
 hand cars. 
 
 Alabama Min. R. Co. v. Jones 
 (Ala.), vol. IS, p. 7S2. 
 Negligence question for jury, in 
 action for injury to brakeman 
 on track caused by defective 
 brake. 
 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. Jones 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 200. 
 Negligence, sufficiency of evi- 
 dence in action for injury to 
 employee loading timber on 
 train caused by backing car. 
 Freeman v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 49. 
 Negligence under Mich. Comp. 
 Laws, sec. 6313, requiring the 
 blocking of frogs, question 
 for jury. 
 
 Jones V. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 21, p. 904. 
 Negligence where employee is 
 injured on track. 
 Fisher v. Louisville, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 6, p. 78S. 
 Negligent blasting, question for 
 
 jury- „ 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Tow 
 (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 442. 
 Nonassignable duties. 
 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 16, p. 551. 
 No presumption of in case of 
 accident to employee. 
 Patton V. Texas & Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 48. 
 No separable controversy where 
 joint action against employer 
 and employee. 
 
 Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. 
 Dixon (U. S.), vol. 21, p. 79. 
 Notice of defect in cars. 
 Meyers v. 111. Cent. R. Co. 
 (La. Ann.), vol. 6, p. 786. 
 Notice of injury to employee, 
 compliance with statute. 
 De Forge v. New York, N. 
 H. & H. R. R. (Mass.), vol. 
 20, p. 492. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Notice to brakeman that digging 
 was being done between ties. 
 was sufBcient without warn- 
 ing him as to the existence of 
 unblocked frogs. 
 Hauss V. Lake Erie & W. R.. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 864. 
 Notice to servant when notice to- 
 master. 
 Comer v. Hill (Ga.), vol. 11,. 
 
 p. 3. 
 Obstructions near track, negli- 
 gence. 
 Whipple V. New York, etc., R» 
 
 Co. (R. I.), vol.5, p. 517. 
 Oral contract of employment, 
 validity. 
 Sax V. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. 
 
 (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 653. 
 Passenger, employee as. 
 
 Wright V. Northampton & H. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 151. 
 Passengers, employees riding 
 to work. 
 Chattanooga Rapid-Transit 
 
 Co. V. Venable (Tenn.), 
 
 vol. 19, p. 768. 
 Placing cattle chute near track, 
 as negligence. 
 Wood V. Louisville & N. R.. 
 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 11, p. 525. 
 Plaintiff cannot recover in an 
 action for damages for the 
 negligent killing of his intes- 
 tate where it appears from 
 the evidence that the death- 
 may have resulted from one of 
 several possible causes, some 
 of which were irreconcilable 
 with the possibility of negli- 
 gence on the part of the de- 
 fendant. 
 Kenneson v. West End St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 445. 
 Pleading and proof as to nature 
 of personal injuries. 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., Lim- 
 ited, V. Glover (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 272. 
 Pleading and proof in action 
 based on failure to have 
 sufficient yard fence. 
 Young V. Syracuse, B. & N. 
 
 Y. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 11. 
 Pleading, specifications of neg- 
 ligence. 
 Lemery v. Boston & M. R.. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 11, p. 17. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 487 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Presumptions. 
 
 An accident to an employee 
 
 raises uo presumption of 
 
 negligrence on the part of the 
 
 employer. 
 
 Ketterman v. Dry Fork R. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 19, p. 
 445. 
 
 I/incoln St. Ry. Co. v. Cox 
 (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 273. 
 
 Patton V. Texas & Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 48. 
 
 As to foreig-n laws relating- to 
 
 master's liability for injury 
 
 to employee. 
 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., Lim- 
 ited, z/. Glover (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 21, p. 272. 
 
 In action for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Tindall (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 
 SS7. 
 No presumption of neg-lig-ence 
 in action for injury to em- 
 ployee based on neg^lig-euce 
 in inspection of cars. 
 Hodges V. Kimball (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 19, p. 755. 
 
 Presumption as to existence of 
 employers' liability act in 
 another state. 
 
 MacCarthy v. Whitcomb 
 (Wis.), vol. 20, p. 860. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 when collision or derailment 
 pauses injury to employee. 
 Wright V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 157. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 where plaintiff has not shown 
 himself free from fault. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Burney (Ga.), vol. 6, p. 543. 
 Rebutting presumption of neg- 
 ligence arising from injury 
 to servant from defect in car. 
 Fulton V. Bullard (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 14, p. 547. 
 Proximate cause of death of em- 
 ployee where message from 
 train dispatcher was misunder- 
 stood, question for jury. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Yeargin 
 (C. C. A.), vol.22, p. 459. 
 Proximate cause of injury to 
 employer coupling cars. 
 Hannigan v. Lehigh & H. R. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 
 605. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT — 
 Continued. 
 
 Proximate cause of injury to 
 employee, question for jury. 
 Wright V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol, S, p. 560. 
 Proximate cause of injury to 
 servant. 
 
 Weisel v. Eastern Ry. Co. of 
 Minnesota (Minn.), vol. 17, 
 p. 446. 
 Proximate cause where an asso- 
 ciate alleged to have been act- 
 ing as vice principal, slipped 
 while holding in position a. 
 pole which fell upon and in- 
 jured plaintiff. 
 
 Hunter v. Kansas City & M. 
 Ry. & Bridge Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 10, p. 620. 
 Question for jury as to the cause 
 of death of brakeman. 
 Jones V. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 21, p. 904. 
 Question for jury, liability for 
 injury to inexperienced servant 
 from coupling cars. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Miller 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 19, p. 501. 
 Question for jury whether warn- 
 ing was given to employee, 
 in action for his injury. 
 Hooper v. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 1. 
 Question of master's negligence 
 in using an arrangement of 
 wires in general use is for 
 jury. 
 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 660. 
 Question of safe place to work, 
 for jury. 
 
 Doing V. New York, O. & W. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 9, p. 69. 
 Question of whether action was 
 called for from railroad in 
 emergency to secure the safe 
 running of trains was for 
 jury. 
 
 Sprague v. N. Y. & N. E. R. 
 Co. (Conn.), vol. 6, p. 638. 
 Railroad company permitting an 
 electric car company to place, 
 wires over its track in such a 
 manner as to injure its serv- 
 ants is guilty of negligence. 
 Erslew V. New Orleans & N. 
 E. R. Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 436. 
 Railroad using track of another 
 company constitutes the serv- 
 ants of the latter its agents. 
 Murray v. Lehigh Valley R. 
 Co. (Conn.), vol. 4, p. 210. 
 
488 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 iMASTBB AND SERVANT- 
 Continued. 
 Receiver's liability for injury to 
 servant. 
 
 Walker v. Gillett (Kan.), vol. 
 10, p. 140. 
 Release. 
 Acceptance of aid from relief 
 fund as release of claim for 
 damag^es. 
 
 Beck z/. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. IS, p. 851. 
 Burden of proving discharge 
 for good cause in action for 
 breach of contract releasing 
 claim for damages for per- 
 sonal injuries in considera- 
 tion of future employment. 
 Rhoades v. Chesapeake & 
 O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 22, p. 283. 
 Consideration. 
 Potter V. Detroit, G. H. & M. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 16, p. 
 264. 
 Contract of employment as 
 consideration for release of 
 liability to servant for per- 
 sonal injuries. 
 Sax V. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 6S3. 
 Effect of acceptance by serv- 
 ant of benefits. 
 Petty V. Brunswick & W. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 
 840. 
 Effect of failure of servant to 
 make full tender of benefits 
 received under contracts 
 releasing master. 
 Johnson v. Charleston & S. 
 Rv. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 18, 
 p. 556. 
 Execution of release of claim 
 for damages and acceptance 
 of benefits does not estop 
 injured employee from main- 
 taining action. 
 Johnson v. Charleston & S. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 12, 
 p. 761. 
 Mutuality. 
 Petty V. Brunswick & W. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 
 840. 
 Of claim for damages for per- 
 sonal injuries in consider- 
 ation of future employment, 
 certainty and mutuality in 
 agreement. 
 
 Rhoades v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 22, 
 p. 283. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Release executed by servant 
 is not void, although he is 
 required to contribute to 
 relief fund on entering serv- 
 ice, where he is allowed, 
 after being injured, to exer- 
 cise his choice between suing 
 for injuries and accepting 
 benefits. 
 
 Johnson v. Charleston & S. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 12, 
 p. 762. 
 Release of master from lia- 
 bility in consideration of 
 benefits not contrary to pub- 
 lic policy. 
 
 Petty V. Brunswick & W. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 
 840. 
 Release signed in consider- 
 ation of receipt of benefits 
 from sick fund is binding. 
 Johnson v. Charleston & S. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 12, 
 p. 762. 
 Right of employee to rely on 
 statements of company's 
 representative. 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. 
 Kasischke (C. C. A.), vol. 
 19, p. 406. 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. 
 Kasischke (C. C. A.), vol. 
 19, p. 406.- 
 Right to garnish one railroad 
 company on judgment against 
 employee of another, where 
 they have officers in common. 
 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Gate City Co-op. Grocery 
 Co. (Ark.), vol. 23, p. 875. 
 Right to recover for injuries to 
 employee inflicted in foreign 
 country. 
 
 Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. 
 Jones (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 
 200. 
 Right to remove cause to federal 
 court on ground of diversity 
 of citizenship where joinder 
 of nonresident railroad com- 
 pany and its negligent resi- 
 dent employees. 
 Winston v. 111. Cent. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 454. 
 Rules. 
 
 Abandonment of rules, occa- 
 sional violations. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v: 
 Scanlon (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 
 833. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 489 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 Continued. 
 Abrogation. 
 
 Konold V. Rio Grande W. 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 17, p. 
 450. 
 Admissibility in evidence of 
 book of rules for govern- 
 ment of employees. 
 ■ Mosnat v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 609. 
 Admissibility of evidence to 
 prove waiver. 
 
 TuUis V. L,ake Erie & W. R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 335. 
 
 Car coupler going between 
 
 cars in disobedience of 
 
 orders. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bowcock (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 
 421. 
 Disregard of rules as negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Slattery (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 
 764. 
 Failure of division superin- 
 tendent to comply with 
 rules of company the proxi- 
 mate cause of collision. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Heck (Ind.), vol. 11, 
 p. 382. 
 Failure of master to make and 
 enforce proper rules not a 
 sufl&cient averment of an 
 element of negligence upon 
 which to base an action for 
 injuries to an employee. 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Voss (N. J.), vol. 12, p. 
 820. 
 Habitual disregard of rules. 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Roach (Ala.), vol. 5, p. 
 706. 
 Implied waiver, question for 
 jury. 
 
 TuUis V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 20, p. 
 335. 
 Liability for death of employee 
 as affected by failure to pro- 
 vide rules for signals in 
 switch yards. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 York (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 470. 
 
 Liability of master for failure 
 
 to make and enforce. 
 
 Delaware, L. & W- R. Co. v. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Voss (N. J.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 820. 
 Negligence in failing to pro- 
 vide rules for the operation 
 of hand cars. 
 Wallin V. Eastern Ry. Co. 
 
 of Minnesota (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 21, p. 611. 
 Notice of. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bowcock (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 421. 
 Rules customarily violated 
 will be deemed abrogated. 
 Fluhrer v. Lake Shore & M. 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 153. 
 Rules, duty of master to make. 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 16, p. 551. 
 Rules for government of 
 employees as evidence in 
 action for injury to em- 
 ployees. 
 Caron v. Boston, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 5, p. 705. 
 
 Rules of railroad company 
 
 requiring company to inspect 
 
 cars, construction. 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burris (C. C. A.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 912. 
 Servant at work on track at 
 crossing cannot rely on rule 
 of company requiring look- 
 out on rear of car backing 
 over crossing. 
 Carlson v. Cincinnati, S. <& 
 
 M. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 803. 
 Servant without knowledge 
 or notice of rules not bound 
 thereby. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Oyster (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 656. 
 Sufficiency of rules to prevent 
 collisions. 
 Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. 
 
 Barry (C. C. A.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 453. 
 Violation of rules. 
 Wright?/. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 5, p. 560. 
 Violation of rule prohibiting 
 servants from going be- 
 tween cars to couple them is 
 contributory negligence. 
 Eluhrer v. Lake Shore & M. 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 463. 
 
490 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. 
 Waiver by master. 
 Lfouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bowcock (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 
 421. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hiltner (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 
 279. 
 Where a company's rules 
 give to a train dispatcher's 
 act all the effect of an act 
 of the division superin- 
 tendent the company is re- 
 sponsible therefor in the 
 same degree as for an act of 
 such superintendent. 
 Louisville, N. A. cS: C. Ry. 
 Co. V. Heck (Ind.), vol. 
 11, p. 382. 
 Safe place for work. 
 Doyle V. Toledo, S. & M. Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 22, p. 294. 
 Safe place to work, duty of 
 master. 
 
 Nicholas v. Burlington, C. 
 R. i& N. Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 16, p. 341. 
 Pahlan v. Detroit, G. H. & M. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 16, 
 p. 309. 
 Safe place to work, failure to 
 furnish for car repairer. 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 16, p. SSI. 
 Safe place to work, servant may 
 assume that master has pro- 
 vided. 
 
 Indiana, I. & I. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bundy (Ind.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 660. 
 
 Safe place to work, servant's 
 
 right to presume that master 
 
 has furnished. 
 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 16, p. SSI. 
 Scope of employment, ejec- 
 tion by employee whose duty 
 it was to keep waiting room 
 in station clean, and to keep 
 the room clear of loafers. 
 Gray v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 481. 
 Section man killed while rid- 
 ing upon hand car, the car 
 being struck. 
 
 Hinz V. Chicago, B. & N. 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 3j p. 611. 
 Servant chargeable with no- 
 tice of slipperiness of snow 
 in yard and danger there- 
 from. 
 
 Fay V. Chicago, St. P., M. & 
 O. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 12, p. 641. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Servant has cause of action 
 for injuries received by being 
 struck by body of trespasser 
 negligently killed by com- 
 pany. 
 Western & A. R. Co. ». 
 
 Bailey (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 739. 
 Servant injured while perform- 
 ing work outside of his duty. 
 Gavigan v. Lake Shore, 
 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 S, p. S23. 
 Signals, failure to give, as to 
 movements of cars as negli- 
 gence where cause of injury 
 to employee. 
 Hooper v. Great Northern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 1. 
 Structure near track, negli- 
 gence. 
 Wood V. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. Tenn.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. S2S. 
 SufBciency of complaint in ac- 
 tion for injury to telegraph 
 operator while crossing 
 track at station. 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Houlihan (Ind.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 915. 
 SufBciency of complaint under 
 employers' liability act of 
 Minnesota, in action for in- 
 jury to employee in collision 
 between h-and cars. 
 Wallin V. Eastern Ry. Co. 
 
 of Minnesota (Minn.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 611. 
 SufBciency of evidence of cause 
 of death of brakeman injured 
 on top of car. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Tucker (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 876. 
 SufBciency of evidence of neg- 
 ligence in action for death of 
 employee in collision result- 
 ing from absence of flagman. 
 Rinard v. Omaha, K., C. & 
 
 E. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 34. 
 SufBciency of evidence of neg- 
 ligence in action for injury 
 to employee from derailing of 
 hand car. 
 Koralewski v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 918. 
 SufBciency of evidence to show 
 master's negligence. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Andrews (Ohio), vol. 
 
 12, p. S4S. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 491 
 
 MASTER AND SBRVANT- 
 Continued. 
 
 Sufficiency of inspection of car 
 a question for jury. 
 Fulton V. BuUard (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 547. 
 Sufficiency of petition failing 
 to allege that engineer of 
 backing train negligently 
 failed to see signals, in ac- 
 tion for injury to brakeman 
 coupling cars. 
 
 Cambrou v. Omaha, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 23, p. 634. 
 Sufficiency of rules a question 
 of law. 
 
 Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. 
 Barry (C. C. A.), vol. 11, 
 p. 453. 
 Termination of contract of 
 employment of injured em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. 
 Co. V. Pierce (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 8, p. 742. 
 Test of negligence in maintain- 
 ing obstruction near track. 
 New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. 
 V. Ostman (lud.), vol. 6, 
 p. 588. 
 Under employers' liability act 
 of Alabama there may be re- 
 covery for wilfulness, wan- 
 tonness, or intentional wrong. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 York (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 470. 
 Under our jurisprudence it is 
 not essential, in a suit 
 against a corporation for 
 damages caused by its agent, 
 to aver that the corporation 
 had the power to prevent the 
 act of the agent and failed 
 to do so. 
 
 Nelson v. Crescent City R. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 7, p. 192. 
 Violation of ordinance regulat- 
 ing the running of trains as 
 negligence, in action for in- 
 jury to employee. 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Peterson (Ind.), vol. 20, p. 
 887. 
 Volunteers. 
 Acceptance of volunteer's 
 services. 
 
 Wagen v. Minneapolis & St. 
 L. R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 17, p. 438. 
 Care due person invited by 
 servant to assist. 
 Cleveland T. & V. R. Co. 
 V. Marsh (Ohio), vol. 20, 
 p. 54. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 
 Liability for injury to. 
 
 Wagen v. Minneapolis & 
 St. L. R. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 17, p. 438. 
 Ward V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 7, p. 776. 
 Liability for injury to boy 
 requested by employee to 
 assist in revolving turn 
 table, sufficiency of evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Stacker v. Louisville & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 704. 
 
 Master not liable for injury 
 
 to servant caused by his 
 
 voluntarily performing an 
 
 act not in the scope of his 
 
 employment. 
 
 Olson V. Minneapolis & St. 
 L. R. Co. (Minn.), voU 
 14, p. 770. 
 Whitton V. South Carolina 
 & G. R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 
 14, p. 776. 
 Whether person requested by 
 engineer to assist in man- 
 agement of train was a mere 
 volunteer or an employee. 
 Mickelson v. New East 
 Tintic Ry. Co. (Utah), 
 vol. 20, p. 8SS. 
 Wages. 
 Notice to railroad of nonpay- 
 ment by sub-contractor. 
 George <w. Washington 
 County R. Co. (Me.), 
 vol. IS, p. 8S0. 
 Railroad liable for wages of 
 laborers empioj'ed by sub- 
 contractors. 
 
 George v. Washington 
 County R. Co. (Me.), 
 vol. IS, p. 850. 
 Waiver by servant of master's 
 negligence in not removing 
 obstruction near track. 
 Keist V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 297. 
 Whether brakeman off duty, on 
 his way to collect tickets in 
 absence of the conductor, is 
 acting in the line of his duty 
 is a question for the jury. 
 Schimpf V. Harris (Pa.), vol. 
 11, p. 470. 
 Whether projecting ties was the 
 cause of injuries to conductor 
 alighting from car was a 
 question for jury. 
 Whitcher v. Boston & M. R. 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 20, p. S40. 
 
492 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT— 
 Continued. 
 Whether violation of rule by 
 train despatcher in sending 
 order for passing of trains 
 was proximate cause of killing 
 of fireman of a train which, 
 in violation of rule, was not 
 stopped before passing signal 
 board, question for jury. 
 Felton V. Harbeson (C. C. 
 A.),' vol. 20, p. 131. 
 Wrongful discharge. 
 Rosenberger v. Pac. Coast R. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 3, p. 436. 
 Yearly hiring. 
 Rosenberger v. Pacific Coast 
 R. Co. (Cal.), vol. 3, p. 437. 
 
 MATTERS OF COMMON 
 KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 MEASURE OP DAMAGES. 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 , Children. 
 Crossings. 
 Damages. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Elevated Railroads. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Personal Injuries. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Street Railways, 
 
 MECHANIC'S LIEN. 
 See Liens. 
 Construction of South Carolina 
 statute. 
 
 Greenwood, etc., Ry. Co. 
 V. Strang (U. S.), vol. 6, 
 p. 788. 
 
 MEDICAL ATTENDANCE. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Damages. 
 Trespassers. 
 
 Authority of conductor to em- 
 ploy physician. 
 Adams v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 16, p. 369. 
 Evidence as to cost of, in ac- 
 tion for personal injuries. 
 Robertson v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 16. 
 
 MEDICAL EXPENSES. 
 See Damages. 
 
 MEDICAL EXPERTS. 
 See Evidence. 
 Admissibility of opinion, evi- 
 dence of. 
 
 JTulmore v. St. Paul City Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 11, p. 
 636. 
 
 MENTAL SUFFERING. 
 See Damages. 
 
 MERCHANDISE. 
 See Baggage. 
 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 
 MILEAGE. 
 
 See Taxation, 
 
 MILEAGE BOOKS. 
 
 See Tickets and Fares. 
 
 MINES AND MINING 
 CLAIMS. 
 Purchase by railway company 
 of minerals underlying its 
 right of way. 
 
 In re Lord Gerard and London 
 & Northwestern R. Co. 
 (Eng.), vol. 1, p. 717. 
 
 MINORS. 
 
 See Children. 
 
 MINUTES. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 MISCARRIAGE. 
 
 See Damages. 
 
 MISJOINDER. 
 
 Action against railroad com- 
 pany and employees for per- 
 sonal injuries. 
 
 Pugh V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 303. 
 
 MISREPRESENTATIONS. 
 See Contracts. 
 
 MISSHIPMBNT. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 MISSOURI DECISION. 
 
 See Trains. 
 
 MISTAKE. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods, 
 
 MITIGATION OP DAMAGES. 
 See Damages. 
 
 MIXED TRAINS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 493 
 
 MODELS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 MONEY. 
 
 See Baggage. 
 
 Legal Tender. 
 
 MORTALITY TABLES. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 Judicial Notice. 
 
 Admissibility in evidence. 
 Atchison, Topeka & Santa 
 
 FeR. Co. V. Hughes (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 248. 
 As evidence. 
 
 Arkansas Midland Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Griffith (Ark.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 846. 
 Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 8, p. 201. . 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kelly (Ky.), vol. 7, p. 166. 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Moore (Ga.), vol. S, p. 355. 
 Carlisle tables. 
 Camden & A. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (N. J.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 600. 
 Charge to jury in regard to use 
 of mortality tables. 
 Savannah, B*. & W. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Austin (Ga.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 539. 
 
 Error of court in charging as 
 
 to the methods of using 
 
 mortality and annuity tables. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burnev (Ga.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 543. 
 Right to receive in evidence. 
 Camden & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Williams (N. J. App.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 600. 
 
 MORTGAGES. 
 
 See Bondholders. 
 Foreclosure Sale. 
 Preferential Claims. 
 Receivers. 
 Reorganization. 
 
 After-acquired property. 
 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. v. 
 Chattanooga, R. & C. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 17, p. 
 548. 
 Con. & Building Co. v. Con- 
 tinental Trust Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol.21, p. 487. 
 Car rental contracted prior 
 to receivership not a prefer- 
 ential claim. 
 
 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Cen- 
 tral Vermont R. Co. (Vt.), 
 vol. 12, p. 865. 
 
 MORTGAGES— Continued. 
 Construction of charter. 
 
 Georgia, S. & F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Barton (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 
 446. 
 Construction of Georgia statute. 
 Georgia, S. & F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Barton (Ga. ), vol. 10, p. 
 446. 
 Contracts of mortgagor not 
 binding on mortgagee. 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 Ann Arbor R. Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 13, p. 395. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Exercise of right of eminent 
 domain with respect to a 
 right of way, by company 
 owning it, audits effect on 
 mortgage lien. 
 Chicago, Kansas & Western 
 R. Co. v. Need (Kan.), 
 vol. 3, p. 236. 
 Improvements by railroad 
 passing to purchaser at 
 foreclosure sale. 
 Briggs V. Chicago, K. & W. 
 R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 3, 
 • p. 446. 
 
 Judgment for damages in 
 condemnation proceedings 
 preferred to. 
 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. 
 V. Hennen (C. C. A.), vol. 
 13, p. 409. 
 Right to condemn mortgage 
 Hen. 
 
 Chicago, Kansas & Western 
 R. Co. V. Need (Kan.), 
 vol. 3, p. 236. 
 Foreclosure. 
 
 XsSU6S> 
 
 Sioux City, O. & W. Ry. 
 Co. V. Manhattan Trust 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. IS, 
 p. 430. 
 Laches of intervening cred- 
 itor. 
 
 Louisville Trust Co. v. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. 
 Ry. Co. (U. S.), vol. 15, 
 p. 256. 
 Liability for negligence after 
 foreclosure sale and pending 
 delivery to purchaser. 
 Fidelity Insurance, Trust & 
 Safe Deposit Co. v. Nor- 
 folk & W. R. Co. (Va.), 
 vol. 12, p. 873. 
 Liability of purchaser at 
 foreclosure sale. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. 
 Co. V. Young (Ind. 
 Ter.), vol. 17, p. 645. 
 
494 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 lAOUTGAQES— Continued. 
 
 Liens. 
 Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. 
 Harrison (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 15, p. 272. 
 
 Priority of claim for better- 
 ments over mortgage. 
 Terre Haute & I. R. Co. 
 
 V. Harrison (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 15, p. 272. 
 Priority of unsecured claims. 
 Louisville Trust Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. 
 
 Ry. Co. (U. S.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 256. 
 Proceedings to foreclose mort- 
 gage on railroad situated in 
 several states. 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 
 
 v. Northern Pac. R. Co. 
 
 (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 450. 
 Rights of intervening cred- 
 itor where there is collision 
 between mortgagor and 
 mortgagee. 
 Louisville Trust Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. 
 
 Ry. Co. (U. S.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 256. 
 Rights of purchaser at fore- 
 closure sale. 
 St. Louis, K. & S. W. R. 
 
 Co. V. Nyce (Kan.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 798. 
 
 . Rights of stockholders. 
 
 Louisville Trust Co. v. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 15, p. 
 256. 
 Liability for personal injuries 
 of company in hands of mort- 
 gage trustees, but not ex- 
 clusively under their control. 
 Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. 
 Jones (D. S.), vol. 2, p. 
 390. 
 Mortgagor as plaintiff where 
 property was burned by a 
 fire set by locomotive. 
 Matthews v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 
 673. 
 Parol evidence not admissible 
 to show contents where there 
 was no notice to produce 
 instruments. 
 
 Sims V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 76. 
 Power of railroad to mortgage 
 after-acquired property. 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. 
 V. Chattanooga, R. & C. 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 17, 
 p. 548. 
 
 MOUTGAGES—Coniinued. 
 Priorities. 
 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. 
 
 Appeals (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 211. 
 Claims against receivers for 
 work and material fur- 
 nished prior to receivership 
 where current income has 
 not been diverted. 
 International Trust Co. v. 
 
 T. B. Townsend Brick & 
 
 Contracting Co. (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. IS, p. 310. 
 Priority between railroad 
 mortgage and judgment for 
 tort committed after ex- 
 ecution of mortgage. 
 Green v. Coast Line R. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 4, p. ISO. 
 Priority of claims for sup- 
 plies over mortgage debts. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Adams 
 
 (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 790. 
 •Priority of mortgage over 
 claims to indemnity of 
 unsecured surety on su- 
 persedeas bond given by 
 company subsequent to 
 mortgage. 
 New York Security & T. 
 
 Co. V. Louisville E. & 
 
 St. L. C. R. Co. (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 878. 
 Priority of mortgage over 
 subsequent judgment for 
 damages for death by 
 wrongful act. 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 
 
 V. Nestelle (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 877. 
 New York Security & T. 
 
 Co. V. Louisville E. & 
 
 St. L. C. R. Co. (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 878. 
 Priority over judgments. 
 Veatch v. American Loan 
 
 & Trust Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 795. 
 Priority over subsequent 
 judgment creditors. 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. 
 
 V. Chattanooga, R. & C. 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 548. 
 
 Priority over unsecured 
 creditors. 
 
 Lackawanna, I. & C. Co. v. 
 Farmers' L. & T. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 17, p. 561. 
 
 The payment of mortgage 
 liens on the property of a 
 railway company will not be 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 495 
 
 MORTGAGES— Co«/i««^rf. 
 
 postponed to the payment 
 of a judgment recovered 
 against such company for 
 personal injuries caused by 
 the negligence of an em- 
 ployee of the company, 
 where such liens existed 
 at and before the time of 
 the injury. 
 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust 
 Co. V. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 9, p. 81. 
 Property covered by mortgage 
 of after-acquired property. 
 Central Trust Co. of New 
 York V. Chattanooga, R. & 
 C. R. R. (Owens, Inter- 
 vener) (Ga. ), vol. 12, 
 p. 869. 
 , Railway mortgage covering 
 proposed extension of road. 
 Hinchraan v. Point Defiance 
 R. Co. (Wash.), vol. 4, p. 
 26S. 
 Right of mortgage lieuholders. 
 Wichita & W. R. Co. v. 
 Thayer (Kan. ), vol. 3, p. 27. 
 Eight of mortgagee to income 
 after default where corpus is 
 insufScient. 
 
 Central Trust Co. of New 
 York V. Chattanooga, R. 
 & C. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 17, p. 548. 
 Kight to earnings during re- 
 ceivership. 
 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. 
 
 V. Chattanooga, R. & C. 
 
 R. R. (Owens, Intervener) 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 869. 
 
 Street railways, mortgage on 
 
 chattel property of street 
 
 railroad. 
 
 Hinchman v. Point Defiance 
 R. Co. (Wash.), vol. 4, 
 p. 264. 
 Validity of mortgage of in- 
 come. 
 
 Georgia, S. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Barton (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 
 446. 
 Whether claims for personal 
 injuries are personal claims. 
 Veatch v. American L/oan & 
 Trust Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 795. 
 Whether expenditures for im- 
 provements continued by a 
 receiver and sanctioned by a 
 court are personal claims. 
 Veatch v. American Loan & 
 Trust Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 795. 
 
 MOTHER. 
 
 See Children. 
 
 MOVING TRAINS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers, 
 Master and Servant. 
 Trespassers. 
 
 MUNICIPAL AID. 
 See Bonds. 
 Counties. 
 Taxation. 
 Change of route as affecting 
 municipal aid bonds. 
 Ravenswopd, S. & G. Ry. Co. 
 V. Town of Ravenswood 
 (W. Va.), vol. 4, p. 145. 
 City not estopped to deny its 
 authority to subscribe to 
 bonds of foreign corporation 
 where such bonds state on 
 their face that they are issued 
 under an act limiting such 
 authority to subscribe to do- 
 mestic corporations. 
 City of Johnson City v. 
 Charleston C. & C. R. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 12, p. 867. 
 Constitutional law, sec. 24, 
 ch. 39 and sec. 57, ch. 54, 
 Code 1891, in allowing sub- 
 scriptions by magisterial dis- 
 tricts in aid of railroads 
 and other works of internal 
 improvement are not uncon- 
 stitutional, and such sub- 
 scriptions are valid. 
 Neale v. County Court of 
 Wood County (W. Va. ), 
 vol. 7, p. 252. 
 Constitutional law, validity of 
 municipal bonds to aid rail- 
 road company. 
 
 Town Council of Lexington 
 V. Union Nat. Bank 
 (Miss.), vol. 9, p. 321. 
 County indebtedness. 
 Neale v. County Court of 
 Wood County (W. .Va.), 
 vol. 7, p. 252. 
 Coupons, interest. 
 Town Council of Lexington 
 V. Union Nat. Bank 
 (Miss.), vol. 9, p. 321. 
 Delivery of bond prior to com- 
 pletion of road. 
 Neale v. County Court of 
 Wood County (W. Va.), 
 vol. 7, p. 252. 
 Estoppel. 
 
 Town Council of Lexington 
 V. Union Nat. Bank 
 (Miss.), vol. 9, p. 321. 
 
496 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MUNICIPAL AID— Continued. 
 
 Injunction. 
 Neale v. County Court of 
 Wood County (W. Va.), 
 vol. 7, p. 2S2. 
 Location. 
 Lowell V. Washington County 
 R. Co. (Me.), vol. 9, p. 
 lis. 
 Municipal subscriptions to 
 bonds of foreign corporations 
 not authorized under laws of 
 Tennessee. 
 
 City of Johnson City v. 
 Charleston C. & C. R. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 12, p. 867. 
 National banks. 
 Town Council of Lexington 
 V. Union Nat. i^ank (Miss.), 
 vol. 9, p. 321. 
 Negotiability of bonds. 
 
 Town Council of Lexington 
 V. Union Nat. Bank (Miss.), 
 vol. 9, p. 321. 
 Power of court to make 
 levies. 
 
 Neale v. County Court of 
 Wood County (W. Va. ), vol. 
 7, p. 252. 
 Validity of issue, constitu- 
 tional law. 
 
 City of Johnson City v. 
 Charleston C. & C. R. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 12, p. 867. ' 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORA- 
 TIONS. 
 
 See Elevated Railroads. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Estoppel. 
 Municipal Aid. 
 Ordinances. 
 Ordinary Railroads in 
 
 Streets. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 , Streets. 
 
 Street Railways. 
 Appointment of city commis- 
 sioners by circuit judges. 
 City of Terre Haute v. Evans- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 8, p. 760. 
 Bond to a city for the comple- 
 tion of street railway within 
 a specified time. 
 City of Aberdeen v. Honey 
 (Wash.), vol. 1, p. 163. 
 Constitutionality of city license 
 tax where railroad is engaged 
 in interstate commerce. 
 Alabama, G. S. R. Co. v. 
 City of Bessemer (Ala.), 
 vol. 6, p. 410. 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORA- 
 TIONS— Co«^irea«flf. 
 Constitutional law, municipal 
 ownership of street rail- 
 ways. 
 Sun Printing, etc., Ass'n v. 
 
 Mayor of New York (N. 
 
 Y.), vol. 8, p. 771. 
 Construction of grant. 
 Cora, ex rel. HeUsel, Atty. 
 
 Gen., V. Union Pass. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 99. 
 Eminent domain, ejBfect of exe- 
 cution by municipality of 
 agreement to condemn land 
 for use of railroad company. 
 Dennis Long & Co. v. City of 
 
 Louisville (Ky. ), vol. 3, p. 
 
 213. 
 Eminent domain, municipal 
 authority to condemn more 
 land than necessary for 
 railroad purposes. 
 Dennis Long & Co. v. City 
 
 of Louisville (Ky. ), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 213. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 Abatement of railroad as a 
 nuisance. 
 Alabama & V. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bloom (Miss.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 28. 
 A city cannot compel the re- 
 moval of all railroad tracks 
 from the public streets sim- 
 ply because those who live 
 near the tracks are dis- 
 turbed by those annoyances 
 incident to the operation of 
 all railroads. 
 City of Chicago v. Union ' 
 
 Stock Yard & Transit Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 490. 
 Consent to use of street. 
 Pennsylvania Schuylkill 
 
 Val. R. Co. V. Phila. & 
 
 R. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 26. 
 Failure to ring bell within 
 corporate limits in viola- 
 tion of ordinance. 
 Missouri, K. &T. R. Co. v. 
 
 McGlamory (Tex.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 434. 
 
 Impairment of obligation of 
 contracts where the contract 
 is between railroads and 
 cities. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 State of Nebraska (U. 
 
 S.), vol. 10, p. 423. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 497 
 
 MtJNIOIPAL CORPORA- 
 TIONS— Continued. 
 
 It is competent for a state 
 to supervise, control and 
 chang-e agreements between 
 a city and a railroad com- 
 panj' as to the construction 
 and maintenance of a via- 
 duct at an important cross- 
 ing, •within a populous city, 
 saving any rights pre- 
 viously vested. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 State of Nebraska (U. 
 
 S.), vol. 10, p. 423. 
 Municipal authorities e s - 
 topped by acquiescence and 
 affirmative acts from deny- 
 ing right of company to 
 maintain its track in 
 streets. 
 City of Chicago v. Union 
 
 Stock Yard & Transit Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 490. 
 Municipal consent to railroads 
 in streets, ratification. 
 City of Owensboro v. Ow- ■ 
 
 ensboro & N. R. Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 155. 
 Ordinance requiring railroad 
 companies to construct and 
 keep in repair viaducts over 
 streets crossed by their 
 tracks. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 
 
 V. State ex rel. City of 
 
 Omaha (Neb.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 578. 
 Railroad using its track in 
 connection with stock yards 
 and thereby creating a seri- 
 ous nuisance in streets of 
 city does not authorize the 
 destruction of its tracks by 
 city authorities. 
 City of Chicago v. Union 
 
 Stock Yard & Transit Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 490. 
 Right of city to grant exclu- 
 sive and permanent use of 
 street to ordinary railroad. 
 Willamette Iron Works v. 
 
 Oregon Railway & Navi- 
 gation Co. (Ore.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 36. 
 Right of way of railroads 
 through town. 
 People V. Cray croft (Cal. ), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 655. 
 Stock killed in municipal 
 corporations. 
 Evans V. Sherman, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Tex.), vol. S, p. 
 
 184. 
 
 I D— 32 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORA- 
 TIONS— Co«<i««^ar. 
 
 Validity of ordinance com- 
 pelling railway to keep 
 watchman and gates. 
 Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. 
 
 R. Co. V. Town of Crown 
 
 Point (Ind. ), vol. 6, p. 
 
 324. 
 Violation of city ordinance 
 in running engine. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Uggman (111.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 263. 
 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Acquiescence of municipality 
 
 in change of motive power. 
 
 Potter V. Scranton Traction 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 4, p. 307. 
 
 Arbitrarily rescinding grant 
 
 to street railway. 
 
 Newark Pass. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Inhabitants of East 
 
 Orange (N. J.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 219. 
 
 Authority to lay track in 
 
 street, extent of grant. 
 
 Evans v. Chicago, St. P., 
 M. & O. R. Co. (Wis.), 
 vol. 1, p. 27. 
 Authority to use streets, duly 
 
 given, is a binding contract 
 
 upon city if acted upon. 
 
 City of Belleville v. Citi- 
 zens' Horse Ry. Co. (111.), 
 vol. 1, p. 26. 
 Avoidance of public grant for 
 
 nonperformance of condi- 
 tion subsequent. 
 
 Santa Rosa City Railroad 
 Co. V. Central Street 
 Railway Co. (Cal.), vol. 
 1, p. 105. 
 Consent of township com- 
 mittee. 
 
 West Jersey Traction Co. v. 
 
 Camden Horse-Railroad 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 4, p. 520. 
 
 Consent to lay a street 
 
 railroad. 
 
 Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. 
 Co. V. City of Detroit (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 1, p. 71. 
 
 West Jersey Traction Co. 
 
 V. Camden Horse-Railroad 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 520. 
 
 Consent to railroad in street 
 
 must be given in corporate 
 
 meeting. 
 
 West Jersej' Traction Co. 
 V. Camden Horse-Rail- 
 road Co. (N. J.), vol. 4, 
 p. 520. 
 
498 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORA- 
 i:iOTSB-rContinued. 
 
 Defined location of tracks. 
 West Jersey Traction Co. 
 V. Camden Horse-Railroad 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 4, p. 
 520. 
 Grant of same privileges to 
 third party does not work a 
 forfeiture. 
 
 Santa Rosa City Railroad 
 Co. V. Central Street Rail- 
 way Co. (Cal.), vol. 1, 
 p. lOS. 
 Impairmeat of franchise of 
 street railway by munici- 
 pality. 
 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. City 
 R. Co. (Ind.), vol. 1, p. 
 99. 
 Intervention by municipality 
 on foreclosure against com- 
 pany. 
 
 City of Belleville v. Citi- 
 zens' Horse Ry. Co. (111.), 
 vol. 1, p. 118. 
 Joint action against city 
 and railroad company. 
 City of Fort Worth v. Allen 
 (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 282. 
 Mandamus to compel mayor 
 to approve permit to con- 
 struct tracks when com- 
 pany's right is uncertain. 
 State ex rel. Baltimore, C. 
 & P. B. R. Co. V. Ivatrobe 
 (Md.), vol. 1, p. 99. 
 Municipal confiscation of. 
 railroad property. 
 City of Belleville v. Citi- 
 zens' Horse Ry. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 1, p. 28. 
 Municipal consent to route. 
 State V. Mayor, etc., of 
 Newark (N. J.), vol. 1, 
 p. 176. 
 Municipal ownership, consti- 
 tutional law. 
 
 Sun Printing, etc., Ass'n v. 
 
 Mayor of New York 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 771. 
 
 Municipal power to remove 
 
 tracks, conflict of authority 
 
 between city and adjoining 
 
 county. 
 
 Delaware County & P. 
 
 Electric R. Co. v. City of 
 
 Philadelphia (Pa.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 28. 
 
 Ordinance allowing double 
 
 fare for prescribed distance. 
 
 Bobira v. New Orleans & C. 
 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 220. 
 
 MUNICIPAL. CORPORA- 
 TIONS — Continued. 
 Ordinance authorizing double 
 tracks. 
 State V. Mayor, etc., of 
 
 Jersey City (N. J.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 220. 
 Ordinance construed to permit 
 only the operation of street 
 railways and not to author- 
 ize the operation of an ordi- 
 nary railroad in the street. 
 Tallon V. Mayor, etc., of 
 
 City of Hoboken (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. S4S. 
 Party to action against com- 
 pany for damages sustained 
 by change of street. 
 Kaufman v. Tacoma, O. & 
 
 G. H. R. Co. (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 169. 
 Power of city to enact an or- 
 dinance to compel passen- 
 ger cars operated by trolley 
 or electric power to come to 
 full stop before crossing 
 intersecting street. 
 Cape May, D. B. & S. P. 
 
 R. Co. V. City of Cape 
 
 May (N. J.), vol. 6, p. 329. 
 Power of city to control street 
 railways. 
 Cape May, D. B. & S. P. 
 
 R. Co. V. City of Cape 
 
 May (N. J.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 329. 
 Power of council to demand 
 additional sum for fran- 
 chise. 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 23. 
 Power of municipal author- 
 ities to grant exclusive 
 right to second railway. 
 West Jersey Traction Co. 
 
 V. Camden Horse-Rail- 
 road Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 4, p. 520. 
 Power of municipality to 
 grant franchise. 
 Sun Printing, etc., Ass'n 
 
 V. Mayor of New York 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 771. 
 Power of municipality to 
 grant use of streets. 
 Homestead St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Pittsburgh & H. Electric 
 
 St. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 97. 
 Ivongz/. Freeman (N. Car.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 97. 
 State V. Mayor, etc., of 
 
 Jersey City (N. J.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 98. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 499 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORA- 
 TIONS— Cow^jwa^or. 
 
 Tallon V. Mayor, etc., of 
 City of Hoboken (N. J.), 
 vol. 7, p. S4S. 
 Tibbetts v. West & South 
 
 Towns St. R. Co. (111.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 98. 
 
 Power of state authorities to 
 
 grant the right of using the 
 
 streets to a street railroad. 
 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 23. 
 Presumption of reasonable- 
 ness of ordinance regulating 
 street railway. 
 State Consolidated Traction 
 
 Co. V. City of Elizabeth 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 614. 
 Ratification by legislature of 
 grant by municipality of 
 .street railway privileges. 
 Denver Tramway Co. v. 
 
 Londoner, Mayor (Colo.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 124. 
 Reasonableness of ordinance 
 regulating street railroads. 
 State Consolidated Traction 
 
 Co. V. Citv of Elizabeth 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 614. 
 Revocation by city of au- 
 thority to lay tracks. 
 Ashville St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 City of Ashville (N. 
 
 Car.), vol. 1, p. 27. 
 Right to construct street 
 railway conferred by ordi- 
 nance. 
 State (Cape May, etc., 
 
 Prosecutor) v. City of 
 
 Cape May (N. J.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 592. 
 Right to test legality of 
 municipal consent to con- 
 struction. 
 State V. Mayor, etc., of 
 
 Jersey City (N. J.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 169. 
 Street railway company en- 
 titled to hearing before 
 enactment of ordinance 
 providing for summary re- 
 moval of its track. 
 Sta:te (Cape May, etc., 
 
 Prosecutor) v. City of 
 
 Cape May (N. J.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 592. 
 Tearing up of street railway, 
 municipal power. 
 Des Moines City Railway 
 
 Company v. City of Des 
 
 Moines (Iowa), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 215. 
 The city of Cape May by an 
 ordinance, granted permis- 
 
 MUNIOIPAL CORPORA- 
 TIONS— Continued. 
 
 sion to a railway company 
 to lay its tracks on cer- 
 tain streets (naming them) 
 and also to construct all 
 necessary switches and 
 turnouts: held, that turn- 
 outs built in pursuance of 
 such authority unless it 
 clearly appears that the au- 
 thority has been exceeded 
 are not such an obstruc- 
 tion of the streets as to 
 warrant their summary 
 and forcible removal by 
 police intervention without 
 notice of a hearing. 
 City of Cape May v. Cape 
 May D. B. & S. P. R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, p, 
 58S. 
 Validity of ordinance amend- 
 ing a former ordinance 
 permitting the use of double 
 tracks through the streets 
 and limiting the rights 
 of the company to one track 
 for a short distance in a 
 very crowded and narrow 
 street. 
 
 Mayor, etc. , of City of Bal- 
 timore V. Baltimore Trust 
 & Guarantee Co. (U. 
 S.), vol. 7, p. 624. 
 Violation of terms of grant 
 of right to use streets. 
 Haus V. Jefferson, M. & I. 
 R. Co. (Ind. ), vol. 1, p. 
 27. 
 Whether assent of munici- 
 pality is necessary to the 
 construction of railroads in 
 streets where company has 
 purchased the franchise of 
 an existing company. 
 Lockwood V. Wabash Rail- 
 road Co. (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 
 16. 
 Whether town could release 
 from performance of con- 
 dition subsequent of grant 
 of right of way. 
 Lyman v. Suburban R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 21, p. 828. 
 
 Streets. 
 
 Control of streets. 
 Bobira v. Nevr Orleans & 
 C. R. Co. (La.), vol. 1, 
 p. 220. 
 Newark Pass. Ry. Co. v. 
 Inhabitants of East 
 Orange (N. J.), vol. 1, 
 p. 219. 
 
soo 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 MTJNICIPAL CORPORA- 
 TIONS— Continued. 
 Delegation of municipal 
 power to open street. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co, 
 V. Ocala St. & S. R. Co. 
 (Fla.), vol. 7, p. 686. 
 Power of council to change 
 street grade. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. City of 
 Defiance (U. S.), vol. 
 7, p. 638. 
 
 MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. 
 See Street Railways. 
 
 MURDER. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers . 
 Liability of railroad for murder 
 by employee. 
 
 Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Christian (Ga.), vol. S, p. 
 584. 
 I/iability of sleeping car com- 
 pany where passenger is 
 murdered. 
 
 Connell's Ex'rs v. Chesa- 
 peake & O. R. Co. (Va.), 
 vol. 5, p. 333. 
 
 NATIONAL BANKS. 
 Municipal aid. 
 
 Town Council of Lexington v. 
 Union Nat. Bank (Miss.), 
 vol. 9, p. 321. 
 
 NATIONAL CORPORATIONS 
 
 IJffect of state legislation. 
 Roberts v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co. (D. S.), vol. 3, p. 106. 
 
 NAVIGATION. 
 
 Liability of, railroad company 
 for obstruction of high water 
 channels. 
 
 New York, C. & St. L. R. 
 Co. V. Hamlet Hay Co. 
 (Ind.), vol. 9, p. 291. 
 Obstruction of navigable water 
 by railway bridge. 
 Jones V. St. Paul, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 6, p. 789. 
 Obstruction of navigation. 
 Hedges v. West Shore R. Co. 
 (N. y.), vol. 5, p. 647. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Acts of God. 
 Baggage. 
 Bridges. 
 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— Continued. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Children. 
 
 Comparative Negligence. 
 Contractors. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Coupling Cars. 
 Crossings. 
 Damages. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Evidence. 
 
 Exemplary Dantages. 
 Fences. 
 Fires. 
 
 Frightening Horses. 
 Gross Negligence. 
 Imputable Negligence. 
 Independent Cofitractors. 
 Instructions. 
 
 Leases and Punning Pow- 
 ers. 
 Licensees. 
 Lookouts. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Ordinances. 
 Personal Injuries. 
 Pleading. 
 Proximate Cause. 
 Speed. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Street Railways. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Trespassers. 
 Wantonness, 
 Willfulness. 
 Wires. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sny- 
 der (Ohio), vol. 7, p. 768. 
 Absence of statutes. 
 
 Sundmaker v. Yazoo & M. 
 Val. R. Co. (La.), vol. 22,- 
 p. 496. 
 "Accident" includes action- 
 able negligence. 
 Ullman v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 p. 782. 
 Accidents on Track. 
 Liability of railroad assum- 
 ing duty of municipality 
 in maintaining bridge. 
 Bush V. Delaware, L. & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, 
 p. 516. 
 Restarting car after acci- 
 dent, question for jury. 
 McDivitt V. Des Moines 
 St. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 6, 
 _ p. 106. 
 (Violation of city ordinance 
 regulating speed as negli- 
 gence per se. 
 
 Barfield v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. IS, p. 735. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 501 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— Continued. 
 
 Violation of valid ordinances 
 ■ is neglig-euce per se. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. 
 Co. V. Bond (Ga.), vol. 
 17, p. 757. 
 Action against railroad com- 
 pany and employees for per- 
 sonal injuries., 
 Pugh V. Chesapeake & O. Ey. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 303. 
 Action for negligence may be 
 based on statute prescrib- 
 ing penalty on carrier for 
 failure to care for live stock 
 in transit. 
 Burns v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 290. 
 Act of God. 
 New Orleans & N. E. R. 
 
 Co. V. McEwen & Murray 
 
 (La.), vol. 7, p. 742. 
 Admitted by conceded prayer. 
 Philadelphia & B. C. R. 
 
 Co. V. Holden (Md.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 192. 
 Assumption of risk, obstruc- 
 tions near track. 
 New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. 
 
 V. Ostman (Ind. ), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 588. 
 Bill of exceptions. 
 Lemery v. Boston & M. R. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 11, p. 17. 
 Burden of proof. 
 
 Augusta Southern R. Co. 
 
 V. McDade (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 5^. 
 Burr V. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 162. 
 Cox V. Norfolk & C. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 391. 
 ■Garrett v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (C.C. A.), vol. 18, p. 529. 
 Heckle v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 15, p. 584. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Victory (Ky.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 538. 
 Parker v. South Carolina & 
 
 G. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 731. 
 Rogers v. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. Tenn.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 813. 
 TuUy V. Philadelphia, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Del.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 209. 
 Burden of proving due care. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gidley (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 214. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— Co«/i««erf. 
 Care required in using elec- 
 tricity. 
 
 Macon v. Paducah St. Rj'. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 
 614. 
 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence of neg- 
 ligence causing delay. 
 Burns v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 290. 
 Carriers of Passengers, 
 Discharging passengers. 
 Mensing v. Michigan Cent. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 223. 
 S o w a s h V. Consolidated 
 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 124. 
 Liability for injury to pas- 
 senger from recklessly 
 backing train, 
 Appleby v. South Carolina 
 
 & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 581. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 from derailment of car 
 where passenger was in- 
 jured. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kuhn (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. , 
 
 324. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 from derailment of train. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Zernecke (Neb.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 76. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 from injury to passengers. 
 Felton V. Holbrook (Ky.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 146. 
 McCafferty v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 122. 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burrows (Kan.), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 678. 
 Spencer v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. (Wis.),, vol. 17, 
 
 p. 163. 
 Sprague v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 14, 
 
 p.' 356. 
 Steele v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 350. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 where injury is caused to 
 passenger by collision 
 between trains. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Hausman (Ky. ), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 237. 
 
502 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 NEGLiIGENCE—ConHnued. 
 
 Rebuttal of presumption of 
 negligence, question for 
 jury. 
 
 O'Conner v. Scranton Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, 
 p. 6S0. 
 Running freight train past 
 station at high rate of 
 speed while passengers are 
 alighting from another 
 train as negligence. 
 Chicago & A. E. Co. v. 
 Kelly (111.), vol. 17, p. 52. 
 Speed in excess of ordinance 
 is negligence, prima facie, 
 where passenger is in- 
 jured on track. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Winters (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 93. 
 Sudden jerk of street car 
 injuring passenger riding 
 on running board. 
 Hassen w. Nassau Elec. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 1. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 negligence. 
 
 Ayers v. Rochester R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 165. 
 Wantonness and and contribu- 
 tory negligence. 
 Conner v. Citizens' St. R. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 7, p. 287. 
 Wilful injury to street rail- 
 way passenger when he was 
 about to alight. 
 Conner v. Citizens' St. R. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 7, p. 287. 
 Wilful negligence where 
 passenger is injured in a 
 collision. 
 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. 
 Co. V. Swope (Ala.), vol. 
 13, p. 856. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Presumption of negligence. 
 Farmington Mercantile Co. 
 V. Chicago, B. & Q. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. S, p. 
 59. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Contributory negligence a 
 defense to negligence. 
 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Smith (Ark.), 
 vol. 13, p. 699. 
 Contributory negligence as 
 defense where wilfulness 
 and wantonness is charged. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Forshee (Ala.), vol. 18, 
 p. 469. 
 
 N'EGL.IGENOE— Continued. 
 
 Defense of contributory negli- 
 gence is no a confession of 
 negligence. 
 
 Hasie v. Alabama & v". Ry. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, p. 
 551. 
 Proximate contributory neg- 
 ligence a defense to action 
 based on simple negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Roach (Ala.), vol. 11, 
 p. 869. 
 Selecting the more dangerous- 
 of two avenues of travel. 
 Settoon V. Texas & Pac. 
 R. Co. (Ija. Ann.), vol. 
 4, p. 219. 
 Selecting the more dangerous, 
 of two possible ways of do- 
 ing an act. 
 
 George v. Mobile, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 4, p. 
 2S7. 
 Criminal negligence. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q, R. Co. v. 
 Hague (Neb.), vol. 4, p> 
 476. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Speed in violation of ordi- 
 nance, as negligence. 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia, W. 
 
 & B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 
 
 20, p. 172. 
 Train behind time. 
 Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Medairy (Md. ), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 526. 
 Wanton and wilful negli- 
 gence, sufBciency of evi- 
 dence. 
 Krenzerw. Pittsburg, C, C. 
 
 & St. Li. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 344. 
 
 Whether negligence of driver 
 imputable to traveler. 
 Lewis V. Long Island R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 18, p. 1. 
 Whether speed at crossing 
 constituted wantonness. 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Martin (Ala.), vol. 23, 
 p. 683. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 Gross negligence as ground 
 for recovery of punitive 
 damages. 
 
 Felton V. Holbrook (Ky.), 
 vol. 17, p. 146. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 503 
 
 NEGZ-lGENOE—ConHnued. 
 
 Wantonness, recklessness or 
 willfulness of employee may 
 render master liable for 
 punitive damages. 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Robinson (Ala.), vol. 
 19, p. 357. 
 Bangerous make up of train 
 where sleeping car porter was 
 injured. 
 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Pil- 
 grim (Colo.), vol. 8, p. 249. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 Presumption of negligence. 
 Sims V. Western & A. R. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 756. 
 Strom V. Georgia R. & B. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 849. 
 
 Decision of trial court as to 
 negligence, conclusive. 
 Heenan v. Bridgeport Trac- 
 tion Co. (Conn.), vol. 5, p. 
 398. 
 Definition. 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & C. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 18, 
 p. 340. 
 McGraw v. Chicago, R. I. & 
 P. Ry. Co. (Neb.), vol. 18, 
 p. 764. 
 Definition, instructions. 
 
 Anderson v. Union Terminal 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 
 834. 
 Definition of "unavoidable." 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. ». Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 Duty to define in instructions. 
 Bowen v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 
 331. 
 Erroneous definitions in in- 
 structions. 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Vaughan (Ga.), vol. 21, 
 p. 512. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 negligence not alleged. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Scanlon (Ky.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 833. 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 where general and specific 
 allegations. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 759. 
 
 NEGljIQENOE—Coniinuecf, 
 
 Any evidence of is for the 
 
 jury- 
 
 Connell v. Chesapeake & 
 
 O. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 237. 
 Corroborative testimony. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mizell (Ky. ), vol. 6, p. 
 
 337. 
 Evidence of other acts of 
 carelessness. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Bernstein (Ga.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 952. 
 Evidence of similar acts 
 of. 
 Agulino V. New York, N. 
 
 H. & H. R. Co. (R. I.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 314. 
 Hutcherson v. Louisville & 
 
 N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 15, 
 
 p. 846. 
 Evidence, sufficiency. 
 Walker v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 738. . 
 InsufBciency of evidence to 
 show. 
 McGeary v. Old Colony R. 
 
 R. (R. I.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 764. 
 
 Exemption from liability. 
 Lousville N. A. & C. Ry. 
 Co. 7'. Keefer (Ind. ), vol. 
 5, p. 26. 
 
 Fellow Servants. 
 
 Question for jury whether 
 negligence of fellow servant 
 was proximate cause in 
 action for injury to em- 
 ployee of another company. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Harrington (111.), vol. 23, 
 p. 429. 
 Where master's negligence 
 is proximate cause he is 
 not relieved by the fact that 
 the negligence of a fellow 
 
 servant concurred. ' 
 
 Louisiana Western Exten- 
 sion Ry. Co. V. Carstens 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 12, 
 p. 782. 
 
 Fires Set by Locomotives. 
 
 Presumption of negligence. 
 Gulf, C. & S. P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Johnson (Tex.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 82. 
 McCullen v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 18, p. SCO. 
 
S04 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 NBGLIGBNOB — Continued. 
 
 Rebutting presumption of 
 negligence. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. 
 V. Marbury L. Co. (Ala.), 
 vol. 18, p. 508. 
 Speed of train which caused 
 fire not evidence of negli- 
 gence. 
 
 L(Ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Marbury h. Co. (Ala.), 
 vol. 18, p. 508. 
 Where a statute requires rail- 
 roads to show absence of 
 negligence causing a fire, 
 the company exonerates it- 
 self from liability, in an 
 action where it was claimed 
 that the fire was caused by 
 using a certain engine, 
 by proving that the spark 
 arrester thereon was such 
 as is in common use. 
 Peter v. Chicago & W. M. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. li>, 
 p. 541. 
 Following dangerous practice, 
 even though it be customary. 
 George v. Mobile, etc. , R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 4, p. 
 257. 
 Frightening Teams. 
 Unnecessarily blowing whis- 
 tle and thereby frightening 
 horses. 
 
 Inabnett v. St. Louis, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. 
 20, p. 590. 
 Gross negligence. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Fox worth (Fla. ), vol. 
 
 13, p. 469. 
 
 Gross negligence, definition. 
 
 Bolin V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 19, p. 735. 
 
 Buckley v. Flint & P. M. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 15, p. 1. 
 Illinois Cent. R., Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 874. 
 Gross negligence in leaving 
 hand car unlocked and ac- 
 cessible to children. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 son (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 644. 
 Harmless error in instructing 
 as to gross negligence. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 759. 
 Inference of intent to willfully 
 injure, sufBciency of evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Bolin V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 19, p. 753. 
 
 TS'EQTLilG^TSG'Si— Continued. 
 
 Inference of negligence. 
 Olson V, Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 241. 
 Instructions. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Whitbeck (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 
 778. 
 Bodie V. Charleston, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, p. 
 818. 
 Jones V. Charleston, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 261. 
 Western & A. R., Co. v. Staf- 
 ford (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 172. 
 Instructions as to burden of 
 proving. 
 
 Hale V. New York & N. E. 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 16, p. 
 535. 
 Joint- and concurrent liability 
 for separate acts. 
 Pugh 7J. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 303. 
 Liability for injury to servant 
 of another company caused 
 by negligence in leaving 
 switch open as affected by 
 contributory negligence in 
 being in dangerous position. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 Licensees. 
 SufBciency of complaint in 
 action for injury to 
 licensee at depot. 
 Smith V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 777. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 negligence in using worn 
 out brake shoe where li- 
 censee near track is injured 
 by flying piece. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Martin (C. C. A.), vol. 
 23, p. 449. 
 Wantonness, sufficiency of 
 evidence where person 
 standing near track at 
 station was injured bj' 
 train running at rate of 
 speed prohibited by ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 Tanner v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, 
 p. 809. 
 Limiting liability. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Southern 
 S. & C. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 
 18, p. 276. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 564. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 SOS 
 
 NEGLIGBNOB— CoB^ZMM^rf. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Iviability for wanton or will- 
 ful misconduct of employees 
 to each other, under em- 
 ployers' liability act of Ala- 
 bama. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Moore 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 896. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 in action for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Tindall (Kan.), vol. 6, 
 p. SS7. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 under Georgia statute 
 where employee is killed. 
 Augusta Southern R. Co. 
 V. McDade (Gai), vol. 12, 
 p. 549. 
 Rebutting presumption of 
 negligence arising from in- 
 jury to servant through 
 defect in car. 
 
 Fulton V. Bullard (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 14, p. 547. 
 Signals as to movements of 
 cars, failure to give neg- 
 ligence , when cause of in- 
 jury to employee. 
 Hooper v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 19, p. 1. 
 Station agent killed by 
 freight cars, left unbraked 
 and unchecked, set in mo- 
 tion by sudden storms. 
 Brunswick, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ga.), vol. S, p. 695. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to 
 due care on part of engineer 
 in running freight train, 
 in action for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Crane v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 22, p. 869. 
 Switch stand near track. 
 Southern Kan. Ry. Co. v. 
 Michaels (Kan.), vol. 8, 
 p. 761. 
 Throwing articles from pass- 
 ing train and injuring 
 employee after working 
 hours. 
 
 Fletcher v. Baltimore & P. 
 R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 9, 
 p. 229. 
 "Violation of rules not negli- 
 gence per se where servant 
 is injured thereby. 
 Smithson v. Chicago G. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 11, p. 726. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— Continued. 
 
 Violation of rules of company 
 as evidence of its negli- 
 gence where employee is 
 injured thereby. 
 Smithson v. Chicago G. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 726. 
 Wantonness, sufficiency of 
 
 evidence of. 
 
 Sharp V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 47. 
 
 What evidence admissible 
 
 in action for negligence 
 
 causing injury to servant. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Mooney (Fla. ), vol. 
 
 12, p. 721. 
 
 Whether company exercised 
 ordinary care to keep track 
 in reasonably safe condition 
 is question for jury in 
 action for death of train- 
 man. 
 
 Clunew. Ristine (C. C. A.), 
 vol. IS, p. 761. 
 
 Whether inferred from mere 
 
 fact of injury to servant. 
 
 Lincoln St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Cox (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 273. 
 
 Negligence and contributory 
 
 negligence. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Forshee (Ala.), vol. 
 18, p. 467. 
 
 Neininger v. Cowan (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 492. 
 
 Schweinfurth v. Cleveland, 
 C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 
 (Ohio), vol. 15, p. 73. 
 "Negligent" speed in running 
 
 passenger train. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Johnston (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 p. 286. 
 
 Pleading. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Young (Neb.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 343. 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 829. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Thompson (Colo.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 47. 
 Keating v. Detroit B. C. & 
 
 A. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 382. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Penrod (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 759. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 
 Co. V. O'Leary (C. C. A.,), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 718, 
 
£06 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— Cb«!fj««^rf. 
 
 San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. DeHam (Tex.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 843. 
 Sirk V. Marion St. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Ind. App.), vol. 2, p. 381. 
 Walker v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 738, 
 All defendant's acts of negli- 
 gence may be alleged in one 
 paragraph of petition. 
 Fagg V. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 171. 
 Allegation of complaint. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. Bouldin 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 5, p. 708. 
 Allegation of negligence as a 
 legal conclusion. 
 Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. 
 
 Wright (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 9. 
 Allegation that injuries were 
 inflicted "by reason of all 
 of appellant's negligence" 
 includes an allegation of the 
 negligence of the engineer. 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Houlihan (Ind.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 915. 
 Count defective for setting 
 forth separate causes of ac- 
 tion. 
 Clements v. Alabama Great 
 
 Southern R. Co. (Ala.), 
 
 vol. 19, p. 266. 
 Employee whose negligence 
 was cause of injury need not 
 be specified in complaint. 
 Rinard v. Omaha, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 34. 
 Evidential facts constituting 
 need not be pleaded. 
 Connell v. Chesapeake & O. 
 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 237. 
 General allegation of negli- 
 gence. 
 Omaha, etc., R. Co. v. Wright 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 5, p. 419. 
 General allegation of negli- 
 gence followed by enumer- 
 ation of specific acts. 
 McManamee v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 5, p. 474. 
 Held, that an allegation in the 
 complaint herein to the effect 
 that the defendant negli- 
 gently ran certain cars 
 against a tender with such 
 force as to injure the plain- 
 tiff is sustained by proof that 
 it negligently omitted to do 
 an act from which such re- 
 sults followed. 
 Olson V. Great Northern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 241. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— Co«;?««eflf. 
 
 Instructions limited as to neg- 
 ligence alleged. 
 Moss V. North Carolina R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 19. 
 Mere negligence in ejecting 
 trespasser does not give 
 right to recover, where com- 
 plaint is based on wanton 
 negligence. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Kingsley 
 (111.), vol. 13, p. 835. 
 Plaintiff cannot claim or 
 recover damages upon 
 grounds of negligence other 
 than those alleged in bis 
 petition. 
 
 Brown v. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 11, p. 
 408. 
 Sufficiency of petition. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Shearer (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 
 138. 
 Variance between pleading 
 and proof. 
 
 Coulter V. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 4, 
 p. 336. 
 Where pleader relies upon one 
 or more specific acts, evi- 
 dence of any other acts is 
 irrelevant. 
 
 Omaha, etc., R. Co. z/. 
 Wright (Neb.), vol. 5, p. 
 419. 
 Wilful negligence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Anchors (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 
 657. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 where plaintiff has not shown 
 himself free from fault. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Burney (Ga.), vol. 6, p. 543. 
 Proof of. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Soder- 
 burg (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 764. 
 Proximate cause, a question of 
 fact. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Spirk (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 205. 
 Proximate cause, definition. 
 Wallin V. Eastern Ry. Co. of 
 Minnesota (Minn.), vol.21, 
 p. 611. 
 
 Question for court. 
 Merritt v. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 775. 
 Question for jury. 
 Allen V. Boston & M. R. R. 
 
 (Me.), vol. 19, p. 729. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. 
 V. Tripp (111.), vol. 14, p. 119. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 507 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— Co«;f2ra»erf. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Howard (U. S.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 660. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Spencer (Colo.) , vol. 18, p. 
 
 236. 
 Herbert v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 11, p. 94. 
 Johnson v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 76. 
 Klinkler v. Wheeling- Steel, 
 
 etc., Co. (W. Va.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 764. 
 Lane v. Spokane Falls & N. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 436. 
 McCafferty v. Penn. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 16, p. 122. 
 Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 14, p. 374. 
 Spragfue v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 14, p. 356. 
 Question of fact. 
 Bradley v. Second Ave. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 184. 
 Cameron v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 520. 
 Cawley v. La Crosse City Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 12, p. 454. 
 Cox V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 390. 
 Graham v. McNeill (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 149. 
 McCurrie v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 12, p. 170. 
 Munch V. Great Northern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 12, p. 586. 
 Thompson v. Northern Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 651. 
 Whitley v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N- Car.), vol. 12, p. 210. 
 Question of fact where evidence 
 is conflicting. 
 Cox V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 390. 
 Question of law. 
 Brady v. Chicago, St. P., M. & 
 
 O. Ry. Co. (Neb.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 845. 
 Question of law and fact. 
 Alabama Min. R. Co. v. Jones 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 384. 
 Bronson v. Oakes (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 166. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 
 Isley (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 457. 
 Gilman v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 478. 
 Loeser v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 8, p. 421. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— CowiliKM^flT. 
 
 Nathan v. Charlotte St. Ry. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 5, p. 709. 
 
 New York, C. & St. Louis Ry. 
 Co. V. Blumenthal (111.), vol. 
 4, p. 174. 
 
 Omaha Street Ry. Co. v. Mar- 
 tin (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 1. 
 
 Reilly v. Philadelphia Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 399. 
 
 Saunders v. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 13. 
 
 Thoreseu v. La Crosse C. R. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 274. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 Speed within city limits may 
 be negligence in absence of 
 either municipal regulations, 
 or statute. 
 Sundmaker v. Yazoo & M. 
 
 Val. R. Co. (La.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 496. 
 Speed within city limits, ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 Sundmaker v. Yazoo & M. 
 
 Val. R. Co. (La.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 496. 
 
 Receivers. 
 
 Statutory rule as a presumption 
 of negligence does not apply 
 in action against receivers. 
 Robinson v. Huidekoper 
 (Ga..),vol. 5, p. 216. 
 "Reckless" negligence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. z-. 
 Anchors (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 
 657. 
 Simple negligence, pleading. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Anchors (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 
 657. 
 Specifications of. 
 Lemery v. Boston & M. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 11, p. 17. 
 
 Speed. 
 Rate of speed in the country 
 not negligence per se. 
 Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. 
 Krayenbuhl (Neb.), vol. 4, 
 p. 483. 
 
 Steele, Injuries to. 
 
 Cantrell v. Kansas City , M. & 
 
 B. R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 30. 
 Georgia, S. & F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Sanders (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 206. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Early 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 859. 
 
508 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 NBGIilGBNOB— Continued. 
 
 Presumption of neg-ligence 
 from injury to stock. 
 Davis V. Florida, Cent. & P. 
 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. S, ip. 
 
 324. 
 I,ittle Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Wilson (Ark.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 32. 
 St. ivouis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 
 v.Bra.gg (Ark.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 34. 
 Presumption of neg^ligence in 
 action for stock killing', 
 ■where evidence is conflict- 
 ing. 
 McMtllin V. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 14, p. .37. 
 Rate of speed as negligence in 
 action for injury to stock. 
 Alabama Midland Ry. Co. v. 
 
 McGill (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 20. 
 Rebutting presumption o f 
 negligence in action for kill- 
 ing stock. 
 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. King (Ark.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 44. 
 Keilbach v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (N. Dak,), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 28. 
 Rebutting statutory presump- 
 tion of negligence where 
 stock is killed. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Wood (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 850. 
 Stock killing, question for 
 jury. 
 H3.rdison v. Atlantic & N. 
 
 C. R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 848. 
 Where evidence is conflicting 
 as to whether engineer was 
 negligent in failing to see 
 stock on track, his negli- 
 gence is question for jury. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Farrington (Ind.' Ter.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 854. 
 
 Where negligence was proxi- 
 mate cause of injury to stock, 
 contributory negligence is 
 no defense. 
 
 Sauls V. D. W. Alderman & 
 Sons Co. (S. Car.), vol. IS, 
 p. 558. 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 
 Cleveland, T. & V. R. Co. v. 
 Marsh (Ohio), vol. 20, p. 54. 
 Cobb V. St. LfOuis & H. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, p. 632. 
 
 NBGLIGrBNOE— Cb»^w««rf. 
 
 Foreman v. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 17, p. 246. 
 Johnson v. Rio Grande & W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 13, p. 
 
 691. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Andrews (Ohip), vol. 12, p. 
 
 545. 
 Ruppert V. Brooklyn Heights 
 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 11, p. 873. 
 
 Trespassers. 
 
 Wanton :jegligence to tres- 
 passer on track in peril- 
 ous position. 
 
 Sloniker v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 819. 
 
 Wantonness and recklessness, 
 
 what constitute to trespasser 
 
 on track. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bush 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 46. 
 Wilful negligence in ejecting 
 trespasser. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. King 
 (111.), vol. 13, p. 829. 
 Wantonness and recklessness, 
 definition of. 
 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. 
 Robinson (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 
 357. 
 Wantonness and recklessness, 
 pleading. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bush 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 46. 
 Wantonness, sufficiency of evi- 
 dence of, where injury to 
 alighting passenger. 
 Appleby v. South Carolina & 
 G. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, 
 p. 581. 
 When a question of law. 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. 16, p. 551. 
 When a question of law and 
 when a question of fact. 
 Omaha Street Ry. Co. v. Mar- 
 tin (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 1. 
 When negligence question of 
 law, and when question for 
 jury. 
 
 Ketterman v. Dry Fork R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 19, p. 445. 
 Willful negligence, pleading. 
 IfOuisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Anchors (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 
 657. 
 
 NBW CORPORATIONS. 
 
 See Consolidation of Railroads. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 509 
 
 NEW TRIALS. 
 See Instructions. 
 Practice. 
 Trials. 
 
 Brief of counsel accidently in 
 file of papers to be considered 
 t>y jury in retirement. 
 Louisville & N. R. v. Sides 
 (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 90. 
 Effect of granting motion. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Murphey (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 S5S. 
 Error to refuse, where verdict is 
 contrary to evidence. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Good- 
 win (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 219. 
 Giving time to complete motion 
 and brief where hearing is 
 adjourned. 
 
 Dorsey v. Central of Ga. Ry. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 566. 
 Harmless error. 
 Sims V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 76. 
 Newly-discovered evidence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Tink- 
 
 ham (Ky.), vol. 13, p. 800. 
 Schmitt V. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 216. 
 Wilkie V. Raleigh & C. I*. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 19, p. 295. 
 Prejudicial error in admitting 
 evidence is ground for. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Ross (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 12. 
 Refusal by circuit court of new 
 trial not reviewable either on 
 ground of insufficiency of evi- 
 dence or of excessive damages. 
 Gillman v. Florida Cent. & P. 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 12, p. 
 126. 
 Refusal to grant. 
 Cent, of Ga. Ry. Co.' v. Wil- 
 liams (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 861. 
 Remarks of counsel. 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co, v. 
 McElroy (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 
 398. 
 Remittitur. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Per- 
 kerson (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 63. 
 Time for filing motion. 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Where only appeal is based on 
 inadequacy of damages trial 
 of cause will be confined to 
 that issue. 
 
 Strother v. Aberdeen & A. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol.12, p. 
 122. 
 
 NEW TRIALS— Co»«««^rf. 
 Whether state practice must be 
 observed in federal court. 
 TuUis V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 20,'p. 
 335. 
 Writ of error will not be granted 
 for refusal to grant new trial 
 or continuance. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Elliott (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p. 
 715. 
 
 NEWS AGENTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Exemption of carrier from lia- 
 bility. 
 
 Starr v. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 778. 
 
 NJBXT OP KIN. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 NEGROES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 NOISES. 
 
 See Frightening Horses. 
 
 NONABUTTING PROPERTY. 
 See Fires. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 NONASSIGNABLE DUTIES. 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 
 NONRESIDENTS. 
 
 See Foreign Corporations. 
 
 NONSUIT. 
 
 Milam v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 2S3. 
 Rutherford v. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 17, p. 520. 
 Action for injuries from negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Dederichs v. Salt Lake CityR. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 258. 
 Motion overruled. 
 Mason v. So. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 19, p. 84. 
 Properly refused in action for 
 injury to employee. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Per- 
 kerson (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 63. 
 Waiver of rights under motion 
 of nonsuit, laws of North Car- 
 olina. 
 
 McCall V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 760. 
 
 NONUSER. 
 
 See Right of Way. 
 
510 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 See Bridges. 
 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Crossings. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Street Railways. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Knowledge of drayman not 
 notice to consignee of arrival 
 of goods. 
 
 Berry v. W. Va. & P. R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 11, p. 103. 
 I<imitation in contract for ship- 
 ment of live stock requiring 
 notice as condition precedent, 
 construed. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Law (Ark.), vol. 18. p. 286. 
 JSTotice of claim for injury to 
 stock. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Reeves (Va.), vol. 16, p. 166. 
 Notice of claim to common offi- 
 cer to companies. 
 Harding z;. Lynn & B. R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 12, p. 865. 
 Notice of injury to employee, 
 compliance with statute. 
 De Forge v. New York, N. H. 
 & H. R. R. (Mass.), vol. 20, 
 p. 492. 
 Notice to agent as notice to cor- 
 poration with respect to ship- 
 ping contract. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of 
 Tex. V. Belcher (Tex. ) , vol. 
 3, p. 498. 
 Notice to carrier of contents of 
 sample trunk. 
 
 Trimble v. New York Cent. & 
 H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 17, 
 p. 176. 
 Notice to servant of master's 
 rules. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bowcock (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 
 421. 
 Notice to servant when notice to 
 master. 
 
 Comer v. Hill (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 3. 
 Notice to superintendent of 
 peril of helpless trespasser on 
 track as notice to company, 
 Fagg V. Louisville & N. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 171. 
 
 'NOTIOK— Continued. 
 Stipulation exempting carrier 
 from liability for loss where 
 shipper fails to give notice of 
 loss is valid. 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 
 Hurst (Ark.), vol. 17, p. 324. 
 Time tables as notice to shipper 
 of delays in transportation. 
 Burns v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 290. 
 Tower-man not chargeable with 
 notice o;f defective condition of 
 track. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Conway (111.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 7. 
 Waiver of stipulation in con- 
 tract for shipment of freight 
 requiring notice of claim to be 
 given in certain time. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Bogard 
 
 (Miss.), vol. 18, p. 410. 
 Whether notice of defect injur- 
 ing employee to officers of a 
 preceding board of manage- 
 ment is notice for present. 
 Bland v. Shreveport Belt Ry. 
 
 Co. (La.), vol. 4, p. 349. 
 
 NUISANCES. 
 Abatement of purpresture by 
 attorney general. 
 Hicks, Atty. Gen. ex rel. As- 
 kew V. Smith (Wis.), vol. 20, 
 p. 694. 
 Elevated railroads. 
 Garrett v. Lake Roland Ele- 
 vated Railroad Co. (Md.), 
 vol. 1, p. 385. 
 Equitable relief against con- 
 tinuing nuisance. 
 Harrelson v. Kansas City & A. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 848. 
 Pleading. 
 Baltzeger v. Carolina Midland 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 14, p. 
 845. 
 Railroads in streets. 
 
 Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Bloom 
 
 (Miss.), vol. 1, p. 28. 
 Lockwood V. Wabash Railroad 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 16. 
 Railroad using its tracks in con- 
 nection with stockyards, and 
 thereby creating a serious nui- 
 sance in streets of city, does 
 not authorize the destruction 
 of its tracks by city authori- 
 ties. 
 
 City of Chicago v. Union 
 Stock- Yard & Transit Co. 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 490. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 511 
 
 liiUI&A-NCES—Coniinued. 
 Right of action. 
 Guiun V. Ohio River R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 437. 
 Unauthorized construction of 
 street railway. 
 
 Thomas v. Inter-County St. 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 169. 
 Use of track in streets in viola- 
 tion of police provision. 
 Pittsburg-, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 
 V. Hood (C. C. A.), vol. IS, p. 
 648. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 See Evidence. 
 Waiver of. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Dorsey (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 212. 
 
 OBSTRUCTED VIE^W. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 OBSTRUCTIONS. 
 
 See Streets and Highways. 
 
 OBSTRUCTIONS NEAR 
 TRACK. 
 
 See Frightening Horses. 
 
 OCCUPATION TAX. 
 See Taxation. 
 
 OFFICERS AND AGENTS. 
 Although owning substantially 
 all its stock they cannot appro- 
 priate company's property. 
 Saranac & L. P. R. Co. v. 
 Arnold (N. Y.), vol. 22, p. 
 480. 
 Authority of conductor to employ 
 hands in case of emergency, 
 l/ouisville & N. R. Co. v. Ginley 
 (Tenn.), vol. 11, p. 443. 
 Authority of division superin- 
 tendent. 
 
 Maxson v. Michigan Cent. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 14, p. 823. 
 Authority of general superin- 
 tendent to employ brakeman. 
 Sax V. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 653. 
 Authority of shipper's agent to 
 change consignee after con- 
 signment to principal. 
 I^ake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. 
 National Live Stock Bank 
 (111.), vol. 13, p. 1. 
 Evidence as to authority of. 
 Bigelow V. Chicago, B. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 341. 
 
 OFFICERS AND AGENTS— 
 Continued. 
 
 Evidence of declarations of agent 
 within scope of authority ad- 
 missible. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Byrne (Ind. Ter.), vol. 13, 
 _ p. 17. 
 Inability in action against ofiB- 
 cers to recover misappropriated 
 assets, question for jury. 
 Saranac & L. P. R. Co. v. 
 Arnold (N. Y.), vol. 22, p. 
 480. 
 Personal ignorance of ofi&cer no 
 defense where corporation fails 
 to answer interrogatories. 
 Robbins v. Brockton St. Ry. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 483. 
 Power of agent to release car- 
 rier's liability. 
 
 California Powder Works v. 
 Atlantic & P. R. Co. (Cal.), 
 vol. 4, p. 301. 
 President cannot recover com- 
 pensation for aid furnished re- 
 ceiver. 
 
 Joost V. Bennett (Cal.), vol. 
 r 15, p. 252. 
 
 Presumption that corporate 
 books were properly received 
 in evidence in action against 
 ofBcers to recover misappropri- 
 ated assets. 
 Saranac & L. P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Arnold (N. Y.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 480. 
 Ratification of contracts of. 
 Maxson v. Michigan Cent. R. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 14, p. 823. 
 Somerville v. Wabash R. Co. 
 
 (Mich.), vol. 5, p. 693. 
 Right of principal to sue upon 
 contract for carriage of live 
 stock made by agents. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Stanley (Tenn.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 480. 
 Right to rely on information of 
 ticket agent in union depot. 
 Turner v. Great Northern R. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 5, p. 238. 
 
 Salaries. 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 
 V. Housatonic R. Co. (N. 
 Y.), vol. 9, p. 281. 
 St. Louis, A. & S. R. Co. V. 
 O'Hara (111.), vol. 14, p. 
 817. 
 Service of process on ticket 
 ' agent. 
 
 Hillary v. Great Northern R. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, p. 51. 
 
512 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 OPERATING AGREEMENTS. 
 See Connecting Carriers. 
 
 OPINION EVIDENCE. 
 See Jpvidence. 
 
 Expert and Opinion Evi- 
 dence. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Trespass. • 
 
 ORDINANCES. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Crossings. 
 Evidence. 
 Fences. 
 
 Municipal Corporations. 
 Proximate Cause. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Speed. 
 Statutes. 
 Street Railways. 
 An ordinance against the cross- 
 ing by railroad trains of cer- 
 tain streets in a city before 
 coming to a full stop is not, 
 on its face, unreasonable. 
 City of Buffalo v. New York, 
 L. E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 7, p. 503. 
 Avoidance of public grant to 
 street railway for nonper- 
 formance of condition subse- 
 quent. 
 
 Santa Rosa City Railroad Co. 
 V. Central Street Railway 
 Co. (9al.), vol. 1, p. lOS. 
 Burden of proving that ordi- 
 nance for local assessments 
 and improvements was legally 
 passed. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Board of Waterworks (Ark.) , 
 vol. 20, p. 26S. 
 Construction of. 
 
 City of York v. Chicago, B. & 
 
 Q. R. Co. (Neb.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 200. 
 
 Contributory negligence a s 
 
 affected by failure to comply 
 
 with ordinance requiring 
 
 maintenance of gates and 
 
 flagman. 
 
 Schneider v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, 
 p. 314. 
 Contributory negligence in be- 
 ing on track in street as 
 affected by ^peed in violation 
 of ordinances. 
 
 Lea V. Durham & N. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 76S. 
 Contributory negligence may be 
 shown in mitigation of dam- 
 ages for injuries partially 
 
 ORDINANCES— Continued. 
 
 caused by speed in violation 
 of ordinance. 
 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Tribble (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 794. 
 Duty of railroad to comply with 
 ordinance limiting speed. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, Ft. 
 S. & M. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 19, p. 99. 
 Effect of contributory negli- 
 gence of boy ten years of 
 age in walking on track, in 
 action for his death based on 
 violation of ordinance requir- 
 ing bell to be rung. 
 Schmitt V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 216. 
 Evidence of. 
 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, Ft. S. 
 
 & M. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 99. 
 
 Failure to comply with the city 
 
 ordinance regulating the speed 
 
 of trains. 
 
 Adams v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 9, p. 747. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Staf- 
 ford (Ga.), vol. S, p. 172. 
 Failure to prosecute others as a 
 defense where action is 
 brought to recover penalty. 
 City of Buffalo v. New York, 
 L. E. & W; R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 7, p. 503. 
 Grant of same privileges to 
 third party does not work a 
 forfeiture. 
 
 Santa Rosa City Railroad Co. 
 V. Central St. Railway Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 1, p. 105. _ 
 Harmless error in admitting evi- 
 dence of existence of ordi- 
 nance requiring gripman to 
 exercise vigilance to prevent 
 accidents. 
 
 Schmidt v. St. Louis R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 711. 
 Liability for injury at crossing, 
 question for jury where there 
 was contributory negligence 
 and speed in violation of ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 Hutchinson v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.) , vol. 20, p. 700. 
 
 Municipal regulations not the 
 
 sole measure of care required 
 
 in blasting. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Bernstein (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 
 952. 
 Must be reasonable. 
 Des Moines City Railway 
 Company v. City of Des 
 Moines (Iowa), vol. 1, p. 215. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 513 
 
 ORDINANCES— Co«^i««^rf. 
 
 Ordinance construed to permit 
 only the operation of street 
 railways, and not to author- 
 ize the operation of an ordi- 
 nary railroad in streets. 
 Tallon V. Mayor, etc., of City 
 ■ of Hoboken (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 545. 
 Ordinance limiting- speed ap- 
 plies to railroad yards. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, l*t. S. 
 
 & M. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 99. 
 Ordinance reg^ulating speed, 
 Washington Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 V. L,acey (Va.), vol. 6, p. 782. 
 Power of city to enact an ordi- 
 nance to compel passenger 
 cars operated by trolley or 
 electric power, to come to a 
 full stop before crossing inter- 
 secting streets. 
 Cape May, D. B. & S. P. R. Co. 
 
 V. City of Cape May (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 6, p. 329. 
 Power of municipality to revoke 
 ordinance granting right of 
 way. 
 City of Belleville v. Citizens' 
 
 Horse Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 118. 
 Power to authorize railroad in 
 streets. 
 IfOckwood V. Wabash Railroad 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 16. 
 Power to pass ordinance in con- 
 flict with prior one. 
 Brown v. Atlanta Ry. & Power 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 886. 
 Questions of reasonableness are 
 resolved in favor of munici- 
 pality. 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 
 Elec. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 364. 
 Railroad's right to notice of pas- 
 sage of ordinance requiring it 
 to construct a viaduct. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R- Co. v. 
 
 State of Nebraska (U. S.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 423. 
 
 Speed. . _ -, „ 
 
 Graney v. St. Louis, I. M. & 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mo.)( vol. 8, p. 
 187 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Ash- 
 line (111.), vol. 9, p. 702. 
 Speed in violation as negli- 
 gence. ,_ 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.Uo- 
 chell (111.), vol. 23, p. 927. 
 
 I D— 33 
 
 ORDINANCES— Co««««^rf. 
 
 Speed in violation of as affected 
 by failure to look and listen at 
 crossing. 
 Peterson v. St. Louis, I. M. & 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 161. 
 Speed in violation of as negli- 
 gence per se. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, Ft. 
 
 S. & M. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 19, p. 99. 
 Speed in violation of cannot be 
 complained of by trespassers. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Tartt (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 18, p. 226. 
 Speed in violation of, not ground 
 for recovery where there was 
 contributory negligence. 
 Neal V. Carolina Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 18, p. 51. 
 Speed in violation of ordinance 
 as negligence. 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia, W. & 
 
 B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 172. 
 
 Speed prohibited by ordinance 
 
 must be shown to have been 
 
 proximate cause of accident. 
 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, Ft. S. 
 
 & M. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 99. 
 The city council of Cape May by 
 an ordinance granted permis- 
 sion to a- railroad company to 
 lay its tracks on certain streets 
 (naming them) and also to 
 construct all necessary 
 switches and turnouts : held, 
 that turnouts built in pur- 
 suance of such au.thority, un- 
 less it clearly appears that the 
 authority has been exceeded) 
 are not such an obstruction of 
 the streets as to warrant their 
 summary and forcible removal 
 by police intervention without 
 notice of a hearing. 
 City of Cape May v. Cape May, 
 
 D. B. & S. P. R. Co. (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 585. 
 Validity does not depend upon 
 railroad's acceptance. 
 Anderson v. Union Terminal 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 834. 
 Validity of city ordinance grant- 
 ing franchise to street rail- 
 way. 
 Santa Rosa City R. Co. v. 
 
 Central Street Ry. Co. (Cal.), 
 vol. 1, p. 105. 
 
•514 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 ORDINANCES— Cowifjwaear. 
 Validity of ordinance com- 
 pelling- railway to keep watch- 
 man and g-ates. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L,. R. 
 
 Co. V. Town of Crown Point 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 6, p. 324. 
 Validity of ordinance providing- 
 for punishment for getting on 
 or off moving trains. 
 Wice V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (111.), vol. 23, p. 919. 
 Validity of ordinance requiring 
 fenders on street cars. 
 State V. City of Cape May 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 6, p. SIX. 
 Violation of by railroad com- 
 pany is negligence per se. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Bond (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 757. 
 Violation of ordinances. 
 Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Cal.). vol. 8, p. 200. 
 Violation of ordinance as to 
 speed as affecting trespasser's 
 right to recover. 
 Ward V. Illinois C. R. Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 18, p. 689. 
 Violation of ordinance regulat- 
 ing the running of trains as 
 negligence in action for injury 
 to employee. 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Peterson (Ind.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 887. 
 Whether constitutional question 
 is raised in questioning valid- 
 ity of ordinance authorizing 
 construction of street railway. 
 Ruckert v. Grand Ave. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 641. 
 Whether ordinance regulating 
 the running of trains was ap- 
 plicable to switch yards. 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Peterson (Ind.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 887. 
 Whether the exemption of a belt 
 line from the operation of an 
 ordinance restricting speed of 
 railroad trains renders ordi- 
 nance invalid. 
 Citv of Buffalo V. New York, 
 
 etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 503. 
 Whether violation of ordinance 
 limiting speed is negligence 
 per se. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Ash- 
 line (111.), vol. 9, p. 702. 
 
 ORDINARY OARE. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 ORDINARY RAILROADS IN 
 STREETS. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Municipal Corporations. 
 
 Ordinances. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Streets. 
 
 OVERCHARGES. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 OVERFLOW. 
 
 See Floods. 
 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 Act of God. 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. Har-. 
 lin (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 766. 
 Diversion of surface water. 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. Har- 
 lin (Neb.), vol. 8, pp. 766, 767. 
 Freshets. 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Boh- 
 ler (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 768. 
 Limitation of actions. 
 Nichols V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 8, p. 768. 
 Permanent damages, notice. 
 Nichols V. Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 8, p. 768. 
 
 OVERHEAD BRIDGES. 
 
 See Bridges. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 PACIFIC RAILROAD. 
 Consolidation. 
 
 Union Pacific Railway Co. v. 
 Gocheuour (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 288. 
 Liability of stockholders. 
 United States v. Stanford 
 (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 331. 
 
 PARALLEL LINES. 
 See Railroads. 
 
 PARCELS. 
 
 See Baggage. 
 
 PARENT AND CHILD. 
 See Children. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Imputable Negligence. 
 Death of child on street car 
 track. ■ 
 
 Dan V. Citizens' St. R. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 10, p. 880. 
 Loss of mother's services by 
 children. 
 
 Redfield v. Oakland Consoli- 
 dated Street R. Co. (Cal.), 
 vol. 3, p. 432. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 515 
 
 PARENT AND CmUi— Cont'd. FAB/TlES—ConHnued. 
 
 Right of action for loss of child's 
 services. 
 
 Taylor v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 lis. 
 
 Right of father to services of 
 child. 
 
 Taylor v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 4, p. lis. 
 
 PARENTS. 
 
 See Children. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 PARKS. 
 
 Railway in park where there is 
 a prohibition against railroads 
 in streets. 
 
 Philadelphia v. McM a n e s 
 (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 652. 
 
 PAROL EVIDENCE. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 Tickets and fares. 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 Piper (111.), vol. 9, p. 147. 
 Bills of lading. 
 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. 
 Western Ry. of Alabama 
 (Ala.), vol. 10, p. 339. 
 Carriers of live stock, admissi- 
 bility of evidence of conversa- 
 tion between shipper and 
 agent of company after con- 
 tract of carriage. 
 Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Hall 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 2, p. 525. 
 Construction of deed. 
 
 Hanlon v. Union Pacific Rail- 
 road Co. (Neb.), vol. 1, p. 701. 
 Parol evidence as to agreed 
 method of construction of 
 road. 
 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Richards (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 
 668. 
 To show fraud in contract to 
 convey right of way. 
 Grand Tower and Cape Girar- 
 deau Railroad Co. v. Wolton 
 (111.), vol. 1, p. 686. 
 
 PARTIES. 
 
 See Actions. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Cattle Guards. 
 Mandamus. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Pleadings. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Receivers. 
 Removal of Cause. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Action against officer as action 
 against state. 
 
 Smith z/. Reeves (U. S.), vol. 
 19, p. 591. 
 An appeal was taken from a 
 final court which had ap- 
 pointed receivers for an in- 
 solvent railway company in a 
 foreclosure suit, directing the 
 receivers to give priority over 
 the mortgages to judgments 
 obtained against the company 
 on liabilities incurred before 
 the commencement of the fore- 
 closure suit. It was held that 
 the railway company was a 
 necessary party to such ap- 
 peal. 
 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. 
 Longworth (C. C. A.), vol. 9, 
 p. 201. 
 Capacity of New Hampshire ad- 
 ministrator of estate of person 
 who had resided in Massa- 
 chusetts to sue, statutes. 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Hurd 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 674. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Proper plaintiff in action for 
 failure to deliver freight. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Allgood (Ala.), vol. 6, p. 
 771. 
 State not a party to action by 
 carrier to restrain railroad 
 commission from compelling 
 it to affix war revenue stamp. 
 Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 314. 
 Carriers of passengers, sever- 
 ance of parties plaintiff in ac- 
 tion for breach of contract to 
 carry funeral party. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Marshall 
 (Ky.), vol.. 23, p. 82. 
 Consignor as plaintiff in action 
 for delay in delivery of freight. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Deakins 
 (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 122. 
 Defect of parties, amendment. 
 Van Doren v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, p. 577. 
 Effect of special entry of appear- 
 ance for the purpose of object- 
 ing to jurisdiction, under 
 Kentucky statute. 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 Ball (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 186. 
 Enforcement of statutory re- 
 quirements to make connec- 
 tions with other railroads. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Common- 
 wealth (Va.), vol. 20, p. 360. 
 
516 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 PARTIES— Continued. 
 In action by wife for her per- 
 sonal injuries, the fact that 
 her husband was named in the 
 writ as co-plaintiff was no 
 ground for demurrer to com- 
 plaint. 
 
 Brockett v. Fair Haven & W. 
 R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, p. 406. 
 Judgment will not be reversed 
 as to proper defendant by rea- 
 son of improper joinder of 
 another. 
 
 Ivouisville Southern Ry. Co. v. 
 Tucker (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 806. 
 I<essor and lessee should be made 
 defendants in action to sub- 
 ject railway to lessee's liabil- 
 ity. 
 
 Lfittle Rock, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Daniels (Ark.), vol. 19, p. 
 609. 
 Mandamus to compel construc- 
 tion of bridge over street. 
 "Williams, State's Atty., v. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 
 (Conn.), vol. 12, p. 860. 
 Misjoinder not prejudicial. 
 Lfouisville & N. R. Co. v. Van- 
 cleave (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 477. 
 Railroad as a party, under Iowa 
 Code requiring interrogatories 
 to be answered. 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 10, p. 306. 
 Receivers. 
 Purchaser of railroad is prop- 
 erly sole defendant to action 
 for injuries during receiver- 
 ship where liabilities were 
 assumed by him. 
 Thompson v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 6S1. 
 Religious corporation as party 
 to action. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. First 
 M. E. Church of Leaven- 
 worth (C. C. A.), vol. 19, p. 
 538. 
 Revival of action by sheriff in 
 official capacity, where suc- 
 cessor has qualified before 
 trial. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. in Missis- 
 sippi V. Miller, Sheriff 
 (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 680. 
 Right of one claiming to have 
 loaned to company money to 
 intervene in action by bond- 
 holders to foreclose mortgage. 
 First Nat. Bank of Grand 
 Junction v. Wyman (Colo.), 
 vol. 23, p. 277. 
 
 PARTIES— Cora/iWKfi;. 
 Scope of order. 
 Atty. Gen. ex rel. Moore v. 
 American Exp. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 13, p. 95. 
 State's consent to be sued not 
 contained in sec. 3669 of the 
 Political Code of California. 
 Smith V. Reeves (U. S.), vol. 
 19, p. 591. 
 State's power to attach condi- 
 tion to its consent to be sued. 
 Smith V. Reeves (U. S.), vol. 
 19, p. 592. 
 State's right to claim exemption 
 from suit by federal corpora- 
 tion. 
 
 Smith f. Reeves (U. S.), vol. 
 19, p. 592. 
 
 PARTNERSHIP. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Consent given to construction 
 of road in street by one mem- 
 ber of the firm. 
 White V. Manhattan Railway 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 1, p. 351. 
 
 PASSENGERS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 PASSES. 
 
 See Free Passes. 
 Successors. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Conditions. 
 Muldoon V. Seattle City R. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 2, p. 110. 
 Constitutional prohibition of ac- 
 ceptance of free pass by public 
 official. 
 
 People V. Rathbone (N. Y.), 
 vol. 2, p. 166. 
 Effect of limitation on right of 
 recovery by administratrix. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Martin (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 4. 
 Estoppel of public official to deny 
 validity of free pass issued to 
 him. 
 
 Muldoon V. Seattle City R. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 2, p. 110. 
 Liability of company. 
 Thompson v. Yazoo & M. V. R. 
 Co. (La. Ann. ) , vol. 2, p. 212. 
 Liability of purchaser of rail- 
 road plant for pass issued by 
 seller. 
 
 Dickey v. Kansas City & Inde- 
 pendence Rapid Transit Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. l,p. 710. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 517 
 
 "PASSES— Coniinued. . 
 
 Nature of covenant to issue pass. 
 Dickey v. Kansas City & Inde- 
 pendence Rapid Transit Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 710. 
 
 PATENTS. 
 Barr patent, No. 349,134, for 
 coal and iron car, void because 
 patentee was not the original 
 inventor. 
 
 Barr Car Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 
 587. 
 Failure to assert claim because 
 of duress. 
 
 Barr Car Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 
 S87. 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to who 
 was inventor. 
 
 Barr Car Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 
 587. 
 
 PAY CHECKS. 
 
 Estoppel in action against 
 drawee paying to wrong party 
 on forged indorsement. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Burns 
 (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 883. 
 L,iability of drawee paj'ing to 
 wrong party on forged in- 
 dorsement. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Burns 
 (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 883. 
 Railroad pay checks not a check 
 on the bank. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Burns 
 (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 883. 
 
 PAYMENT. 
 See Liens. 
 Acceptance of promissory note. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Burns 
 (Neb.), vol. 22, p. 883. 
 
 PAYMENT OF FABB. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 PECUNIARY CONDITION. 
 See Exemplary Damages. 
 
 PENAL STATUTES. 
 
 Hall V. Norfolk & "Western 
 Railroad Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 8, p. 632. 
 
 PENALTIES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 FEN Al/riES— Continued. 
 
 Construction of statute forbid- 
 ding obstruction of crossing. 
 Simon v. Baltimore & O. R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 654. 
 Statute imposing fine on rail- 
 roads for charging excessive 
 rates. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth (Ky.), vol. 4. p. 
 193. 
 
 PENS. 
 
 See Carriers of Live Stock. 
 
 PERSONAL INJURIES. 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Children. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Express Companies. 
 
 Fellow Servants. 
 
 Licensees. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 Proximate Cause. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 Trespassers. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Liability for injury caused by 
 fall while running from de- 
 railed car. 
 Tuttle V. Atlantic City R. 
 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 876. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Application of statute making 
 it unnecessary to plead ab- 
 sence of contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Peyton (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 343. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 dispensing with allegations 
 of. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 628. 
 Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Peyton (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 343. 
 Effect of exclusion of pending 
 actions on constitutionality 
 of statute permitting plain- 
 tiff to omit allegations or 
 proof of absence of contrib- 
 utory negligence. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 181. 
 
518 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 PERSONAL INJURIES— Co«- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Neg'lig-ence after discovery of 
 peril. 
 
 Tully V. Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), vol. 23, p. 
 209. 
 Pleading- absence of. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Martin (Ind.), 
 vol. 23, p. 485. 
 Presumption from failure to 
 allege freedom from contrib- 
 utory negligence. 
 Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. 
 Peyton (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 4S3. 
 Presumption supporting ver- 
 dict where conflict between 
 verdict and special answer, 
 in action for killing engi- 
 neer of other road at inter- 
 section. 
 
 Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. 
 Peyton (Ind.),vol. 23, p. 343. 
 
 Damages. 
 Admissibility of evidence as 
 to size of plaintiff's family 
 in action for injury to em- 
 ployee. 
 
 Youngblood v. South Caro- 
 , Una & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 20, p. 622. 
 Cost of medical treatment. 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia, W. 
 & B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 20, 
 p. 172. 
 Separate recovery for succes- 
 sive injuries. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 874. 
 Sick benefits not received by 
 companj- cannot be consid- 
 ered by jury in making up 
 verdict. 
 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. 
 Co. V. Baer (Md.), vol. 22, 
 p. 662. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Evidence as to whether plain- 
 tiff appeared to suffer. 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Priest (111.), vol. 22, p. 694. 
 Groans not objectionable as 
 declarations in own favor. 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Priest (111.), vol. 22, p. 694. 
 Opinion of physician as to 
 cause of injury to nervous 
 system as evidence. 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. 
 Co. V. Baer (Md.), vol. 22, 
 p. 662. 
 
 PERSONAL INJURIES— Co»- 
 Hnued. 
 
 Physical examination of plain- 
 tiff, whether an order to 
 make is ever proper evidence 
 for the purpose of giving 
 credit to testimony of phy- 
 sicians appointed, quaere? 
 Aske V. Duluth & I. R. R. 
 Co. (Minn.) vol. 21, p. 
 819. 
 Harmless variance as to how 
 injury was received. 
 Chitty V. St. Louis, I. M. & 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mo.) vol. 23, 
 p. 829. 
 Instruction as to nature of 
 personal injury not war- 
 ranted by evidence. 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Brown (111.), vol. 23, p. 930. 
 Liability for injury caused by 
 fall while running from de- 
 railed car. 
 
 Tuttle V. Atlantic City R. Co> 
 (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 876. 
 Liability for physical injury 
 occasioned by fall while at- 
 tempting to escape danger. 
 Tuttle V. Atlantic City R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 876. 
 Liability of company for injuries 
 arising from fright caused by 
 its negligence. 
 
 Mitchell V. Rochester Ry. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 21S. 
 
 Licensees. 
 
 Liability for injuries to boy 
 on train by invitation of 
 fireman. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Thornton (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 229. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Liability for second injury to 
 switchman injured through, 
 negligence of engineer in 
 backing train. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z/. 
 
 Stewart (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 874. 
 
 Negligence, question for jury. 
 Bach V. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. 
 (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 161. 
 Release of claim for damages 
 in consideration of future 
 employment, certainty and 
 mutuality in agreement. 
 Rhoades v. Chesapeake & 
 O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 22, p. 283. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 519 
 
 PERSONAL INJURIES— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 
 Pleading-, failure to aver due 
 diligence in providing- medical 
 attention in action for injury 
 to passengers. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 628. 
 Right of married woman injured 
 in Arkansas but domiciled in 
 Louisiana, to sue in her own 
 name in former state, under 
 its statute. 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Humble 
 
 (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 821. 
 Right to argue that plaintiff was 
 in habit of bringing damage 
 suits. 
 Wheeler v. Detroit Electric 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 S9S. 
 
 PERSONAL PROPERTY. 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 PERSONS. 
 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 A railroad is a person within 
 the meaning of the fourteenth 
 amendment of the constitu- 
 tion of the United States. 
 Smyth, Atty. Gen., v. Ames 
 (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 1. 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 Photographs of locus iu quo. 
 Hampton v. Norfolk & W. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 7, p. 510. 
 X-ray photographs as evidence. 
 Bruce v. Beall (Tenn.), vol. 
 9, p. 841. 
 
 PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS. 
 See Personal Injuries. 
 Authority of court to order. 
 Lane v. Spokane Falls & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 14, p. 
 436. 
 Refusal to order. 
 Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. 
 Michaels (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 
 764. 
 
 PHYSICIANS AND S TJ R - 
 GEONS. 
 Admissibility of statements to 
 physician. 
 
 Williams v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 
 230. 
 
 PHYSICIANS AND SUR- 
 GEONS— Continued. 
 
 !EJstimating doctor's bill in 
 awarding damages. 
 Parker v. South Carolina & G. 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 6, p. 
 731. 
 EJvidence. 
 
 Holman v. Union St. Ry. Co. 
 of Saginaw (Mich.), vol. 9, 
 p. lOS. 
 Hearsay evidence of what plain- 
 tiff said to physician in action 
 for injuries to passenger. 
 Webber v. St. Paul City Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 6, p. 77S. 
 In an action to recover for per- 
 sonal injuries, it was not error 
 to refuse an instruction that 
 if the plaintiff was injured by 
 the collision he was bound by 
 law to use ordinary care, not 
 to aggravate the injury. It 
 was therefore hi^ duty to em- 
 ploy such medical assistance 
 as ordinary prudence in his 
 situation required. 
 Chicago & E- R- Co. v. Meech 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 667. 
 
 PIPES. 
 
 See Easem,ents. 
 
 PLATFORMS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 Street Railways. 
 A passenger on a train instead 
 of leaving it by a safe exit 
 which was provided, alighted 
 on the other side on a platform 
 which was so narrow that he 
 was injured by a second train 
 which came up on the opposite 
 side of the platform. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. David- 
 son (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 715. 
 Lighting platforms. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Ricketts (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 186. 
 
 Riding on platforms. 
 Mann v. Philadelphia Traction 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 4, p. 260. 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 See Accidents on Tracks. 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Complaint. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings. 
 Damages. 
 
520 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 "PlJ^AHnSQ— Continued. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Equity. 
 Fires. 
 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 Legal Conclusions. 
 Limiting Liability. 
 . Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Taxation. 
 Trial. 
 Variance. 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 
 Middle Georgia & A. Ry. Co. 
 
 f. Barnett (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 S32. 
 Abandonment of theory of cause 
 of action. 
 Atchison, T. & S. I*. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kansas Farmers' Ins. Co. 
 
 (Kan. App.), vol. 11, p. 847. 
 
 Accidents on Track. 
 
 Complaint for personal in- 
 juries to child sustained on 
 street railway. 
 Cunningham v. Los Ang^eles 
 Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 
 783. 
 Sufficiency of petition. 
 Barfield v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. IS, p. 735. 
 Whether departure in reply, 
 in action for death on track. 
 Cederson v. Oregon, R. & 
 Nav. Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, p. 
 655. 
 Action for personal injuries. 
 Beath v. Rapid Ry. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 15, p. 793. 
 Action for personal injuries, 
 amendment of special pleas. 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. An- 
 drews (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 755. 
 Allegations in action for per- 
 sonal injuries. 
 
 Williams v. Oregon Short 
 Liiue R. Co. (Utah), vol. 12, 
 p. 61. 
 Allegation of negligence. 
 Spires v. South Bound R. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 5, p. 708. 
 Allegation of receivership in 
 action for injuries. 
 Vasele v. Grant Street Electric 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 9, 
 p. 75. 
 Allegation of wilfulness, suffi- 
 ciency. 
 
 Ullrich V. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. Iv. Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 
 13, p. 783. 
 
 PLEADING — Continued. 
 Alleging negligence. 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. 
 Swope (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 856. 
 Alternative allegations. 
 Matz V. Chicago & A. R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 592. 
 Amendment. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Eorshee (Ala.), vol.18, p. 467. 
 
 Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Miller (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 339. 
 
 Dublin V. Taylor, B. & H. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Tex.), vol. 13, p. 461. 
 
 Glover v. Savannah, F. & W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 566. 
 
 Sims -v. Ohio River & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 15, p. 666. 
 
 Blending causes of action. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & I*. R. Co. v. 
 
 O'Neill (Neb.), vol. 13, p. 371. 
 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 
 A count of the declaration in 
 an action to recover the 
 value of goods destroyed 
 through the alleged negli- 
 gence of a common carrier 
 which alleges both a consid- 
 eration and a ptomise, is 
 one ex contractu, and not 
 ex delictu. 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Western Ry. of Alabama 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 10, p. 339. 
 Action against carrier for in- 
 jury to shipper's servant, 
 where car was transferred to 
 shipper over connecting 
 lines. 
 Olson V. Pennsylvania & O. 
 
 Fuel Co. (Minn.), vol. 15, 
 
 p. 837. 
 Failure to allege plaintiff was 
 owner or that he was the 
 party with whom contract 
 of shipment was made. 
 United States Mail bine Co. 
 
 V. CarroUton Furniture 
 
 Mfg. Co. (Ky.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 286. 
 Proper plaintiff in action for 
 injury to freight. 
 Waters v. Mobile, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 6, p. 771, 
 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 
 Declaration in action to re- 
 cover for injuries to live 
 stock defective in not aver- 
 ring compliance with condi- 
 tion precedent in contract. 
 Baxter v. Louisville, N. A. 
 
 &C. Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 618. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 521 
 
 ■pijEAHlNQ— Continued. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Action for loss of ba.gga.ge. 
 Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 14, p. 416. 
 Alleging- knowledge in action 
 by passengers injured by 
 mail pouch thrown from 
 train. 
 
 Shaw V. Chicago & G. T. Ry. 
 ■ Co. (Mich.), vol. 18, p. 131. 
 Complaint in action for inju- 
 ries to passenger alighting 
 temporarily at intermediate 
 station not demurrable be- 
 cause it did not state plain- 
 tiff's object in alighting. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Overfield (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 12, p. 207. 
 Complaint in action for injury 
 to passenger which charges 
 that negligence of defend- 
 ant's servants occasioned 
 such injuries and sets forth 
 the acts causing them is not 
 demurrable for failure to 
 state which act or acts were 
 negligent. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Overfield (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 12, p. 207. 
 Exemplary damages for ejec- 
 tion of passengers. 
 Ivouisville V. N. R. Co. v. 
 Ray (Tenn.), vol. 11, p. 174. 
 Frivolous motion by defendant 
 to strike out allegation as to 
 how injury was inflicted, in 
 action for injury to passen- 
 ger in collision. 
 Brockett v. Fair Haven & 
 W. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, 
 p. 406. 
 Justification in action for ejec- 
 tion of passengers. 
 Wright V. Union R. Co. (R. 
 I.), vol. 18, p. 234. 
 Need not plead that injury to 
 passengers was actionable 
 under law of foreign state. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn 
 (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 324. 
 Riding on platform. 
 Reber v. Pittsburg & B. 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 7, 
 p. 786. 
 Right to plead in the alterna- 
 tive to meet the possible con- 
 ditions of testimony, in 
 action for injury to passen- 
 ger in a collision. 
 Brockett v. Fair Haven & 
 W. R. Co. (Conn. ), vol. 20, 
 p. 406. 
 
 FUEADINOr— Continued. 
 
 Sufficiency of answerin action 
 for injury to passenger. 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Swope (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 
 856. 
 Where passenger sues com- 
 pany selling ticket for inju- 
 ries received while being 
 carried by another company, 
 the contract between the 
 two companies is a matter of 
 defense. 
 
 Barkman v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 12, p. 
 250. 
 Whether misjoinder in plead- 
 ing injury to passenger's 
 good name not as separate 
 cause of action. 
 Procter v. Southern Cali- 
 fornia Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 
 19, p. 77. 
 Challenging plaintiff's compe- 
 tency to sue. 
 
 Gaulden v. Kansas City S. Ry. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 23, p. 909. 
 Changing from allegation of 
 wilful neglect to that of ^ross 
 neglect. 
 
 Roseberry v. Newport News 
 & M. V. R. Co. (Ky . ) , vol. 10, 
 p. 844. 
 Conclusions of fact. 
 Rushz/. Spokane Falls & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 20, p. 
 285. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burgess (Ala.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 836. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Miller (Ind.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 684. 
 
 Hughes V. Chicago & Alton 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 284. 
 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Davis 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 708. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nail 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 828. 
 Johnson v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 2, p. 381. 
 Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Lackey (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 
 769. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Brown (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 
 794. 
 Sirk V. Marion St. R. Co. 
 (Ind. App.), vol. 2, p. 381. 
 Negativing contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Chicago & E. R. Co. v. 
 Thomas (Ind.), vol. 9, p. 
 181. 
 
522 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 FljEAHlNQ—ConHnuecl. 
 
 Plaintiff need not allege due 
 care in action for personal 
 injuries where petition does 
 not show contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. 
 Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, p. 
 490. 
 Pleading absence of contribu- 
 tory negligence in federal 
 courts. 
 
 Chicago Gr. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Price (C. C. A.), vol. 16, 
 p. 324. 
 Sufficiency of general allega- 
 tion, in answer, of contribu- 
 tory negligence on part of 
 plaintiff. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Oyster (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 656. 
 Corporate existence. 
 Douglass V. Kanawha & M. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 10, p. 
 883. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Elliott (Ind. Ter.), vol. 14, 
 p. 587. 
 Count combining statutory and 
 common-law negligence. 
 Blackmore v. Mo. Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 360. 
 Counts, departure. 
 
 Rinard v. Omaha, K. C. & E. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 34. 
 
 Counts, election. 
 
 Rinard v. Omaha, K. C. & E. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 34. 
 
 Cross-referring counts. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Foxworth (Fla.), vol. 13, p. 
 469. 
 Crossings. 
 A complaint alleging a failure 
 to give signals, sufficiently 
 alleges negligence of defend- 
 ant, in an action for injuries 
 at a crossing ; and a general 
 allegation of freedom from 
 fault is a sufficient denial 
 that plaintiff's contributory 
 negligence was the proxi- 
 mate cause of his injury. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. 
 V. Young (Ind.), vol. 6, p. 
 349. 
 Defect in petition cured in 
 action for defendant's fail- 
 ure to furnish proper wagon 
 ways. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Pittman (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 55. 
 
 PLEADING— Continued. 
 
 Negligence in failing to give 
 signals. 
 
 Bowen v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 331. 
 Negligence in failing to main- 
 tain lookout at crossing. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Forshee (Ala.), vol. 18, 
 p. 467. 
 Pleading, statute requiring 
 stoppage of train at cross- 
 ings. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. 
 Ry. Co. V. Gray (Ind.), vol. 
 8, p. 48. 
 Statutory offences. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. -Gray (Ind.), 
 vol. 8, p. 48. 
 Sufficiency of complaint in 
 action for injury at crossing. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Prather 
 (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 832. 
 Sufficiency of complaint in 
 action for negligence at 
 crossin g. 
 
 Rothars v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. IS, p. 185. 
 Sufficiency of complaint in 
 action to compel construc- 
 tion of crossing in street. 
 Evansville & T. H. R. Co. 
 V. State ex rel. Town of Ft. 
 Branch (Ind.), vol. 11, p. 
 278. 
 There can be no recovery for 
 failure to observe common- 
 law duty of ordinary care 
 towards the person on a 
 street crossing where the 
 only cause of action alleged 
 is defendant's breach of 
 duty .as a carrier of passen- 
 gers. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 Jennings (111.), vol. 22, p. 
 127. 
 
 Wantonness or willful negli- 
 gence, in obstructing cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Prather 
 (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 832. 
 Curing defect in petition in ab- 
 sence of demurrer. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Simpson (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 592. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 Smith V. Pittsburgh & W. 
 Ry. Co. (Ohio), vol. 13, 
 p. 716. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 523 
 
 FLiEAIUNG—Coniinued. 
 
 Action for damages for appro- 
 priation of laud. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L,. 
 Ry. Co. V. Beck (Ind.), 
 vol. 13, p. 353. 
 Action to recover for damage 
 from fire. 
 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. 
 Co. V. Tripp (111.), vol. 14, 
 p. 119. 
 Averment of damages. 
 Chicago & E. R. Co. v. 
 Meech (111.), vol. 7, p. 667. 
 Interest must be claimed in 
 complaint. 
 
 Hauer v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Idaho), vol. 19, p. 628. 
 Motion to strike the whole will 
 not be granted -where count 
 contains both proper and 
 improper elements of dam- 
 age. 
 
 L,ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Quick (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 
 25. 
 Pecuniary loss need not be 
 specifically alleged in action 
 by widow for death. 
 Haug V. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 12, p. 26. 
 Petition in action for death by 
 wrongful act must show pe- 
 cuniary interest of benefi- 
 ciary. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Young (Neb.), vol. 14, 
 p. 343. 
 Plaintiff cannot claim or re- 
 cover damages upon grounds 
 of negligence other than 
 those alleged in his petition. 
 Brown v. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 11, p. 
 408. _ 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern R. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 13, p. 
 557. 
 Action for death by wrongful 
 
 Chicago, B. & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Bond (Neb.), vol. IS, p. 759. 
 Action to recover for wrongful 
 death. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Stevens ( Va.),vol. 16, p. 468. 
 Harmless error in overruling 
 demurrer, in action for 
 wrongful death where com- 
 plaint contained several 
 good counts. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 York (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 470. 
 
 PLEADING— Continued. 
 
 Petition in action for wrong- 
 ful death. 
 
 Bias V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 616. 
 Petition under Lord Camp- 
 bell's act not bad on demur- 
 rer for failure to allege 
 whether deceased left a 
 widow, if the names of the 
 surviving minor children are 
 averred. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Oyster (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 656. 
 Defective complaint cured by 
 verdict. 
 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 Delaney (111.), vol. 13, p. 859. 
 Defective petition cured by an- 
 swer. 
 
 Elliot V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 805. 
 Demurrer to alternative pleas. 
 Linck V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 831. 
 Demurrer to answer. 
 Pittsburgh, C, C. &^St.iL. Ry. 
 Co. V. Hosea (Ind.), vol. 14, 
 p. 692. 
 Duplicity. 
 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. Hern- 
 don (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 124. 
 Effect of demurrer where decla- 
 ration contains two or more 
 counts, one of which is good. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. Jones 
 (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528. 
 Effect of taking issue upon im- 
 proper pleas." 
 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Mar- 
 tin (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 683. 
 Eminent domain, amendment of 
 pleadings in condemnation 
 proceedings. 
 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.), 
 vol. 7, p. 771. 
 Eminent domain, cost of pro- 
 posed improvement need not 
 be stated in condemnation 
 proceedings. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Town 
 of Normal (111.), vol. 13, p. 
 367. 
 Eminent domain, sufficiency of 
 petition in condemnation pro- 
 ceeding. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 13, p. 423. 
 Error superinduced by adver- 
 sary. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Truskett (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 17, p. 273. 
 
524 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 PZ.'EATiING— Continued. 
 
 Evidence, admissibility of where 
 general and specific allega- 
 tions of negligence. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. Co. 
 (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 759. 
 , EJvidence of ownership of locus 
 in quo admissible under alle- 
 gation of general ownership. 
 Cederson v. Oregon R. & Nav. 
 Co. (Qre.), vol. 22, p. 6SS. 
 Evidential facts constituting 
 negligence need not be 
 pleaded. 
 
 Connell v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 236. 
 
 Fellow Servants. 
 
 Liability of company for act 
 
 of fellow servants. 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Montgomery 
 (Ind.), vol. 9, p. 792. 
 
 Fires Set by Locomotives. 
 
 Action against railroad for 
 loss caused by fire. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Spring Water Distilling 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 527. 
 Pleading negligence in action 
 to recover for damages 
 caused by fire. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kreager (Ohio), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 99. 
 SuflBciency of statement of 
 cause of action for destruc- 
 tion of property by fire set 
 by locomotive. 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Johnston (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 909, 
 
 Frightening Teams. 
 Separable acts of negligence 
 in action for frightening 
 horses. 
 
 Lrouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Shearer (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 
 138. 
 Harmless error in sustaining 
 demurrer to separate counts. 
 McCoy V. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 838. 
 Immaterial variance. 
 
 Potter V. Detroit, G. H. & M. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 16, p. 
 264. 
 
 Imputable negligence. 
 . Evans V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 10, p. 837. 
 
 Injuries to Property. ' 
 
 Action for injury to land by 
 
 FLEA'DING—Coniinued. 
 
 spreading embankment on 
 right of way. 
 
 Sims V. Ohio River & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 666. 
 
 Action to recover for injury to 
 
 property from railroad in 
 
 street. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Moats (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 
 645. 
 Insufficiency of petition reme- 
 died by answer. 
 Powell V. Sherwood (Mo.), 
 vol. 22, p. 53. 
 Legal conclusions. 
 
 Baker v. Louisville & N. Ter- 
 minal Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, 
 p. 946. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Allegation of absence of con- 
 tributory negligence. 
 Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Chaney (Ga.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 1. 
 Defect in petition cured by 
 verdict in action for injury 
 to brakeman from defect in 
 roadbed. 
 Chesapeake & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Venable (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 449. 
 Employee whose negligence 
 was cause of injury need 
 not be specified in com- 
 plaint. 
 Rinard v. Omaha, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 34. 
 Eailure of master to make and 
 enforce proper rules not a 
 sufficient averment of an 
 element of negligence upon 
 which to base an action for 
 injuries to an employee. 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Voss (N. J.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 820. 
 
 Failure of plaintiff to allege 
 that he was engaged in the 
 performance of his duty 
 when injured. 
 
 Broslin v. Kansas City, M. 
 & B. R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 9, 
 p. 99. 
 
 Failure to aver in complaint 
 that alleged negligent em- 
 ployee was, at the time of 
 the injury, in the discharge 
 of duties imposed by his 
 employment. 
 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. Hern- 
 don (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 124. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 535 
 
 PLEADING— Co«<ira«erf. 
 
 Failure to aver name of neg- 
 ligent employee. 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. Hern- 
 don (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 124. 
 I^ailure to give signals, insuffi- 
 ciency of declaration. 
 Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. 
 
 i>. Chaney (Ga.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 1. 
 In an action by a baggage 
 master to recover for in- 
 juries alleged to have been 
 caused by the negligence of 
 the engineer in running the 
 train it is not necessary 
 that the petition should 
 allege that they are fellow 
 servants. 
 Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Swan (111.), vol. 12, p. 674. 
 Knowledge of defective appli- 
 ances. 
 Broslin v. Kansas City, M. 
 
 & B. E. Co. (Ala.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 99. 
 Knowledge of rules must be 
 pleaded. 
 Union Stock- Yards Co. v. 
 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 502. 
 Relief associations. 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 
 
 299. 
 Sufficiency of allegation to 
 show defective track. 
 Banks v. Georgia R. & Bank- 
 ing Co. (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 22S. 
 More than one replication may 
 be filed. 
 
 Wilmot V. Yazoo & M. Val. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 19, p. 263. 
 Negligence. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Forshee (Ala.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 467. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry- Co. 
 
 V. Young (Neb.), vol 14, p. 
 
 343. 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 829. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Davis 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. IS, p. 708. 
 Keating v. Detroit, B. C. & 
 
 A. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 382. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 
 Co> V. O'Leary (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 718. 
 San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. De Ham (Tex.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 843. 
 
 PLEADING— Continued. 
 
 Schweiufurth v.. Cleveland, 
 C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 
 (Ohio), vol. IS, p. 73. 
 Sims V. Western & A. R. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 7S6. 
 Sirk V. Marion St. R. Co. 
 (Ind. App.), vol. 2, p. 381. 
 Walker v. McNeill (Wash. ) , 
 vol. 11, p. 738. 
 Defective brake may be shown 
 under general allegation of 
 negligence. 
 
 Walton V. Chattanooga 
 Rapid Transit Co. (Tenn.), 
 vol. 19, p. 436. 
 General allegation of negli- 
 gence followed by enumera- 
 tion of specific acts. 
 McManamee v. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. S, 
 p. 474. 
 Held, that an allegation in the 
 complaint herein to the effect 
 that the defendant negli- 
 gently ran certain cars 
 against a tender with such 
 force as to injure the plain- 
 tiff is sustained by proof 
 that it negligently omitted 
 to do an act from which such 
 result followed. 
 Olson V. Great Northern Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 241. 
 Reckless negligence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. An- 
 chors (Ala.) , vol. 11, p. 657. 
 Variance between pleading 
 and proof. 
 
 Coulter V. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 4, 
 p. 336. 
 Objection to form waived by ' 
 submitting to default. 
 Brockett v. Fair Haven & W. 
 R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, p. 
 406. 
 Overflow of Land. 
 
 Notice. 
 Nichols V. Norfolk, etc.,' R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 8, p. 768. 
 Sufficiency of petition. 
 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. Har- 
 lin (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 766. 
 Plaintiff confined to negligence 
 alleged in petition. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Clark 
 (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 407. 
 Pleading and proof in action for 
 personal injuries. 
 Beath v. Rapid Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 15, p. 793. 
 
526 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 PLEADING— Continued. 
 Pleading tested by demurrer 
 must rely on its own aver- 
 ments. 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Moore (Ind.), vol. 14, 
 p. 678. 
 Priority of supply debts. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. Carnegie 
 Steel Co., I/imited (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 6, p. 420. 
 Proper plaintiff in action for 
 failure to deliver freight, 
 lyouisville, etc., Co. v. AUgood 
 (Ala.), vol. 6, p. 771. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 Right to recover at common 
 law for injuries caused by 
 piling cinders in street near 
 track, where violation of 
 ordinance was also alleged. 
 Anderson v. Union Terminal 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 834. 
 Reciting pleadings in instruc- 
 tions. 
 
 Graybill v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) , vol. 20, p. 
 178. 
 Remedying defect by referring 
 to preceding count. 
 Baker v. I,ouisville & N. Ter- 
 minal Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, p. 
 946. 
 Right of Way. 
 Forfeiture of right of way for 
 nonuser, sufficiency of alle- 
 gations of bill, 
 tvyman v. Suburban R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 21, p. 828. 
 Simple negligence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Anchors (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 
 657. 
 Specifications of negligence. 
 Lemery v. Boston & M. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 11, p. 17. 
 Statute of limitations as af- 
 fected by amendment to. 
 Box V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 
 527. 
 Stocl<, Injuries to. 
 
 Amendments of declaration in 
 action for injury to stock on 
 track. 
 Hathaway v. Detroit, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 714. 
 Negligence must be pleaded in 
 action for killing stock. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Thompson (Colo.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 47. 
 
 PLEADING— Co«/i««^rf. 
 
 Sufficiency of petition in ac- 
 tion for damages arising 
 from failure to erect cattle 
 guard. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Harrell 
 (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 859. 
 Street railways, sufficiency of 
 petition for injunction to com- 
 pel removal of trolley pole. 
 Snyder v. Ft. Madison St. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, p. 53. 
 Sufficiency of allegation of in- 
 validity of statutes and ordi- 
 nances. 
 
 City of York v. Chicago, B. & 
 Q. R. Co. (Neb.), vol. 14, p. 
 . 200. 
 Sufficiency of allegation of neg- 
 ligence. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mar- 
 bury L. Co. (Ala.), vol. 18, 
 p. 508. 
 Sufficiency of petition in action 
 to enforce railroad's subscrip- 
 tion to stock. 
 
 Military Interstate Ass'n of 
 Savannah v. Savannah, T. & 
 I. of H. Ry. (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 
 824. 
 Surface water as nuisance. 
 Baltzeger v. Carolina Midland 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 14, p. 
 845. 
 
 Taxation. 
 
 Power of legislature to ex- 
 empt property. 
 Milwaukee Electric Railway 
 & Light Co. V. City of 
 Milwaukee (Wis.), vol. 6, 
 p. 411. 
 Telegraphic orders admissible 
 in evidence in action for death 
 resulting from collision with- 
 out specific allegation as to 
 whether train dispatcher was 
 negligent. 
 
 Riuard v. Omaha, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 34. 
 
 Terminal Companies. 
 
 Statutory actions against ter- 
 minal carrier. 
 Cave V. Carolina Mid. Ry. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 13, p. 
 
 195. 
 
 Testimony tending to show 
 injury not alleged in com- 
 plaint. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 
 Warlick (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 
 4, p. 32. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 527 
 
 PZiEAHTNG—Coniinued. 
 Trespassers. 
 
 Pleading- wilful neg-lig-ence in 
 action for injury to trespass- 
 ers. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. 
 Ry. Co. V. Tartt (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 226. 
 Under Virg-iuia Code. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Wood (Va.), vol. 21, p. 317. 
 
 Variance. 
 
 Ausk V. Great Northern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Dak.), vol. 21, p. 851. 
 
 Variance in pleading- and proof 
 
 of negligence. 
 
 Thomas zi.Xouisville, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 708. 
 Violation of interstate commerce 
 act as a defense. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Bagley (Kan.), vol. 13, p. 
 259. 
 "Waiver of demurrer. 
 
 Mouton V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 673. 
 Waiver of objection to depart- 
 ure in reply. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Simpson (Ky.) vol. 23, p. 
 
 592. 
 
 Waiver of objection to matter 
 
 of form by failure to specify 
 
 in demurrer. 
 
 Brockett v. Fair Haven- & 
 W. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 20, o. 
 406. 
 What necessary to be shown in 
 pleading want of knowledge 
 in order to bring action within 
 statute of limitations. 
 Murray v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 278. 
 "Whether second defense an ad- 
 mission of allegations of com- 
 plaint. 
 
 Upton V. S. Car. & G. E. Ry. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 242. 
 Wilful negligence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Brown (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 794. 
 Wilfulness and wantonness. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Forshee (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 
 467. 
 
 PLEADING AND PROOF. 
 See Pleading. 
 
 PLEDGE. 
 
 Rolling stock. 
 Mechanics' Trust Co. v. Dan- 
 dridge (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 348. 
 
 POLES. 
 
 See Abutters. 
 
 POLICE PO"WEB. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Carriers of Stock. 
 Expulsion from train. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 Sanders (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 427. 
 Compliance with valid police 
 regulations and changes in 
 corporate charters are not 
 subjects for compensation. 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. City of Milwaukee (Wis.), 
 vol. 9, p. 537. 
 Crossings. 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. City of Milwaukee (Wis.), 
 vol. 9, p. 537. 
 Essential quality. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 State ex rel. City of Omaha 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 3, p. 573. 
 
 Ordinance requiring railroad 
 
 companies to construct and 
 
 keeg in repair viaducts over 
 
 streets closed by their tracks. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 State ex rel. City of Omaha 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 3, p. 573. 
 
 POSTAL CLERKS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Mail Clerks. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 POVERTY. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 
 POWERS. 
 
 See Corporations. 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 See Actions. 
 Exceptions. 
 Federal Courts. 
 Change of cause of action. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Williams (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 861. 
 Failure to secure attendance of 
 witness as ground for new 
 trial. 
 
 Edwards !<. Foote (Mich.), vol. 
 23, p. 812. 
 Motion for new trial waived by 
 motion in arrest of judgment. 
 Freeman v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 22, p. 49. 
 Payment of cost as condition to 
 granting continuance. 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 
528 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 FB.A.OTICE—Coniinued. 
 
 Striking testimony from record. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Sturey (Neb.), vol. 13, p. 849. 
 
 Time for filing motion for new 
 
 _ trial. 
 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol.22, p. 158. 
 Trial amendment not entitling 
 defendant to continuance for 
 surprise. 
 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 
 PRAYERS. 
 
 Admitting contributory negli- 
 gence by conceding prayer. 
 Philadelphia & B. C. R. Co. 
 V. Hold en (Md.), vol. 22, p. 
 192. 
 Assuming facts. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528. 
 
 PREDECESSOR COM- 
 PANIES. 
 See Consolidation of Railroads. 
 
 PRE-EMPTORS. 
 See Public Lands. 
 
 PREFERENTIAL CLAIMS. 
 See Insolvency. 
 Liens. 
 Mortgages. 
 Railroads. 
 Receivers. 
 
 Judgment for award of damages 
 preferred to mortgage. 
 Central Trust Co. of New York 
 V. Heunen (C. C. A.), vol. 
 13, p. 409. 
 Loan to pay interest on mort- 
 gage coupons, lender's right 
 to preference over mortgagee. 
 Con. & Bldg. Co. V. Continen- 
 tal Trust Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 21, p. 487. 
 Money borrowed for private 
 railroads. 
 
 First Nat. Bank of Grand 
 Junction v. Wyman (Colo.), 
 vol. 23, p. 277. 
 Of unsecured creditors. 
 Rhode Island Locomotive 
 Works V. Continental Trust 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 481. 
 Purchase of locomotives, suffi- 
 ciency of evidence as to right 
 to priority of payment out of 
 proceeds of corpus. 
 Rhode Island Locomotive 
 Works V. Continental Trust 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 21, p. 481. 
 
 PREFERENTIAL CLAIMS— 
 
 Continued. 
 
 The right of preference attach- 
 ing to latter claims inheres in 
 the claim itself and not in 
 claimant. 
 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. Ap- 
 peals (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 209. 
 
 PREFERRED STOCK. 
 
 See Stock. 
 PRESCRIPTION. 
 
 See Adverse Possession. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 Perfecting title to right of way 
 by. 
 
 Narron v. Wilmington & W. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 13, p. 
 852. 
 
 PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Appeal. 
 
 Carriers of Goods. ' 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Cotnfnon Law. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Evidence. 
 Fires. 
 Negligence. 
 Right of Way. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Street Railways. 
 Trespassers. 
 Accident to employee raises no 
 presumption of negligence. 
 Patton V. Texas <& Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 48. 
 Fellow servants. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Becker (Ark.), vol. 8, p. 758. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Master presumed to have dis- 
 charged his duty to injured 
 employee. 
 
 Railey v. Garbutt (Ga.), vol. 
 20, p. 211. 
 Warnings. 
 Grimmelman v. Union Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 8, p. 
 322. 
 Negligence. 
 Klectric Ry. Co. v. Carson 
 (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 769. 
 Presumption that statute is a 
 valid exercise of police power. 
 Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co. v. State 
 (Fla.), vol. 20, p. 501. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 529 
 
 PRESUMPTIONS— Co«««««rf. 
 Questions of fact. 
 Milam v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 253. 
 Right to presume that person 
 seen near track will keep out 
 of danger. 
 
 Galveston, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Kieff (Tex.), vol. 20, p. 238. 
 
 Taxation, erroneous listing. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cass 
 
 County (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 772. 
 
 PRIORITY. 
 
 See Insolvency. 
 Liens. 
 Mortgages. 
 Preferential Claims. 
 Receivers. 
 
 PRIVATE CARRIERS. 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 PRIVATE CROSSINGS. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Farm, Crossings. 
 Hardy v. Alabama & V. R. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 3, p. 6SS. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 
 Co. V. Miller (Mass.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 6SS. 
 Constitutionality of statute pro- 
 viding for orders by commis- 
 sioners that railroad shall 
 maintain private crossing. 
 New York & New England 
 
 Railroad Company v. Rail- 
 road Commissioners (Mass.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 660. 
 Duty to maintain. 
 Willingham v. Macon & B. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 340. 
 Right of subsequent grantee. 
 Lyon V. Hammond & B. I. R. 
 
 Co. (111. ) , vol. 9, p. 337. 
 Where an award of damages for 
 the separation of land by a 
 railroad provided for the con- 
 struction of a passway at a 
 particular point, the subse- 
 quent construction of such 
 passway was not a mere act 
 of accommodation on the part 
 of the railway company, but 
 a compliance with an obliga- 
 tion. 
 Rathbun v. New York, N. H. 
 
 &H. R. Co. (R. I. ), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 333. 
 
 PRIVATE RAILROADS. 
 A railroad is not private merely 
 because of its relations with 
 coal mining company having 
 
 ID-34 
 
 PRIVATE RAILROADS— Core- 
 tinued. 
 
 same officers and stockhold- 
 ers, so as to prevent it from 
 having power of eminent do- 
 main. 
 
 Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. North- 
 western Coal & Min. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 593. 
 Care due from master to em- 
 ployee of private railroad. 
 Lynn V. Antrim Lumber Co., 
 Limited (La.), vol. 21, p. 598. 
 
 PRIVILEGED COMMUNICA- 
 TIONS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 Power of personal representa- 
 tive to waive privilege. 
 Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. Co. 
 (Cal.),vol. 8, p. 201. 
 
 PRIVILEGES. 
 See Taxation. 
 
 PROCESS. 
 
 See Actions. 
 
 Garnishment. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute pro- 
 viding that service of process 
 on operator of railroad is suffi- 
 cient. 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ball (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 186. 
 Error in not granting an order 
 for the production of papers is 
 harmless if the evidence is ob- 
 tained in another manner. 
 Parker v. South Carolina & 
 
 G. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 731. 
 Failure to serve as defense in 
 action to enforce domestic 
 judgment. 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 BalKKy.), vol. 20, p. 186. 
 Service on foreign corporations. 
 Leroy & C. Val. Air-Line R. 
 
 Co. V. Sidell (Kan.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 741. 
 
 PROFITS. 
 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 PROHIBITION, WRIT OP. 
 
 Receivers. 
 
 St. Louis, K. & S. R. Co. V. 
 Wear (Mo.), vol. 4, p. 583. 
 
 PROMISSORY NOTES. 
 See Payments. 
 
 PROPERTY. 
 
 See Officers. 
 
530 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 PROPERTY OWNERS. 
 See Abutters. 
 
 PROSPECTIVE NECESSI- 
 TIES. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 PROSPECTIVE PA S S E N- 
 GERS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 PROVINCE OP COURT. 
 See Taxation. 
 
 PROXIMATE CAUSE. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings. 
 Electric Railroads. 
 Fires Set by Locomotives. 
 Frightening Horses. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 New Orleaus & N. E. R. Co. 
 V. McEwen & Murray, Lim- 
 ited (La.), vol. 7, p. 742. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sny- 
 der (Ohio), vol. 7, p. 768. 
 
 Accidents on Track. 
 Defective appliances as proxi- 
 mate cause. 
 
 Thompson v. Salt Lake 
 Rapid-Transit Co. (Utah), 
 vol. 10. p. 563. 
 Excessive ppeed. 
 
 Adams v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 9, p. 747. 
 Pletcher v. Scranton Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 
 715. 
 Obstruction of track of street 
 railroad by carriage. 
 Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Pres- 
 ton (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 616. 
 Speed in excess of ordinance 
 does not render company 
 liable for personal injuries 
 unless it was proximate 
 cause. 
 
 Walters v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 606. 
 
 Stopping' vehicle in such close 
 
 proximity to track that a 
 
 passing car collided with it. 
 
 Bedford v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 6, p. 79S. 
 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 
 Negligent delay of carrier 
 not proximate cause of in- 
 
 PROXIMATE CAUSE— Cb«i!'(/. 
 jury to goods damaged by 
 fire. 
 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 Millsaps (Miss.), vol. 17, 
 p. 269. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Boarding moving car. 
 Distler v. Long Island R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 6, p. 
 235. 
 Derailment of train. 
 
 Davis V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 4, 
 p. 622. 
 Derailment of train caused by 
 obstruction placed on track. 
 Davis V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 5, p. 710. 
 Injury to passenger by ejec- 
 tion. 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol. 17, 
 p. 212. 
 Instructions. 
 Davis V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 5, p. 710. 
 Negligence. 
 
 Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Spirk (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 
 205. 
 Negligence must be proxi- 
 mate cause. 
 
 Chicago, K. & M. R. Co. 
 
 V. Bell (Kan.), vol. 2, 
 
 p. 222. 
 
 Proximate cause of injury 
 
 to passenger alighting from 
 
 moving train. 
 
 Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Row- 
 land (Tex.), vol. 6, p. 
 775. 
 Concurring negligence. 
 Thompson & Salt Lake 
 Rapid-Transit Co. (Utah), 
 vol. 10, p; 563. 
 Contributory negligence. 
 Clark V. Wright (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 431. 
 Pyle V. Clark (C. C. A.), vol. 
 8, p. 431. 
 Crossings. 
 
 A train remained across a 
 street crossing for some 
 time and plaintiff, under- 
 taking to go around it, sus- 
 tained injuries caused by a 
 defect in the street. Negli- 
 gence of the company held 
 not the proximate cause. 
 Enochs v. Pittsburg, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Ind.), vol. S, p. 
 
 349. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 531 
 
 PROXIMATE CAJJSE— Cont'd. 
 Body of ■woman struck by an 
 engine striking another 
 person. 
 
 Wood V. Penn. R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 672. 
 Defective gate as proximate 
 cause of injury. 
 Baltimore & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Anderson (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 5, p. 667. 
 Failure to give statutory 
 signals as proximate cause. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Davis 
 (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 708. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Mizell (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 
 337. 
 Strother v. South Carolina, 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. S, p. 430. 
 Neglect in giving signal. 
 Wragge v. South Carolina & 
 G. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 4, p. 639. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence at crossing. 
 Silcock V. Rio Grande W. 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 18, 
 p. 4S9. 
 Whether failure to give cross- 
 ing signals is proximate 
 cause of injury is for jury. 
 Schaidler v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 15, p. lOS. 
 Definition of. 
 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. z'. 
 Price (C. C. A.), vol. 16, 
 p. 324. 
 Schneider v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 11, p. 81. 
 Ward V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 p. 322. 
 Fires set by locomotives. 
 Boston Excelsior Co. v. Ban- 
 gor & A. R. Co. (Me.), 
 vol. 16, p. 6S4. 
 Huffman z-. King (N. Y.), 
 vol. 16, p. 764. 
 Frightening Teams. 
 Where injury was caused by a 
 horse being frightened by 
 a train which was being 
 operated in the day time in 
 violation of a municipal 
 ordinance, such violation 
 was the proximate cause of 
 the injury. _ 
 
 Pittsburg, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Hood (C. C. A.), 
 vol. IS, p. 648. 
 
 PROXIMATE CAXTSB— ai«if'(^. 
 
 Fright of team at crossing. 
 Stahl V. Lake Shore & M. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 11, p. 90. 
 General rule. 
 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (Fla. ), vol. S, p. 710. 
 Injuries arising from fright 
 caused by negligence of com- 
 pany. 
 
 Mitchell V. Rochester Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 215. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Derailment by limb of tree 
 where there was excessive 
 speed. 
 Cox V. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 604. 
 Fireman's negligence in go- 
 ing under .engine without 
 notifying engineer, con- 
 trary to established custom, 
 was the proximate cause of 
 his injuries. 
 Crane v. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 5, p. 706. 
 
 Injury to laborer on track 
 
 where train was flagged in 
 
 time. 
 
 Jackson v. Galveston, H. & 
 
 S. A. Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 236. 
 Injury to servant by falling 
 of coal from tender. 
 Weisel v. Eastern Ry. Co. 
 
 of Minn. (Minn.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 446. 
 Intervening act of third per- 
 son. 
 Leavitt V. Bangor & A. R. 
 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 7, p. 354. 
 Negligence of master is prox- 
 imate cause of injuries of 
 servant injured by being 
 struck by body of trespasser 
 negligently killed by mas- 
 ter. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bailey (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 739. 
 Section hand remaining on 
 track to remove hand car 
 when he might have jumped 
 and saved himself. 
 Nelling v. Chicago, St. P. 
 
 & K. C. R. Co. (Iowa), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 539. 
 Sufficiency of instruction. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 476. 
 
533 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 PROXIMATE -CAUSE— Co«if'rf. PUBLIC t-ANOS—Coniinued. 
 
 Where an associate alleged to 
 have been acting as vice- 
 principal slipped while 
 holding in position a pole 
 which fell upon and injured 
 plaintiff. 
 
 Hunter v. Kansas City & 
 M. Railway & Bridge Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 10, p. 
 620. 
 Question for jury. 
 
 Chicago G. W. Ey. Co. v. 
 Price (C. C. A.), vol. 16, 
 p. 324. 
 
 McCafferty v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 16, p. 
 122. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Byrne (C. C. A.), vol. 18, 
 p. S73. 
 Question of law and fact. 
 
 McCann v. Newark & S. O. 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 4, p. 
 382. 
 
 Wright V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Utah), vol. S, p. S60. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 Stock injured by train run- 
 ning at unlawful rate of 
 speed. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Neidlinger (Ga.), vol. 
 17, p. 7S8. 
 Whether speed of train was 
 proximate cause of killing 
 of cow is for jury. 
 Ford V. St. Louis, I. M. & 
 S. Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. 
 15, p. 142. 
 Where ice on pond was de- 
 stroyed by oil from tank car. 
 Commercial Ice Co. v. Phila- 
 delphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 19, p. 171. 
 
 PUBLIC DRAINS. 
 See Right of Way. 
 
 PUBLIC LANDS. 
 See Right of Way. 
 Taxation. 
 
 Abrogation of grant to North- 
 ern Pacific. 
 Northern Pacific R. Co. v. 
 
 De Lacy (U. S.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 657. 
 Abutting owner cannot enjoin 
 use of public land by railroad. 
 Burlington Gaslight Co. v. 
 
 Burlington, C. R. •& N. Ry. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 878. 
 
 Authority of legislature to 
 grant right of way through. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Englehart (Neb.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 404. 
 Bona fide purchaser. 
 
 Winona, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 United States (U. S.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 790. 
 Compensation not condition 
 precedent to right of state to 
 permit construction of a rail- 
 road over public lands. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 
 
 V. Englehart (Neb.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 404. ■ 
 Conditional grants. 
 Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. Min- 
 
 gus (N. Mex. ), vol. 9, p. 
 
 881. 
 State V. Vicksburg, S. & P. 
 
 R. Co. (La. Ann.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 656. 
 Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Elmore (La.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 656. 
 
 Conflicting claims. 
 Northern Pacific R. Co. v. 
 
 Musser Sawtry, L. L. & 
 
 M. Co. (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 617. 
 U. S. V. Winona & St. Peter 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 454. 
 
 Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. 
 Forsythe (U. S.), vol. 1, 
 p. 487. 
 
 "Consideration received there- 
 for, is still retained." 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal, 
 Ry. & Iron Co. v. Cunning- 
 ham (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 566. 
 Construction of act granting 
 land for railroad purposes. 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal, 
 Ry. & Iron Co. v. Cunning- 
 ham (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 564. 
 Construction of grants. 
 Barden v. Northern Pacific 
 Railroad Co. (U. S.), vol. 
 1, p. 512. 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal, 
 Ry. & Iron Co. v. Cunning- 
 ham (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 564. 
 Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. 
 Forsythe (U. S.), vol. 1, 
 p. 487. 
 
 Construction of Minnesota 
 statute. 
 
 St. Paul V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 5, p. 711. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 533 
 
 PUBLIC LANDS— Co««««erf. 
 Construction of patent. 
 
 Lewis V. Rio Grande W. Ry. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 14, p. 822. 
 Construction of railways. 
 
 Churchill v. Choctaw Ry. Co. 
 (Okla.), vol. S, p. 711. 
 Construction of various acts. 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal Ry. 
 & Iron Co. V. Cunningham 
 (C. S.), vol. 1, pp. 564, S6S. 
 Conveyance by railroad com- 
 pany of land received by 
 grant. 
 
 Adams v. Reed (Utah), vol. 
 1, p. SSI. 
 Cutting timber for railroad 
 from public lands adjacent to 
 right of way. 
 
 Bacheldor v. United States 
 _(C. C. A.), vol. 9, p. 878. 
 Dedication of land. 
 City of St. Paul v. Chicago, 
 M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 (Minn.), vol. 5, p. 712. 
 Definite location of roads, what 
 is. 
 
 Southern Pac. R.Co.w. United 
 States (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 p. 598. 
 Diversion of public lands. 
 
 City of St. Paul v. Chicago, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 5, p. 712. 
 Eifect of issuance of patent. 
 Adams v. Reed (Utah), vol. 
 1, p. 551. 
 Erroneous certification. 
 
 United States v. Winona & 
 St. P. R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 
 7, p. 776. 
 Exception of mineral lands. 
 Adams v. Reed (Utah), vol. 
 
 1, p. 551. 
 Barden v. Northern Pacific 
 Railroad Co. (U. S.), vol. 
 1, p. 512. 
 Eiling surveys. 
 
 Barden v. Northern Pacific 
 Railroad Co. (U. S.), vol. 
 1, p. 512. 
 Foreclosure of land grants. 
 Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. Min- 
 gus (N. Mex.), vol. 9, p. 
 881. 
 Forfeiture. 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal, 
 Ry. & Iron Co. v. Cunning- 
 * ham (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 564. 
 St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. v. 
 St. Paul & N. P. R. Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 1, p. 621. 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. United 
 States (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 656. 
 
 PUBLIC LANDS— Co«/«»«ear. 
 Fraudulent location. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 United States (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 1, p. 603. 
 Grant of land by congress to 
 railroad company. 
 Burton v. Laughrey (Mont.), 
 vol. 3, p. 657. 
 Grant of public lands. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Brown (U. S. ), vol. 5, p. 
 711. 
 Grant of public lands as right 
 of way. 
 
 Churchill v. Choctaw Ry. Co. 
 (Okla.), vol. 5, p. 711. 
 Grant providing that company 
 shall file with secretary of the 
 interior maps, and that secre- 
 tary shall withdraw lands 
 granted from the market. 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 Cook (U. S.), vol. 4, p. 552. 
 Grant to railroad of right of 
 way becomes absolute where 
 pre-emptor abandons his 
 prior entry. 
 
 Jamestown & N. R. Co. v. 
 Jones (N. Dak. ), vol. 11, p. 
 879. 
 Homestead. 
 Churchill v. Choctaw Ry. Co. 
 (Okla.), vol. 5, p. 711. 
 "Homestead claim." 
 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal 
 Ry. & Iron Co. v. Cun- 
 ningham (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 
 564. 
 Indemnity lands. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Mus- 
 ser Sawtry, L., L. & M. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 617. 
 Intersection of routes, conflict- 
 ing land grants. 
 Southern Pac. Railroad Co. v. 
 United States (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 1, p. 602. 
 Jurisdiction of federal courts. 
 St. Paul, M. & N. R. Co. v. 
 St. Paul & N. P. R. Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 1, p. 621. 
 Jurisdiction to determine ques- 
 tion of forfeiture. 
 United States v. Northern 
 Pac. R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 
 19, p. 207. 
 Land ceded to United States by 
 Osage Indians are public 
 
 lands. c, c -ct 
 
 Rierson v. St. Louis & S. F. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 667. 
 
534 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 PUBLIC liA-TSUB— Continued. 
 
 Land department. 
 
 Barden v. Northern Pacific 
 
 Railroad Co. (TI. S. ), vol. 
 
 1, p. 512. 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal 
 
 Ry. & Iron Co. v. Cunning- 
 ham (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 564. 
 TJ. S. V. "Winona & St. Peter 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 454. 
 Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. 
 
 Forsythe (U. S. ), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 487. 
 Location of road, selection of 
 land granted. 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Groeck (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 617. 
 Misuse of public lands. 
 City of St. Paul v. Chicago, 
 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 
 5, p. 712. 
 Pre-emption of right of way. 
 Lewis V. Rio Grande W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 14, p. 822. 
 
 Public land laws, construed. 
 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal 
 
 Ry. & Iron Co. v. Cunning- 
 ham (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 566. 
 Railroad grants. 
 Anderson v. Howard (U. S. ), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 595. 
 Corinne Mill Canal & Stock 
 
 Co. V. Johnson (U. S. ), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 593. 
 Dakes v. Myers (U. S. ), vol. 
 
 1, p. 595. 
 Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. 
 
 Butler (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 594. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. De 
 
 Lacy (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 596. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mackay (U. S. ), vol. 1, p. 
 
 595. 
 Oregon Cent. R. Co. v. U. S. 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 1, p. 501. 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Brown (U. S.),vol. 1, p. S94. 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Groeck (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 593. 
 Spencer v. McDougal (U. 
 
 S.), vol. 1, p. 595. 
 Spokane Falls & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ziegler (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 594. 
 State V. Jackson, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 597. 
 United States v. Union Pac. 
 
 R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 1, pp. 
 
 593, 594. 
 
 PUBLIC IjA.N'DS— Continued. 
 United States v. Winona & 
 
 St. PfeterR. Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 454. 
 Wilson V. Ward Lumber Co, 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 596. 
 Wood w. Beach (U. S.), voU 
 
 1, p. 596. 
 
 Real Property. 
 Donation of land to railroad 
 company by private parties, 
 condition subsequent, rea- 
 sonable time, question for 
 jury. 
 
 Little Rock & Ft. Smith 
 Railway Co. v. Birnie 
 (Ark.), vol. 1, p. 645. 
 Restoration of title to United 
 States. 
 
 United States v. St. Paul & 
 S. C. R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 
 1, p. 656. 
 Reverter not caused by mere 
 failure to build road within 
 period prescribed by con- 
 gress. 
 
 United States v. Northern 
 Pac. R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 
 19, p. 207. 
 Revocation of special privi- 
 leges. 
 
 St. Paul V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 5, p. 711. 
 Rights of pre-emptor as against , 
 railroad granted a right of 
 way. 
 
 Jamestown & N. R. Co. v. 
 Jones (N. Dak.), vol. 11, 
 p. 879. 
 Scope of grant of 1871 to- 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 United States (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 22, p. 598. 
 
 State taxation of lands granted 
 by congress to railroad. 
 Central Pac. R. Co. v. Nevada 
 (U. S.), vol. 4, p. 264. 
 Successor company. 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. 
 V. State (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 449. 
 
 Use by railroad of land re- 
 served for public is a public 
 use. 
 Burlington Gaslight Co. v. 
 
 Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 11, p. 878. 
 Use of land for railway pur- 
 poses. 
 Burton v. Laughrey (Mont.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 657. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 535 
 
 PUBLIC X,A.TiiIiB— Continued. 
 Variance from route designated 
 
 in act of 1871, granting- land 
 
 to Southern Pac. R. Co. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 United States (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 22, p. 598. 
 When grant of right of way 
 
 attaches as against pre- 
 
 emptor. 
 
 Jamestown & N. R. Co. v. 
 Jones (N. Dak.), vol. 11, p. 
 879. 
 Whether line of Tex. Pac. 
 
 R. Co. was ever definitely 
 
 fixed in California on route 
 
 surveyed between Yuma and 
 
 San Diego. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 United States (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 22, p. 598. 
 Who is a bona fide homestead 
 
 claimant. 
 
 Lake Superior Ship Canal 
 Ry. & Iron Co. v. Cunning- 
 ham (U. S.), vol. 1,-p. 564. 
 
 PUBLIC OFFICERS. 
 
 Iowa Acts, 24 Gen. Assem., ch. 
 38, not applicable to special 
 elections held for the purpose 
 of voting taxes. 
 Bras V. McConnell (Iowa), 
 vol. 23, p. 127. 
 
 PUBLIC PLACES. 
 
 See Railroads in Streets. 
 
 PUBLIC POLICY. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 Controlled by state laws. 
 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. R. 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 16, p. 779. 
 Does not prevent title by ad- 
 verse possession from being 
 acquired in railioad right of 
 waj'. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Ely (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 90. 
 
 PUBLIC PROPERTY. 
 
 Seattle & M. R. Co. v. State 
 (Wash.), vol. 3, p. 25. 
 
 PUBLIC USES. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 PUNITIVE DAMAGES. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 Exemplary Damages. 
 
 Frightening Teams. 
 
 PURCHASERS. 
 See Sales. 
 
 Vendor and Vendee. 
 
 PURPRESTURE. 
 
 Abatement by attorney general. 
 Hicks, Atty. Gen. Xex ;rel. 
 Askew V. Smith (Wis.), vol. 
 20, p. 694. 
 
 QUARANTINE. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 QUESTIONS OP LAW AND 
 PACT. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Discharging Passengers. 
 Negligence resulting in in- 
 jury to passenger, ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 Chicago City Ry. Co. v. 
 Densmore (111.), vol. 6, 
 p. 794. 
 Negligence. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Cross 
 (Kan.), vol. 8, p, 757. 
 Negligence in killing person on 
 street railway track, question 
 was for the jury. 
 Coll V. Easton Transit Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 11, p. 722. 
 
 RAILROAD AID BONDS. 
 
 See Bonds. 
 
 RAILROAD AID TAX. 
 See Connecting Carriers. 
 Taxation. 
 
 RAILROAD COMMISSION- 
 ERS. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Interstate Commerce, 
 
 Mafidamus. 
 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 Acts exonerating common car- 
 rier not retrospective. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth (Ky.), vol. 22, 
 p. 356. 
 Admissibility in evidence of 
 rules promulgated by commis- 
 sioners governing the man- 
 agement of railroad trains 
 where railroads cross each 
 other at grade. 
 Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Ransom (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 259. 
 Authority as to interstate 
 lines. 
 
 State, Lamar, Atty. Gen., v. 
 Jacksonville Term. Co. 
 (Fla.), vol. 16, p. 727. 
 
536 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 RAILROAD COMMISSION- 
 ERS — Continued. 
 Authority of as to plans for 
 public works does not extend 
 to cases adjudicated previous 
 to act conferring authority. 
 Williams, State's Atty., v. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 Co. (Conn.), vol. 12, p. 860. 
 Authority to empower railroad 
 company to occupy street 
 without condemnation. 
 Town of Bristol v. New Eng- 
 land R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 
 11, p. 674. 
 Authority to order alterations 
 in highways. 
 
 Town of Bristol v. New Eng- 
 land R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 
 11, p. 674. 
 Authority to prohibit, authorize 
 or annul issues of stock. 
 Davis V. San Antonio & G.. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. IS, 
 p. 449. 
 Burden of proof as to whether 
 an extension is an incum- 
 brance on the rest of the line. 
 Steenerson v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 8, p. 
 •S61. 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 
 Board may avail itself of 
 personal inspection by its 
 inspector to determine the 
 necessity for freight depot. 
 People V. President, etc., 
 of Delaware & H. Canal 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 20, p. 688. 
 Power to compel carrier to 
 contract for transportation 
 beyond terminus. 
 State V. Wrightsville & T. 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 576. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Action permitting abandon- 
 ment of station subject to 
 review by certiorari. 
 People, LJoughran v. Board 
 of Railroad Com'rs of 
 State of New York (N. 
 Y.), vol. IS, p. 441. 
 Power to permit abandon- 
 ment of station. 
 People, Loughran, v. Board 
 of Railroad Com'rs of 
 State of New York (N. 
 Y.), vol. IS, p. 441. 
 Conclusiveness of acts. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 688. 
 Connecting switches, constitu- 
 
 RAILROAD COMMISSION- 
 ERS — Continued. 
 tionality of act empowering 
 commission to require build- 
 ing of. 
 Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. & 
 
 P. R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 228. 
 Connecting switches, jurisdic- 
 tion to compel building of. 
 Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. & 
 
 P. R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 228. 
 Constitutionality of statute pro- 
 viding for appeal from to 
 supreme court. 
 State, Railroac? Commission 
 
 V. Wilmington & W. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 11, p. 671. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 providing for order by com- 
 missioners that railroad shall 
 maintain private crossing. 
 New York & New England 
 
 Railroad Company v. Rail- 
 road Commissioners 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 1, p. 660. 
 Construction of federal statute 
 not involved where commis- 
 sion seeks to regulate imposi- 
 tion of war stamp tax. 
 Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. 
 
 Co. (C. C. Ga. ), vol. 13, p. 
 
 314. 
 Contract between company and 
 citizens for stopping of 
 trains at certain station not 
 enforceable by. 
 People, Loughran, v. Board 
 
 of Railroad Commissioners 
 
 of State of New York (N. 
 
 Y.), vol. IS, p. 441. 
 Cost of reproducing terminals, 
 sufBciency of evidence. 
 Steenerson v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 560. 
 Exoneration by railroad com- 
 missioner where more is 
 charged for short than a long 
 haul. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Vancleave (Ky. ), vol. 21, p. 
 
 477. 
 Rates. 
 
 Appeal from commission. 
 Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 8, p. 560. 
 Apportionment of gross 
 earnings. 
 
 Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 8, p. 560. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 537 
 
 KAILROAD COMMISSION- 
 ERS — Continued. 
 
 Authority in fixing- rates. 
 State, I,amar, Atty. Gen., 
 V. Jacksonville Term. Co. 
 (E'la.), vol. 16, p. 727. 
 Authority to relieve from op- 
 eration of penal provisions 
 as to discrimination in 
 rates. 
 
 Illinois Cerit. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth (Ky.), 
 vol. 22, p. 356. 
 Basis of investigation when 
 determining reasonableness 
 of state rates. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Keyes (C. C. N. Dak.), 
 vol. 13, p. 128. 
 Constitutionality of Georgia 
 statute. 
 
 Trammell v Dinsmore (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 19, p. 468. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 authorizing establishment 
 of joint rates. 
 State, Railroad c& Ware- 
 house Commission v. 
 Minneapolis & St. L. 
 R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, 
 p. 630. 
 Duty of carrier to furnish in- 
 formation as to business. 
 State, Railroad & Ware- 
 house Com. 7/. United 
 States Exp. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 19, p. 41. 
 Effect of order fixing rates. 
 State Railroad & Warehouse 
 Commission v. Minneap- 
 olis & St. I/. R. Co. 
 (Minn.), vol. 17, p. 630. 
 Expenses of local traffic to 
 be considered when deter- 
 mining reasonableness of 
 state rates. 
 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Keyes (C. C. N. Dak.), 
 vol. 13, p. 128. 
 Express company partnership 
 not subject to statute re- 
 quiring corporations and 
 companies to furnish in- 
 formation as to business. 
 State V. United States Exp. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 
 41. 
 Feeders, division of profits. 
 Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 8, p. 561. 
 Income. 
 
 Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 8, p. 560. 
 
 RAILROAD COMMISSION- 
 ERS — Continued. 
 
 Injunction will not be issued 
 to enforce unreasonable 
 state rates. 
 
 Northern Pac. Rv. Co. 
 V. Keyes (C. C. N.'Dak.), 
 vol. 13, p. 128. 
 Interstate commerce to be 
 considered in determining 
 reasonableness of rates 
 fixed by state. 
 Northern Pac. Ey. Co. v. 
 Keyes (C. C. N. Dak.), 
 vol. 13, p. 128. 
 Interstate fares earned by 
 that portion of road lying 
 within state may be in- 
 cluded in computation in 
 fixing rates for transporta- 
 tion of passengers within 
 state. 
 
 Osborne, Com'r, v. Wabash 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, 
 p. 569. 
 Jurisdiction of court as to. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth (K3'.),vol. 
 13, p. 125. 
 Method o^ determining rea- 
 sonableness of rates. 
 Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 8, p. 559. 
 Order fixing rates. 
 
 State, Lamar, Atty. Gen., 
 V. Jacksonville Term. Co. 
 (Fla.), vol. 16, p. 727. 
 Power to compel making of 
 joint rates. 
 
 Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. 
 & P. R. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 13, p. 228. 
 Power to reduce rates. 
 Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 8, p. 559. 
 Presumption as to reasonable- 
 ness of rates established by. 
 State Railroad & Warehouse 
 Commission v. Minneap- 
 olis & St. L. R. Co. 
 (Minn.), vol. 17, p. 630. 
 Proper apportionment of 
 gross earnings. 
 Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 8, p. 561. 
 Proper tribunal for carrier to 
 present claim that competi- 
 tion requires discrimination 
 in rates. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Common wealth (Ky. ) , 
 vol. IS, p. 841. 
 
S38 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 RAILROAD COMMISSION- 
 ERS— Continued. 
 
 Proportionate cost of local 
 traffic to be considered in 
 determining reasonableness 
 of state rates. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Keyes (N. Dak.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 128. 
 Reasonableness of rates fixed 
 by. 
 
 State, Railroad & Ware- 
 house Commission v. 
 
 Minneapolis & St. L/. R. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 630. 
 
 Removal to federal court of 
 
 suit by commissioners to 
 
 enforce statute fixing rates. 
 
 Hickman v. Missouri, K. & 
 
 T. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 375. 
 Revenue stamp, federal juris- 
 diction where carrier pro- 
 hibited from adding cost of 
 to maximum rates fixed by 
 state railroad commission. 
 Trammell v. Dinsmore (C. 
 
 C. A.), vol. 19, p. 468. 
 Rights reserved by decree to 
 alter rates. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Keyes (N. Dak.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 128. 
 Right to charge higher rates 
 than those fixed by the rail- 
 road commissioners. 
 Mississippi Railroad Com- 
 mission V. Gulf & S. I. 
 
 R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 864. 
 
 Terminals, cost of reproduc- 
 ing considered in determin- 
 ing reasonableness of rates. 
 Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 8, p. 560. 
 
 Under Cal. Const, art. 12, 
 sec. 20, railroad commis- 
 sion has no jurisdiction of 
 judicial proceedings insti- 
 tuted before it to compel a 
 railroad company to rein- 
 state lower competitive rate 
 which it had formerly 
 made. 
 
 Edson V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 22, p. 187. 
 
 Valuation must include bet- 
 terments as operating ex- 
 penses in order to render 
 state rates reasonable. 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 
 
 RAILROAD COMMISSION- 
 ERS — Continued, 
 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. 
 (Tex.), vol. 13, p. 149. 
 Valuation must include in- 
 terest on investment to 
 render state rate reason- 
 able. 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. 
 (Tex.), vol. 13, p. 149. 
 Valuation of road in fixing 
 state rates. 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. 
 (Tex.), vol. 13, p. 149. 
 What business to be consid- 
 ered in determining reason- 
 ableness of state rates. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 • Keyes (N. Dak.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 128. 
 What considered in comparing 
 rates for interstate trafSc, 
 where determining reason- 
 ableness of state rates. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Keyes (N. Dak.), vol. 13, 
 p. 128. 
 Review of commissioners' de- 
 cisions as to liability for 
 expense of constructing cross- 
 ings. 
 
 Maine Cent. R. Co. v. Water- 
 ville, etc., Co. (Me.), vol. 
 8, p. 757. 
 State commission cannot com- 
 pel carrier to affix war rev- 
 enue stamp. 
 
 Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 314. 
 The jurisdiction to determine 
 whether there is a statutory 
 right to demand from a rail- 
 way company a facility or 
 privilege belongs exclusively 
 to the railway commissioners. 
 Perth General Station Com- 
 mittee V. Ross (Eng. ), vol. 
 8, p. 639. 
 
 Visitorial power of state as to 
 interstate business. 
 State V. United States Exp. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 19, p. 
 41. 
 
 Way bills as evidence of rea- 
 sonableness of state rates. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Keyes (N. Dak.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 128. 
 
 RAILROAD PAY CHECKS. 
 See Pay Checks. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 539 
 
 RAILROADS. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Annexation, 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Live Stoek. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Corporations. 
 Crossings of Railroads. 
 Foreign Cars. 
 Leases and Running Pow- 
 ers. 
 Mandamus. 
 Negligence. 
 Pacific Railroads. 
 Private Railroads. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Reorganization. 
 Right of Way. 
 Stock and Stockholders. 
 Street Railways. 
 Successors. 
 Taxation. 
 Usury. 
 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 
 Accidents on Track. 
 
 Care required -where railroad 
 
 runs parallel with street 
 
 and is used by public as 
 
 foot way. 
 
 McVey v. Chesapeake & O. 
 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 788. 
 
 Care to ayoid injury to per- 
 
 sonsmust be commensurate 
 
 with danger. 
 
 McVey v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 13, p. 788. 
 Acquirement of railroad fran- 
 chises by natural persons. 
 Parker v. Elmira, C. & N. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 20, p. 
 345. 
 "Change of gauge fixed by char- 
 ter. 
 
 Walker v. City of Denver 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 206. 
 
 Charters. 
 
 Amending without consent 
 of stockholders. 
 Alexander v. Atlanta & W. 
 P. R. Co. (Ga.), vol. IS, 
 p. 337. 
 Charters, construction of. 
 Alexander v. Atlanta & W. 
 P. R. Co. (Ga.), vol. IS, 
 p. 337. 
 Scope of power to amend 
 and repeal charter of. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Smith (U. S.), vol. 
 14, p. 511. 
 
 RAILROADS— Co«i!j««ear. 
 
 "Commencement of operation 
 of roads" where it is sought 
 to enforce forfeiture of land. 
 St. Louis & B. Ry. Co. v. 
 Van Hoorebeke (111.), vol. 
 23, p. 748. 
 Compelling corporate officer to 
 answer interrogatories. 
 Robbins v. Brockton St. Ry. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 483. 
 "Competing" lines defined. 
 East St. Louis Connecting 
 Ry. Co. V. Jarvis (C. C. 
 A.), vol. IS, p. 4S9. 
 
 Consolidation. 
 
 Parallel lines defined. 
 East St. Louis Connecting 
 Ry. Co. V. Jarvis (C. C. 
 A.), vol. IS, p. 459. 
 Consolidation defined, when 
 determining what constitutes 
 competing lines. 
 East St. Louis Connecting 
 Ry. Co. V. Jarvis (C. C. 
 A.), vol. IS, p. 459. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 requiring the payment of 
 excess profits to state. 
 State V. Manchester & L. 
 R. R. (N. H.), vol. 12, 
 p. 874. 
 
 Construction. 
 
 Contract to convey right of 
 way is no defense in action 
 by one of the obligors for 
 injury to abutting property 
 from construction of road. 
 Maysville&B. S. R. Co. v. 
 Ball (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 186. 
 Extraordinary flood need not 
 be provided against for 
 the protection of landown- 
 ers. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Williams (Ind. Ter. ), 
 vol. 19, p. 361. 
 Injunction, the proper remedy 
 where unauthorized con- 
 struction. 
 
 Canastota Knife Co. v. 
 Newington Tramway Co. 
 (Conn.), vol. 7, p. 787. 
 Reasonable discretion may 
 be used in construction of. 
 Morris v. Duluth, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 p. 45. 
 Contracts between railroad cor- 
 porations. ', 
 Union Pac. Ry. Q,o.',"'v. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Cc^U. 
 S.), vol. 6, p. 3. 
 
540 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 RAlLi'ROADS—ConHnuecl. 
 
 Contracts of corporation, expi- 
 ration of corporate existence. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 2. 
 Contract purporting to be a 
 lease, which provided for 
 change of ownership upon 
 the payment of last lease 
 warrant, was in legal effect 
 a sale. 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 
 Railroad Equipment Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 144. 
 Railroad Equipment Co. v. 
 Mercantile Trust Co. (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 22, p. 144. 
 
 'Corporate Existence. 
 Collateral attack. 
 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of 
 Utah V. Oregon S. L,. R. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 22, p. 
 273. 
 Not created by issuance of 
 the secretary of state's 
 certificate of incorporation 
 to purchaser at judicial 
 sale. 
 
 Watson V. Albany & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 19* p. 
 176. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Care to be exercised in cus- 
 tody of hand car. 
 Branch v. International & 
 G. N. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 12, p. 379. 
 
 I/iability for negligence of 
 servant in failing to give 
 crossing signal. 
 State, Cass County, v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. IS, p. 175. 
 Unauthorized use of hand 
 car by servant is not ' 'oper- 
 ation" of the road. 
 Branch v. International & 
 G. N. R. Co. (Tex.), 
 vol. 12, p. 379. 
 Damages for personal injuries 
 as part of cost of mainte- 
 nance. 
 
 I/ouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 16, p. S39. 
 
 Decree cancelling interest of 
 
 railroad to land includes 
 
 right of way. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Le 
 Blanc (Miss.), vol. 12, p. 
 877. 
 
 RAILROADS— Continued. 
 Determination of character of 
 road a question of fact. 
 Prescott V. Riverside, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. S, p. 
 719. 
 Doing of warehouse business is 
 ultra vires. 
 
 State V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (La.), vol. la, p. 762. 
 Duty of purchaser at foreclosure 
 sale to operate branch line. 
 Sherwood v. Atlantic & D. 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. 6_, p. 670. 
 Electric railway a "railroad." 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Anchors (Ala.), vol. 11, p. 
 567. 
 
 Eminent Domain. 
 
 Land acquired for railroad 
 purposes is for a public 
 use. 
 
 Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. 
 Totman (Mo.), vol. 16, 
 p. 695. 
 Maintenance of hotel not a 
 railroad purpose as a mat- 
 ter of law. 
 
 Abraham v. Oregon & C. 
 R. Co. (Ore.), vol. 17, p. 
 250. 
 Trolley line not a railroad 
 use. 
 
 In re Jersey City & B. Ry. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 23, p. 
 281. 
 Equity will not compel minor- 
 ity bondholders to consent 
 to reorganization scheme re- 
 quiring them to scale bonds. 
 Lake St. El. R. Co. v. 
 Ziegler (C. C. A.), vol. 23, 
 p. 1. 
 Ziegler v. Lake St. El. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 23, 
 p. 1. 
 
 Foreign Corporations. 
 
 Adoption of foreign railroad 
 corporation does not de- 
 stroy right of removal of 
 cause on ground of diverse 
 citizenship. 
 Calvert v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 173. 
 Citizenship for purposes of 
 federal jurisdiction where 
 incorporated by two states. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 • Co. V. Louisville Trust 
 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 345. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 541 
 
 B.AILj'ROADS—ConHnued. 
 
 Impairing obligation of con- 
 tract by requiring foreign 
 railroad corporation to be- 
 come resident corporation. 
 Com. V. Mobile & O. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 18S. 
 Forfeiture of franchises. 
 
 Eel River R. Co. v. State, 
 Kistler, Pros. A 1 1 y. 
 (Ind.), vol. 17, p. S9S. 
 
 Frightening Teams. 
 
 Frightening horses by unnec- 
 essary sounding of whistle. 
 Chicago, R. I. & p. Ry. Co. 
 V. Parks (Kan.), vol. 14, 
 p. 808. 
 Grant of special privileges. 
 Kates V. Atlanta B. & C. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 140. 
 Increase of stock. 
 Union Ry. Co. v. Sneed 
 (Tenn.), vol. 13, p. 876. 
 Insolvency. 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. v. 
 Chattanooga, R. & C. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 17, p. 
 548. 
 
 Insolvency, preferential claims. 
 I^atta V. Ivonsdale (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 21, p. 270. 
 
 Interrogatories. 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 17, p. 363. 
 Liability for act of independ- 
 ent contractor. 
 Dublin V. Taylor, B. & H. 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 13; p. 
 461. 
 Liability for injury to specta- 
 tor by explosion of oil tank 
 in train yard. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. V. Ballentine (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 14, p. 831. 
 Liability of purchaser on ac- 
 count of obligations of prede- 
 cessor. 
 
 Sherwood v. Atlantic & D. 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. 6, p. 670. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Care required in "kicking" 
 cars. 
 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & C. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 18, p. 340. 
 Care required of towards 
 employees. 
 
 McGeary v. Old Colony 
 
 R. (R. L), vol. 14, p. 764. 
 
 Hand cars included in stat- 
 
 'RAH.nOADS— Continued. 
 
 utory provision as to 
 "cars." 
 
 Benson v. Chicago, St. P., 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. 
 (Minn.), vol. 12, p. 797. 
 Liability for wages of labor- 
 ers of subcontractors. 
 George v. Washington 
 Couhty R. Co. (Me.), 
 vol. 15, p. 850. 
 Mortgages. 
 
 Power to mortgage after-ac- 
 quired property. 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. 
 V. Chattanooga, R. & C. 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 17, p. 548. 
 Railway mortgage covering 
 proposed extension of road. 
 Hinchman v. Point Defi- 
 ance R. Co. (Wash.), vol. 
 4, p. 265. 
 Notice to common officer. 
 
 Harding v. Lynn & B. R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 12, p. 865. 
 Officers owning substantially 
 all the stock cannot appro- 
 priate corporate property. 
 Saranac & L. P. R. Co. v. 
 Arnold (K. Y.), vol. 22, p. 
 480. 
 Parties, railroad as a party. 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 10, p. 
 306. 
 Personal ignorance of officer no 
 defense where corporation 
 fails to answer interrogato- 
 ries. 
 
 Robbins v. Brockton St. Ry. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 483. 
 Persons who dedicated lands 
 to public use as a highway 
 may, in such dedication, 
 reserve to himself and his as- 
 signs the right to construct 
 and operate a railroad 
 therein. When such reserva- 
 tion is made, the public takes 
 the highway cum onere. 
 Fallon V. Mayo, etc., of City 
 of Hoboken (N. J.), vol. 
 7, p. 545. 
 Power of railroad corporation. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 3. 
 Power of railroad to grant use 
 of tracks or bridges to other 
 railroads. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S. ), 
 vol. 6, p. 2. 
 
542 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 RAILROADS— Continued. 
 Power to guaranty bonds. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Louisville Trust Co. 
 
 (TJ. S.), vol. IS, p. 34S. 
 Presumption that same rights 
 acquired by contract as if 
 land had been secured by 
 eminent domain. • 
 St. Louis & B. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Van Hoorebeke (111.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 748. 
 Railroads as public agencies. 
 St. Louis, K. & S. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Nyce (Kan.), vol. 
 
 16, p. 798. 
 Railroad company had power to 
 issue lease warrants where 
 deferred payment for equip- 
 ment under Rev. St. Ohio, 
 sec. 3287. 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 
 
 Railroad Equipment Co. (C. 
 
 C. A.), vol. 22, p. 144. 
 Railroad Equipment Co. v. 
 
 Mercantile Trust Co. (C. 
 
 C. A.), vol. 22, p. 144. 
 Railroad company owning land 
 near city not a ' 'resident 
 freeholder" having right to 
 appeal where annexation of 
 such property to city. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. City of Indianap- 
 olis (Ind.), vol. 11, p. 689. 
 Railroad is a person within the 
 meaning of the fourteenth 
 amendment of the constitu- 
 tion of the United States. 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v. 
 
 Ames (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 1. 
 Railroad served as corporation 
 and failing to file plea of nul 
 tiel corporation is estopped 
 to deny that it is a corpora- 
 tion. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Glenny (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 839. 
 
 Receivers. 
 
 Acts of receiver or of his em- 
 ployees not chargeable to 
 company. 
 Louisville Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Tucker (Ky.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 806. 
 Order requiring assumption 
 by company of debts of its 
 receiver. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burris (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 912. 
 
 "RAIUROAHS— Continued. 
 Reorganization. 
 
 Validity of stock and bonds 
 issued, in good faith, in 
 exchange, to effect reor- 
 ganization. 
 
 Sioux City, O. & W. Ry. 
 Co. V. Manhattan Trust 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. IS, 
 p. 430. 
 Residence of railroad corpora- 
 tion under Code of Connecti- 
 cut. 
 
 Eichhorn v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 941. 
 Residence of railroad under 
 Kansas statute relating to 
 the establisHment of high- 
 ways. 
 
 State V. Bogardus (Kan.), 
 vol. 22, p. 142. 
 Right of street railway to build 
 overhead bridge, over right 
 of way of railroad company. 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Harrisburg & M. Electric 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 6, p. 
 ISl. 
 Right of street railway to cross 
 railroads. 
 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Harrisburg & M. Electric 
 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 151. 
 
 Right to cross track of another 
 
 compan}'. 
 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Harrisburg & M. Electric 
 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 151. 
 
 Right to take out warehouse 
 
 licenses. 
 
 State V. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 18, p. 762. 
 Salaries of officers. 
 St. Louis, A. & S. R. Co. v. 
 O'Hara (111.), vol. 14, p. 
 817. 
 Subscription to stock of another 
 corporation. 
 
 Military Ass'n of Savannah 
 V. Savannah T. & I. of 
 H. Ry. (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 
 824. 
 Taxation. 
 Exemptions. 
 Expropriation of railway 
 property. 
 
 Kaunas City, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Vicksburg, etc., R. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 
 212. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 543 
 
 HAJL^'ROA'DS—Coniinued. 
 
 Valuation of intangible prop- 
 erty for taxation. 
 Weir V. Norrpan (U. S.), 
 vol. 13, p. 861. 
 Tracks do not pass with land 
 sold at sale for taxes due by 
 owner of land. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. w. Le 
 Blanc (Miss.), vol. 12, p. 
 877. 
 Traffic agreement as formation 
 of new line. 
 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 17, p. 363. 
 Whether a street railway is a 
 commercial railroad. 
 Fidelity Loan & Trust Co. v. 
 Douglas (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 
 713. 
 Whether "railroad" includes 
 street railway. 
 
 Massachusetts L. & T. Co. v. 
 Hamilton (C. C. A.), vol. 
 11, p. 771. 
 Who is "owner." 
 State, Cass County, v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. IS, p. 175. 
 
 BAILROADS IN STREETS. 
 See Bridges. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Crossings of Railroads. 
 Mandatnus. 
 Ordinances. 
 Right of Way. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Abutters. 
 
 Abutter's right to compensa- 
 tion for private nuisance. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 First M. E. Church of 
 Leavenworth (C. Q. A.), 
 vol. 19, p. 538. 
 Compensation to abutter for 
 injuries from change of 
 street grade, statute. 
 In re Grade Crossing 
 Com'rs of City of Buffalo 
 (N. Y.), vol. 21, p, 746. 
 Construction and operation 
 of duly authorized side 
 track in street will not be 
 enjoined at instance of 
 abutting private owner. 
 Burrus v. City of Columbus 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 869. 
 Deprivation of lateral sup- 
 port, liability of company. 
 Mosier v. Oregon R. & Nav. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 21, p. 508. 
 Liability for injury to prop- 
 erty caused by obstructing 
 
 RAILROADS IN STREETS— 
 Continued. 
 
 railroad embankment. 
 Dairy v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 743. 
 Liability to abutting owner. 
 Guinn v. Ohio River R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 437. 
 Personal annoyance to abut- 
 ting owner. 
 
 Louisville Southern R. Co. 
 V. Hooe (Ky. ), vol. 14, 
 p. 808. 
 Whether owner entitled to 
 compensation for injuries 
 to nonabutting propertj' 
 from change of grade. 
 In re Grade Crossing Com'rs 
 of City of Buffalo (N. 
 Y.), vol. 21, p. 746. 
 Acceptance of dedication of 
 street. 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Gordon, Mayor (Mo.), vol. 
 19, p. 561. 
 A city cannot compel the re- 
 moval of all railroad tracks 
 from the public streets simply 
 because those who live 
 near the tracks are disturbed 
 by those annoyances inci- 
 dent to the operation of all 
 railroads. 
 
 City of Chicago v. Union 
 
 Stock Yard & Transit Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 490. 
 
 A corporation organized under 
 
 the general railroad law has 
 
 not, ordinarily, the right to 
 
 occupy highways of this 
 
 state longitudinally with its 
 
 railway. 
 
 Tallon V. Mayor, etc., of 
 City of Hoboken (N. J.), 
 vol. 7, p. 545. 
 Adverse possession of platted 
 street. 
 
 St. Paul & D. R. Co. V. City 
 of Duluth (Minn.), vol. 13, 
 p. 855. 
 Authority of police jury to 
 grant right to construct rail- 
 waj' over and through public 
 roads under laws of Louis- 
 iana. 
 
 Farmer v. Myles (La.), vol. 
 23, p. 732. 
 Authority of trial court to con- 
 tinue an encroachment in 
 highway, amounting to a 
 public nuisance. 
 People V. Northern Cent. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Y.),"vol. 21, p. 
 192. 
 
544 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 RAILROADS IN STREBTS- 
 Continued. 
 Authority to change course of 
 highway or to condemn land 
 for such purpose, New York 
 statute. 
 
 People V. Northern Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 192. 
 Authority to occupy streets. 
 Thompson v. Ocean City 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 
 779. 
 Backing train across street 
 without looking is negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. ». 
 
 Foxworth (Fla.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 469. 
 
 Backing train through city, 
 
 negligence and contributory 
 
 negligence. 
 
 Lanapkin v. McCormick 
 (Iva.), vol. 21, p. 713. 
 Care to be exercised by. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P, R. Co. v. 
 Foxworth (Fla. ), vol. 13, 
 p. 469. 
 
 Children. 
 
 Injury to child through vio- 
 lation of ordinance limit- 
 ing speed. 
 
 Graney v. St. Louis, I. M. 
 & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 8, p. 187. 
 Liability for injury to boy 
 playing on cross-ties piled 
 in public street. 
 Kramer v. Southern R3'. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 329. 
 Collision between train back- 
 ing through city and another 
 train, negligence and con- 
 triutory negligence. 
 L a m p k i n v. McCormick 
 (La.), vol. 21, p. 714. 
 
 Compliance with municipal 
 regulations on the subject of 
 blasting will not relieve from 
 liability for negligence in 
 blasting. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Bernstein (Ga. ), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 952. 
 
 Conditions. 
 
 A condition, inserted in the 
 ordinance of a city council 
 permitting a railway com- 
 pany to construct and 
 operate a track on certain 
 streets, that the privileges 
 granted by such ordinance 
 should be forfeited if such 
 
 RAILROADS IN STREETS— 
 Continued. 
 
 company did not extend its 
 line to certain points be- 
 yond the city limits, is 
 void. The city may pre- 
 scribe lawful and proper 
 terms, but such a condition 
 is not within its authority. 
 Galveston & W. R. Co. v. 
 City of Galveston (Tex.), 
 vol. 7, p. 72.^ 
 Illegal conditions attached to 
 grant of consent by munic- 
 ipality. 
 
 Galveston & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 City of Galveston (Tex.), 
 vol. 7, p. 779. 
 Municipal authority to impose 
 conditions. 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Hood (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. IS, p. 648. 
 
 Consent of municipality to 
 
 occupation of street cannot be 
 
 basis of second application. 
 
 State V. City of Atlantic 
 
 City (N. J.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 Consent to occupation of street 
 by street railway. 
 Berkeley v. C. & O. Ry. Co. 
 
 (W. Va.), vol. 8, p. 757. 
 State V. City of Atlantic 
 
 City (N. J.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 958. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 A person walking on a rail- 
 road track in a street, saw 
 an engine approaching, 
 and stepped off that track 
 upon another, not stopping 
 in the space intervening 
 between the two tracks: 
 Held, he was guilty of con- 
 tributory negligence if he 
 would have been safe in the 
 intervening space. 
 Mcllhaney v. Southern R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 693. 
 Care to be exercised by a 
 person who crosses track. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Cody 
 
 (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 479. 
 Effect of contributory negli- 
 gence in having defective 
 brake on wagon in action 
 for personal injuries caused 
 by unguarded street railway 
 embankment in highway. 
 Nosier v. Coos Bay, etc., 
 
 R. & Nav. Co. (Ore.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 719. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 545 
 
 RAILROADS IN STREBTS- 
 Continued. 
 
 Injury to pedestrian, in- 
 struction as to contribu- 
 tory negligence. 
 Mcllhaney v. Southern R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 11, p. 
 100. 
 Crossings. 
 
 An ordinance against the 
 crossing by railroad trains 
 of certain streets in a city 
 before coining to a full stop 
 is not on its face unreason- 
 able. 
 City of Buffalo v. New 
 
 York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 7, p. 503. 
 Care required of both railroad 
 and pedestrian. 
 Berkeley v. C. & O. Ry. 
 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 758. 
 Liouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Cummins (Ky. ), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 774. 
 Care required of railroad at 
 street crossing. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Cummins (Ky.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 774. 
 Obstruction of crossing. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cross (Kan. ), vol. 8, p. 757. 
 Right of railroad company to 
 answer petition of grade 
 crossing commissioners to 
 determine the compensa- 
 tion to be paid owners of 
 lands injured by a change 
 of street grade ?o as to 
 make it possible to cross 
 by a viaduct instead of at 
 grade. 
 In re Grade Crossing 
 
 Com'rs of City of Buffalo 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 746. 
 Right to cross tracks. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Foxworth (Fla.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 469. 
 Sufficiency of petition for ap- 
 pointment of grade crossing 
 commissioners. 
 In re Grade Crossing 
 
 Com'rs of City of Buffalo 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 746. 
 Validity of ordinance requir- 
 ing a change of grade which 
 would render the tracks 
 useless. 
 City of Owensboro v. 
 
 Owensboro & N. R. Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 8, p. ISS. 
 
 ID— 3£ 
 
 RAILROADS IN STREETS— 
 Continued. 
 
 Whether street crossing exists 
 where one street terminates 
 at point of intersection. 
 Schneider v. Market St 
 
 Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 692. ' ^ 
 
 Damages. 
 Benefits. 
 Guinn v. Ohio River R. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 
 437. ^ 
 
 Damages for injury to prop- 
 erty abutting on alley 
 caused by operation of 
 railroad. 
 
 Kishlar v. Southern Pac. R. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 948. 
 Damages to abutting property 
 a question for jury. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Moats (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 645. ^ 
 
 . Damages where a switch is 
 built upon a curve and runs 
 so close to the side of the 
 street upon which the plain- 
 tiff resides that a team 
 cannot stand there clear of 
 the track., 
 
 Patton V. Olympia Door & 
 Lumber Co. (Wash.), vol. 
 5, p. 13. 
 Elements of damage for in- 
 jury to adjacent property. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 
 641. 
 Measure of damages in action 
 for injury to property. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Lersch (Ohio), vol. 14, p. 
 835. 
 Guinn v. Ohio River R. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 
 437. 
 Dedication, a person who dedi- 
 cates land to public use as a 
 highway may, in such dedica- 
 tion, reserve to himself and 
 his assigns the right to con- 
 struct and operate a railroad 
 therein. When such reserva- 
 tion is made, the public takes 
 the highway cum onere. 
 Tallon V. Mayor, etc., of City 
 of Hoboken (N. J.), vol. 
 7, p. 545. 
 Dedication of street shown by 
 plat of railroad land. 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Gordon, Mayor (Mo.), vol. 
 19, p. 561. 
 
546 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 RAILROADS IN STREETS— 
 Continued. 
 Direction of verdict in proceed- 
 ing to compel restoration of 
 highway. 
 
 People V. Northern Cent. Ry. 
 ■ Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 192. 
 Duty of railroad to restore 
 highway, statute. 
 Bush V. Delaware, L. & W. 
 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 516. 
 Duty of the company towards 
 travelers. 
 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. v. "Wil- 
 liams (Fla.), vol. S, p. 719. 
 Evidence to show location of 
 highway in action for per- 
 sonal injuries caused by unau- 
 thorized excavation made by 
 street railwa3' company. 
 Nosier v. Coos Bay, etc., R. 
 
 & Nav. Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 719. 
 Exclusive right \o operate sub- 
 ordinate to prior right of 
 another railroad to allow 
 switch connections for deliv- 
 ering and receiving freight. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 688. 
 Failure to prosecute others as 
 a defense where action is 
 brought to recover penalty. 
 City of Buffalo v. New Yotk, 
 
 L. E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 503. 
 Frightening teams, where in- 
 jury is caused by horse being 
 frightened by train which was 
 being operated in daytime in 
 violation of ordinance, such 
 violation was the proximate 
 cause of the injury. 
 Pittsburg, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Hood (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 648. 
 Injunctions. 
 
 Burrus v. City of Columbus 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 869. 
 Joint liability of railroads for 
 personal injuries, sufBciency 
 of evidence. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Davis (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 710. 
 Lessor's liability for lessee's 
 negligence in allowing ob- 
 struction in street in viola- 
 tion of contract. 
 Anderson v. Union Terminal 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 834. 
 
 RAILROADS IN STREETS— 
 Continued. 
 Liability for injury caused by 
 throwing article from moving 
 train, a question for jury. 
 Fletcher v. Baltimore & P. 
 
 R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 229. 
 Liability for injury to pedes- 
 trian resulting from striking- 
 bolts from rails. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Bercaw (Ky. ), vol. 23, p. 
 
 952. 
 Liability for obstructing 
 platted but unopened street 
 by fencing track. 
 Marengo v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 660. 
 Liability of lessee company for 
 injury caused by construc- 
 tion. 
 Guinn v. Ohio River R. Co. 
 
 (VT. Va.), vol. 13, p. 437. 
 Liability of lumber company 
 where a switch is constructed 
 by the company to its mill 
 where it does not operate 
 the cars. 
 Patton V. Olympia Door & 
 
 Lumber Co. (Wash.), vol. 
 
 5, p. 13. 
 Liability of railroad, occupy -- 
 ing street without authority 
 for personal injuries. 
 Pittsburg, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Hood (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 15, p. 648. 
 
 Mandamus proper remedy to 
 
 compel railroad to restore 
 
 highway to former condition. 
 
 People V. Northern Cent. Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 192. 
 Mandamus to compel construc- 
 tion of bridge over street. 
 Williams, State's Atty., v. 
 
 New York, 2SI. H. & H. R. 
 
 Co. (Conn.), vol. 12, p. 860. 
 Mandamus to railroad to com- 
 pel removal of obstruction, 
 suflSciency of a&davit under 
 New York statute. 
 People V. Northern Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 192. 
 Municipal authorities estopped 
 by acquiescence and affirma- 
 tive acts from denying right 
 of company to maintain its 
 track in streets. 
 City of Chicago v. Union 
 
 Stock Yard & Transit Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 490. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 547 
 
 HAILROADS IN STRBBTS- 
 Continued. 
 
 Municipal consent to railroads 
 in streets, ratification. 
 City of Owensboro v. Owens- 
 
 boro & N. R. Co. (Ky. ), 
 
 vol. 8, p. ISS. 
 Municipal police provision 
 binding' on. 
 Pittsburg, C. & St. L,. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Hood (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 648. 
 negligence in running car 
 through city with iron pro- 
 jecting. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Davis (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 711. 
 ^Notice to highviray commis- 
 sioner of intention to make 
 change in crossing as a con- 
 dition precedent to right to 
 make alteration under New 
 York statute. 
 People V. Northern Cent. Ry. 
 
 Co. CN. Y.), vol. 21, p. 192. 
 
 Open spaces between railroad 
 
 tracks in unimproved street 
 
 as public places. 
 
 L a m p k i n v. McCormick 
 
 (La.), vol. 21, p. 713. 
 Ordinance construed to permit 
 only the operation of street 
 railways and not to authorize 
 the operation of an ordinary 
 railroad in streets. 
 Tallon V. Mayor, etc.,of Citv 
 
 of Hoboken (N. J.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 545. 
 Ordinance limiting speed. 
 Graney v. St. Louis, I. M. & 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 187. 
 Washington Southern R. Co. 
 
 V. Lacey (Va.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 782. 
 Parties in mandamus proceed- 
 ings to compel lessee of rail- 
 road to remove obstructions. 
 People V. Northern Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 192. 
 Places where railroad may 
 fence platted but unopened 
 street. 
 Marengo v. Great Northern 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 660. 
 Pleading, in action to recover 
 for injury to property from. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Moats (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 64S. 
 
 RAILROADS IN STREBTS— 
 Continued. 
 
 Power of council to change 
 street grade. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. City of 
 
 Defiance (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 638. 
 
 Power to permit construction 
 and operation of railroad 
 upon streets. 
 Tallon V. Mayor, etc., of City 
 
 of Hoboken (N. J.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 54^. 
 Presumption as to rights of 
 public and company. 
 Smith V. Pittsburgh & W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ohio), vol. 13, p. 
 , 716. 
 Projection from car running 
 through city, negligence. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v, 
 
 Davis (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 710. 
 Railroad's use of its tracks in 
 connection with stock yards, 
 thereby creating a serious 
 nuisance in streets of city, 
 does not justify the destruc- 
 tion of its tracks bj- city au- 
 thorities. 
 City of Chicago v. Union 
 
 Stock Yard & Transit Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 7, p., 90. 
 Recovery at common law for 
 injuries caused by piling 
 cinders in street near track 
 where violation of ordinance 
 was also pleaded. 
 Anderson v. Union Terminal 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 835. 
 Recovery over by city where 
 railroad joined in defense in 
 action for obstruction of 
 street by railroad. 
 City of Raleigh v. N. Car. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 953. 
 Right of appeal from determi- 
 nation of common council as 
 to necessity of laying out 
 street over railroad track. 
 In re City of Buffalo (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 502. 
 Right to amend answer to 
 show that excavation in 
 highway causing injury was 
 made by contractor. 
 Nosier K. Coos Bay, etc., R. 
 
 & Nav. Co. (Ore.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 719. 
 
548 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 BAILROADS IN STREETS— RAILROADS IN STREETS— 
 Continued. Continued. 
 
 Right to erect station and water 
 tank or hydrant not included 
 in right to operate and main- 
 tain railroad. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 First M. E. Church of 
 
 Leavenworth (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 19, p. 538. 
 Right to injunction to prevent 
 laying, track in street as 
 affected by completion of 
 track on Sunday, before 
 service of writ. 
 McHugh V. Louisville Bridge 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 946. 
 Speed as negligence. 
 Sundmaker v. Yazoo & M. 
 
 Val. R. Co. (La.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 496. 
 Speed in excess of ordinance. 
 Washington Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Lacey (Va. ), vol. 
 
 6, p. 782. 
 Speed in excess of ordinance is 
 negligence prima facie. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Winters (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 93. 
 Stations and hydrant in prox- 
 imity to church, as nuisances. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 First M. E. Church of 
 
 Leavenworth (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 19, p. S38. 
 SufBciency of complaint in 
 action for injury caused by 
 collision with hand car. 
 Reynolds v. Mink (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 23, p. 924. 
 SufBciency of evidence that 
 speed of train colliding with 
 street car was excessive. 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mochell (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 927. 
 Use of tracks in violation of 
 police provision constitutes 
 a nuisance. 
 Pittsburg, T. C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Hood (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 648. 
 
 Where one is injured by the 
 breaking of a wire cable. 
 Musser v. Lancaster City St. 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. S, p. 
 719. 
 Whether high rate of speed 
 within town constitutes neg- 
 ligence is a question for the 
 jury. 
 
 Risinger v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 517. 
 
 Whether ordinance regulating 
 the running of trains was ap- 
 plicable to switch yards. 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Peterson (Ind. ), vol. 20, p. 
 
 887. 
 Whether speed within city 
 limits may be negligence in 
 absence of municipal regula- 
 tion or statute. 
 Sundmaker v. Yazoo & M. 
 
 Val. R. Co. (La.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 496. 
 Whether speed within city 
 limits was negligence, a ques- 
 tion of fact. 
 Sundmaker v. Yazoo & M. 
 
 Val. R. Co. (La.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 496. 
 Whether the exemption of a 
 belt line from the operation 
 of an ordinance restricting 
 speed of railroad trains, 
 renders ordinance illegal. 
 City of Buffalo v. New York, 
 
 L. E. &W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 7, p. 503. 
 
 RAILROAD YARDS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Fences. 
 
 RATES. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 Interstate Commerce Com,- 
 
 mission. 
 Railroad Commissioners. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 Answer alleging insufBciency 
 of statutory rates. 
 Missouri Pacific Railway Co. 
 V. Smith (Ark.), vol. 2, 
 p. 89. 
 "Anti-trust law." 
 Mannheim Ins. Co. v. Erie 
 & W. Transp. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 13, p. 161. 
 Computation of earnings in 
 fixing rates. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 
 Co. V. Tompkins (S. 
 Dak.), vol. 12, p. 70. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 Act conferring power on rail- 
 road commission to require 
 making of joint rates is 
 constitutional. 
 Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. 
 
 & P. R. Co. (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 228. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 549 
 
 B.AT'ES—Coniinued. 
 
 Constitutionality of legisla- 
 tive acts. 
 
 Missouri Pacific Railway 
 Co. V. Smith (Ark.), 
 vol. 2, p. 89. 
 Nebraska act of 1893 govern- 
 ing the rates to be charged 
 by railroad held unconsti- 
 tutional. 
 
 Smyth, Atty. Gen., ». 
 Ames (U. S. ),vol. 10, p. 1. 
 The law of Iowa providing 
 for the punishment of com- 
 mon carriers for fixing dis- 
 criminating rates is con- 
 stitutional. 
 
 Blair v. Sioux City & P. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 10, p. 306. 
 Enjoining state oflScers in a 
 United States court from 
 enforcing certain rates. 
 Smyth, Atty. Gen., v. Ames 
 (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 1. 
 Federal jurisdiction where rates 
 fixed by state. 
 
 Trammell zi. Diusmore (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 19, p. 469. 
 T'ixing schedule of, reasonable- 
 ness. 
 
 Mannheim Ins. Co. v. Erie 
 
 & W. Transp. Co. (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 161. 
 
 Indebtedness of carrier as 
 
 affecting power of state to 
 
 fix rates. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 
 Co. V. Tompkins (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 12, p. 70. 
 In fixing rates for the carriage 
 of passengers, the railroad 
 commission under act No. 90 
 of the public acts of Michi- 
 gan, may consider the amount 
 of interstate fares earned by 
 that portion of road lying 
 within state. 
 
 Osborne, Com'r, v. Wabash 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 
 S69. 
 Interstate commerce act, when 
 controlling. 
 
 Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 Home (Tenn.), vol. 19, p. 
 S09. 
 Justice of the peace, in the 
 absence of legislative enact- 
 ment a justice of the peace 
 has no authority to determine 
 the rate of freight charges 
 of a railroad corporation. 
 Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. 
 V. Pinnacle Coal Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 10, p. 358. 
 
 RAVES— ConHnued. 
 Power of municipality to bar- 
 gain for rates in considera- 
 tion of right of way. 
 City of So. Pasadena v. Los 
 Angeles T. R. Co. (Cal.), 
 vol. 2, p. 166. 
 
 Power of state to fix rates. 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Tompkins (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 12, p. 70. 
 
 Power of state to fix rates for 
 express companies as to in- 
 terstate business. 
 Trammell v. Dinsmore (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 19, p. 469. 
 Power of state to regulate rates 
 for railroad passing through 
 another state. 
 
 Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. 
 Board of Railroad Com'rs 
 (Ark.), vol. 21, p. 178. 
 "Province of court. 
 
 Trammell v. Dinsmore (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 19, p. 469. 
 
 , Reasonableness of rates fixed 
 by state. 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Tompkins (S. Dak.), 
 
 vol. 12, p. 70. 
 Recovery of overcharges. 
 
 Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Pinnacle Coal Co. (W. 
 
 Va.), vol. 10, p. 358. 
 Regulation of rates by legis- 
 lature. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Gill (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 63. 
 State cannot require railroad 
 to be operated without profit 
 within its limits, merely upon 
 the ground that the company 
 earns sufficient on its inter- 
 state business to give it just 
 compensation in respect of 
 its entire line. 
 Smith, Atty. Gen., v. Ames 
 
 (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 1. 
 Statute imposing fine on rail- 
 roads for charging excessive 
 rates. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Commonwealth (Ky. ), vol. 
 
 4, p. 193. 
 The basis of all calculations as 
 to reasonableness of rates to 
 be charged by a railroad com- 
 pany must be a fair value of 
 the property used by it for 
 the convenience of the public* 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v. 
 
 Ames (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 1. 
 
550 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 RATES— Continued. 
 
 Validity of agreement for rates 
 on interstate shipment less 
 than published rates. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Harri- 
 son (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 270. 
 Validity of agreement for spec- 
 ial rate on interstate ship- 
 ments. 
 
 Kizer v. Texarkana & Ft. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. 13, 
 p. 288. 
 
 RATIFICATION. 
 See Contracts. 
 
 Malicious Prosecution. 
 REAL ESTATE.. 
 
 See Adverse Possession. 
 Deeds. 
 
 Public Lands. 
 Right of Way. 
 
 Ejectment will not lie where 
 estate is for an indefinite 
 period. 
 
 King V. Norfolk & W. Ry. 
 Co. (Va.), vol. 23, p. 701. 
 Measure of damages for in- 
 jury to leasehold estate. 
 Kishlar v. Southern Pac. R. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 948. 
 
 REBATES. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight, 
 
 RECEIVERS. 
 
 See Burden of Proof. 
 Cattle Guards. 
 Foreign Receivers. 
 Leases. 
 Removal of Cause. 
 
 Actions against federal re- 
 ceivers. 
 
 Stoltz V. Milwaukee & L. W. 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. IS, p. 
 820. 
 Actions against, parties. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Smith 
 (Kan.), vol. 11, p. 709. 
 Action against receiver, under 
 federal statute, without leave 
 of court. 
 
 Ivouisville Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Tucker (Ky. ), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 80S. 
 
 Action for injury to employees 
 
 necessary to prove that train 
 
 was operated by employees 
 
 of receiver. 
 
 Walker v. Gillett (Kan.), 
 vol. 10, p. 140. 
 Action for personal injuries 
 may be brought against com- 
 pany as well as receivers to 
 
 RECEIVERS— Continued. 
 
 establish liability, but where 
 receivers have sole control 
 they alone are liable. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Smith 
 (Kan.), vol. 11, p. 709. 
 Action for personal injuries oc- 
 curring during receivership. 
 Thompson v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 13, 
 p. 6S1. 
 Action in state court against 
 federal receivers without ob- 
 taining leave of appointing 
 court. 
 
 Malott V. Shimer (Ind.), vol. 
 IS, p. 774. 
 Acts of, not chargeable t& 
 company. . 
 
 Louisville Southern Ry. Co. 
 V. Tucker (Ky.), vol. 12, 
 p. 806. 
 Adoption of contract of com- 
 pany. 
 
 Spencer v. Brooks (Ga. ), vol. 
 S, p. 202. 
 Allegation of receivership irt 
 action for injuries. 
 Vasele v. Grant St. Electria 
 Railway Co. (Wash.), vol. 
 9, p. 75. 
 Allowance of interest. 
 New England R. Co. v. Car- 
 negie Steel Co., Limited 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 5, p. 194. 
 Appeal by from order of court 
 fixing wages of employees. 
 Guarantee Trust & Safe- 
 Deposit Co. V. Philadelphia, 
 R. & N. E. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 vol. 12, p. 872. 
 
 Appointment. 
 
 Grant v. Los Angeles, etc.,. 
 Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 
 779. 
 
 New England R. Co., v. 
 Carnegie Steel Co., Lim- 
 ited (C. C. A.), vol. S, p. 
 193. 
 At instance of mortgagee. 
 
 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. 
 v. Chattanooga, R. & C. 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 17, p. S48. 
 Federal jurisdiction. 
 
 International Trust Co. v. 
 T. B. Townsend Brick & 
 Contracting Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. IS, p. 310. 
 In ex parte proceedings. 
 
 St. Louis, K. & S. R. 
 Co. V. Wear, Judge 
 (Mo.), vol. 4, p. S83. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 S51 
 
 'REOEIV'ElB.a—Coniinued. 
 
 Intervening creditor cannot 
 raise question that plaintiff 
 seeking appointment of 
 receiver for railroad is not 
 judgment creditor. 
 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. 
 Central Vt. R. Co. (Vt.), 
 vol. 11, p. 693. 
 Power of judge to appoint 
 receiver outside of county 
 in which cause is pending. 
 St. Louis, K. & S. R. Co. 
 V. Wear (Mo.), vol. 4, p. 
 S83. 
 Railroad cannot object to 
 appointment of, on ground 
 that plaintiff is not judg- 
 ment creditor. , 
 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. 
 Central Vt. R. Co. (Vt.), 
 vol. 11, p. 693. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 appointment. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 429. 
 Where franchises have been 
 forfeited. 
 
 Eel River R. Co. v. State, 
 K i s 1 1 e r, Pros. Atty. 
 (Ind.), vol. 17, p. 595. 
 Authority to lease cars. 
 Mercantile Trust & Deposit 
 Co. V. Atlanta Stone, Coal 
 & Lumber Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 8, p. 102. 
 Mercantile Trust & Deposit 
 Co. V. Southern Iron Car 
 Line Co. (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 
 102. 
 Burden of proof in an action 
 against receivers for injury 
 to servant. 
 
 Robinson v. Huidekoper 
 (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 216. 
 
 Car Trust Leases. 
 
 Lessor entitled to reasonable 
 compensation for use of 
 stock by receiver of com- 
 pany. 
 
 Piatt V. Philadelphia & 
 R. R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 169. 
 Receiver's assumption of obli- 
 gation by using leased roll- 
 ing stock. 
 
 Piatt V. Philadelphia & R. 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 169. 
 
 Claims against, for work and 
 
 material furnished prior to 
 
 n'EO'EIVERB— Continued. ' 
 receivership. 
 
 International Trust Co. v. 
 T. B. Townsend Brick & 
 Contracting Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. IS, p. 310. 
 Claims against, for work and 
 material furnished prior to 
 receivership do not constitute 
 equitable charge on corpus 
 superior to pre-existing mort- 
 gage where current income 
 has not been diverted. 
 International Trust Co. v. T. 
 B. Townsend Brick & Con- 
 tracting Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 15, p. 310. 
 Comity as to authority of 
 receiver of foreign state. 
 Guarantee Trust & Safe De- 
 posit Co. V. Philadelphia R. 
 & N. E. R. Co. (Conn.), 
 vol. 12, p. 872. 
 
 Compensation. 
 
 Compensation allowed by 
 trial court will not be dis- 
 turbed where no injustice 
 appears. 
 
 Northern Alabama Ry. Co. 
 V. Hopkins (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 11, p. 695. 
 Where appointment by un- 
 authorized order. 
 St. Louis, K. & S. R. Co. 
 V. Wear (Mo.), vol. 4, 
 p. 623. 
 Consent of court to bringing 
 of action against must be 
 obtained. 
 
 Smith V. St. Louis & S. F. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 14, p. 
 609. 
 Construction of contract of. 
 South Carolina & G. R. 
 Co. V. Carolina, C. G. & C. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 15, p. 212. 
 Cost of appeal. 
 
 New England R. Co. v. Car- 
 - negie Steel Co., Limited 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol.-S, p. 194. 
 Delay by creditor in making 
 application for payment of 
 claim due. 
 
 New England R. Co. v. Car- 
 negie Steel Co., Limited 
 (C. C. A.), vol. S, p. 193. 
 Effect of sale of property by 
 receiver upon stockholders 
 rights. . 
 
 Davis V. San Antonio & G. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. IS, 
 p. 449. 
 
553 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 RECEIVERS— Continued. 
 Equitable claims. 
 
 Louisville & N. E. Co. v. 
 Central Trust Co. of New 
 York (C. C. A.), vol. 14, p. 
 820. 
 Expenses. 
 Estoppel of bondholders to 
 complain of personal ex- 
 penses incurred at their 
 instance. 
 
 Northern Alabama Ry. Co. 
 V. Hopkins (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 11, p. 69S. 
 Liability for compensation 
 to president for aid fur- 
 nished. 
 
 Joost V. Bennett (Cal. ), 
 vol. IS,, p. 252. 
 Liability for operating ex- 
 penses. 
 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. 
 V. Carolina, C. G. & C. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 IS, p. 212. 
 Payment of expenses. 
 New England R. Co. v. Car- 
 negie Steel Co., Limited 
 (C. C. A.), vol. S, p. 
 194. 
 Purchasers of road at fore- 
 closure sale not entitled to 
 complain of allowance of 
 personal expenses of re- 
 ceivers. 
 
 Northern Ala. Ry. Co. v. 
 Hopkins (C. C. A.), vol. 
 11, p. 695. 
 Travelling expenses. 
 
 Northern Ala. Ry. Co. v. 
 Hopkins (C. C. A.), vol. 
 11, p. 695. 
 Whether order fixing com- 
 pensation is appealable. 
 Grant ii. Los Angeles, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 7, 
 p. 780. 
 Filing of claims against insol- 
 vent. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Carnegie 
 Steel Co., Limited (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 6, p. 420. 
 Indemnity clause in operating 
 agreement construed. 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. 
 V. Carolina, C. G. & C. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 IS, p. 212. 
 Joint judgment against re- 
 ceivers and company where 
 receivers are in sole control 
 is erroneous. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Smith 
 (Kan.), vol. 11, p. 709. 
 
 RECEIVERS— Cbw/zrea^cf. 
 
 Judgments, payments. 
 Dillon V. Oregon, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Ore.), vol. 5, p. 713. 
 Lease. 
 Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. 
 Chester & L. Narrow-Gauge 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. S, p. 
 214. 
 Liability after discharge for 
 prior injuries. 
 
 Archambeau v. Piatt (Mass.), 
 vol. 15, p. 249. 
 Liability for failure to main- 
 tain cattle guards. 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Glover (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 
 708. . 
 Liability of company in hands 
 of receiver, but controlled by 
 its own officers and employees, 
 for personal injuries. 
 Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. 
 Jones (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 390. 
 Liability of company for per- 
 sonal injury occurring dur- 
 ing receivership adverse as to 
 company. 
 
 Archambeau v. New York & 
 N. E. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 
 11, p. 706. 
 Liability of former receivers 
 for taxes. 
 
 Comer v. Polk County (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 8, p. 288. 
 Liability of plaintiff mortgagee 
 at whose instance receiver 
 has been appointed. 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 
 V. Oregon Pac. R. Co. 
 (Ore.), vol. 7, p. 780. 
 Liability of railroad on dis- 
 charge of receiver. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Manton 
 (U. S.), vol. 9, p. 850. 
 Liability of receivers for dam- 
 ages by fires. » 
 Wall V. Piatt (Mass.), vol. 
 9, p. S63. 
 Liability of receivers for in- 
 juries to employees. 
 Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 7, p. 1. 
 Liability of succeeding corpo- 
 rations for injuries arising 
 during receivership. 
 Atchison, T. & S. P. Ry. 
 Co. V. Cunningham (Kan.), 
 vol. 12, p. 132. 
 Liability of under statute 
 imposing penalty for cruelty 
 to animals in transit. 
 United States v. Harris (U. 
 S.), vol. 17, p. 582. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 SS3 
 
 HECETVEIIS— Continued. 
 
 Manager of railroad cannot be 
 appointed receiver of second 
 railroad. 
 
 St. Louis, K. & S. R. Co. v. 
 Wear (Mo.), vol. 4, p. S83. 
 Order requiring assumption by 
 company of debts of receiver- 
 ship. 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Burris (C. C. A.), vol. 23, 
 p. 912. 
 Power to lease and operate 
 other roads. 
 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. 
 V. Carolina, C. G. & C. Ry. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. IS, p. 
 212. 
 
 Preferential Claims. 
 
 New England R. Co. v. Car- 
 negie Steel Co., Limited 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 5, p. 194. 
 Agreement by receivers did 
 not convert claim on ac- 
 count of mileage tickets 
 issued at instance of an- 
 other company into debt of 
 receivership. 
 Monsarrat v. Mercantile 
 
 Trust Co. (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. SOS. 
 Car rentals. 
 
 St. Louis, A. & S. R. Co. 
 
 V. O'Hara (111.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 817. 
 Claims for legal services. 
 Gregg V. Mercantile Trust 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 484. 
 Diversion of current income. 
 Gregg V. Mercantile Trust 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 48S. 
 Diversion of income in pay- 
 ment for equipment. 
 Gregg V. Mercantile Trust 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 48S. 
 For supplies over mortgage 
 debts. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Adams 
 
 (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 790. 
 Lien for cars. 
 St. Louis, A. & S. R. Co. 
 
 V. O'Hara (111.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 817. 
 Price of cross-ties furnished 
 within six months prior to 
 receivership. 
 Gregg V. Mercantile Trust 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 484. 
 
 'REG'ElV'Ei'RS— Continued. 
 
 Priority of claims for equip- 
 ments. 
 
 Continental Trust Co. v. 
 Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. 
 Co. (Ohio), vol. 18, p. 397. 
 Purchase of locomotives. 
 Gregg V. Mercantile Trust 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 p. 484. 
 Rental of terminals accruing 
 under lease. 
 
 Gregg V. Mercantile Trust 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 p. 484. 
 Restoration where current 
 earnings diverted from pay- 
 ment of current debts prior 
 to receivership. 
 Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. 
 Cox (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 p. 327. 
 Scope of order appointing 
 receiver. 
 
 Monsarrat v. Mercantile 
 Trust Co. (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 22, p. SOS. 
 Track rentals as. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Central Trust Co. of New 
 York (C. C. A.), vol. 14, 
 p. 820. 
 Prohibition, writ of. 
 
 St. Louis, K. & S. R. Co. 
 V. Wear (Mo.), vol. 4, p. 583. 
 Province of court in foreclosure 
 suit where damages claimed 
 in intervention against 
 receiver. 
 
 Central Trust Co. of New 
 York V. Denver, etc., R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, p. 
 513. 
 Purchaser at foreclosure re- 
 quired to assume liability for 
 claims against receiver. 
 Central Trust Co. of New 
 York V. Denver, etc., B. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 19, p. 
 S13. 
 Railroad not liable for stock 
 killed during receivership. 
 Schurr v. Omaha & St. L. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 5, 
 p. 152. 
 Recovery cannot be had of the 
 receivers of a railway com- 
 pany for failure to perform 
 a contract of carriage, 
 made by the party prior to 
 their appointment. 
 Casey v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 7, p. 
 599. 
 
554 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 KECEIVEB-S— Continued. 
 Removal of causes. 
 Carpenter v. Northern Pac. 
 R. Co. (U. S.), vol. S, p. 
 712. 
 Right of supply creditor where 
 , there has been a diversion of 
 assets. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. Carnegie 
 Steel Co., Limited (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 6, p. 420. 
 Right to sue receiver without 
 leave of appointing court. 
 Burke v. Ellis (Tenn.), vol. 
 19, p. 695. 
 Set-ofE of debts contracted by 
 receivers against debts due 
 to receivers. 
 
 Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. 
 Chester & h. Narrow-Gauge 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 5, 
 p. 214. 
 Special statutes enacted for 
 the purpose of fixing the 
 liability of railroad com- 
 panies, cannot, by impli- 
 cation, be held applicable 
 to receivers. 
 
 Robinson v. Huidekoper 
 (Ga.), vol. S, pp. 216, 218. 
 Sub-lease of cars by receivers. 
 Mercantile Trust & De- 
 posit Co. V. Atlanta Stone, 
 Coal & Lumber Co. (Ala.), 
 vol. 8, p. 102. 
 Mercantile Trust & Deposit 
 Co. V. Southern Iron Car 
 Line Co. (Ala.), vol. 8, p. 
 102. 
 
 Suit against receiver, removal 
 from state court. 
 Carpenter v. Northern Pac. 
 
 R. Co. (U. S.), vol. S, p. 
 
 712. 
 
 Trespass to try title. 
 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
 State (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 
 449. 
 Trust fund leases, liability of 
 receiver's representative. 
 Piatt V. Philadelphia & R. 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 10, 
 p. 169. 
 
 Unauthorized order. 
 
 St. Louis, K. & S. R. Co. 
 V. Wear (Mo.), vol. 4, p. 
 623. 
 
 Validity of agreement by re- 
 ceiver. 
 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. 
 V. Carolina, C. G. & C. Ry. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. IS, p. 
 212. 
 
 RECEIVERS — 'Continued. 
 
 Verdict rendered for plaintiff 
 in action for personal in- 
 juries against a company 
 and the receivers who have 
 sole control will be construed 
 as against receivers alone. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Smith 
 (Kan.), vol. 11, p. 709. 
 Whether employers' liability 
 act applicable in action 
 against receivers. 
 Powell V. Sherwood (Mo.), 
 vol. 22, p. S3. 
 Whether expenditures for im- 
 provements continued by a 
 receiver and sanctioned by a 
 court are personal claims. 
 Veatch v. American Loan & 
 Trust Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 79S. 
 
 Whether receiver's certificates 
 constituted a lien on property 
 in the hands of the purchaser 
 at foreclosure sale. . ; 
 
 Columbus, S. "& H. R. Co. 
 
 Appeals (C. IC. A.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 209. 
 
 REqiTALS. 
 
 See Mortgages. 
 
 RECKLESSNESS. 
 
 See Contributory Negligence. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 
 RECORDnSTG ACTS. 
 
 In condemning land for right 
 of way a railroad company 
 has a right to rely upon the 
 public records in determining 
 who is the owner of the land. 
 Phipps V. Kansas & C. P. 
 Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 
 247. 
 
 SuflBciency of notice of exis- 
 tence of unrecorded deed of 
 right of way. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 Wright (111.), vol. 1, p. 
 716. 
 
 RECORDS. 
 
 See Appeal. 
 Evidence. 
 
 REFRIGERATOR OARS. 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. 
 
 V. Davis (111.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 S81. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 5SS 
 
 REGULATIONS. 
 See Baggage, 
 
 REHEARING. 
 See Appeal. 
 
 RELEASE. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Relief Associations. 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 Action for personal injuries for 
 which release from liability 
 has been g-iven. 
 Och V. Missouri, Kansas & 
 Texas R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 2, p. 343. 
 Burden of proof as to validity 
 of release of claim for per- 
 sonal injuries signed by 
 illiterate without knowledge 
 of contents. 
 
 Boutten v. Wellington & 
 P. R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 21, p. S76. 
 Claim for personal injuries. 
 Western, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Burke (Ga.), vol. S, p. 386. 
 Construction of release of land- 
 owners. 
 
 Brown v. Pine Creek Ry. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 693. 
 Effect of release executed be- 
 fore death. 
 
 Hill V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 229. 
 Effect of release of claim for , 
 specified injuries on liability 
 for unspecified injuries. 
 Lumley v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 82. 
 Injuries proving more serious 
 than supposed at time of 
 release. 
 
 Lumley v. Wabash R. Co.. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 81. 
 Joint tort-feasor. 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 Piper (111.), vol. 9, p. 147. 
 Mental capacity. 
 
 Julius v. Pittsburg, A. & M. 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 9, 
 p. 523. 
 Necessity of tender of damages 
 received. 
 
 Lumley v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 82. 
 No presumption of considera- 
 tion from existence of seal. 
 Boutten v. Wellington & P. 
 R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, 
 p. 576. 
 
 'S.'^T-.'^AB^— Continued. 
 Offer to return consideration 
 received for settlement. 
 Barker v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 414. 
 Reasonableness of settlement. 
 Barker v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 389. 
 Recovery of further' damages. 
 Lumley v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 82. 
 Release of claims for damages, 
 whether it covers unknown 
 injuries. 
 
 Seeley v. Citizens' Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 790. 
 Release signed by one still 
 affected by his injuries is not 
 binding. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Cunningham (Kan.), 
 vol. 12, p. 132. 
 Right of employer to rely on 
 statement of company's rep- 
 resentative. 
 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. 
 Kasischke (C. C. A.), vol. 
 19, p. 407. 
 Setting aside settlement for 
 improvidence. 
 
 Barker v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 414. 
 Tender back of amount paid 
 under, before commencing 
 action. 
 
 Malmstrom v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 12, p. 
 330. 
 Tender of rescission of com- 
 promise. 
 
 Western, etc., . R. Co. v. 
 Burke (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 
 386. 
 Time of execution of release. 
 Brown v. Pine Creek Ry. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 8, p.. 694. 
 Validity of release of claim for 
 damages signed by employee. 
 Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. 
 Mosby (Va. ), vol. 4, p. 633. 
 Validity of stipulation of em- 
 ployment in release of claim 
 for damages. 
 
 Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. 
 
 Mosby (Va.), vol. 4, p. 633. 
 
 Wife's right of action where 
 
 husband has released claims 
 
 for his injuries. 
 
 Hill V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 229. 
 
556 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 BELIEF ASSOCIATIONS. 
 
 See Release. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Eckman v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 308. 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 
 
 299 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Montgfomery 
 
 (Ind.), vol. 9, p. 792. 
 Acceptance of benefits. 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Montgomery (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 792. 
 Acceptance of benefits and 
 signing of release of claim 
 for damages does not estop 
 servant injured through neg- 
 ligence of master from main- 
 taining an action for such 
 injuries. 
 Johnson v. Charleston & S. 
 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 761. 
 Acceptance of benefits from, as 
 release of claim for damages. 
 Beck V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 (N. J.), vol. IS, p. 851. 
 Charter powers. 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 
 
 299. 
 Coercion of employees. 
 
 Eckman v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 308. 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 
 
 299. 
 Estoppel. 
 Eckman v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 308. 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Qj 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 299. 
 
 Mistake as to injuries received. 
 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 
 
 299. 
 Release from liability. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Curtis 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 76S. 
 Eckman v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 308. 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 
 
 299. 
 Rights of beneficiaries. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stankard (Ohio), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 477. 
 
 R B L I B P ASSOCIATIONS— 
 Continued. 
 Right to benefits lost by ac- 
 ceptance of damages. 
 Clinton v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (Neb.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 778. 
 Ultra vires. 
 
 Eckman v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 308. 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 
 
 299. 
 Validity of contract. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Curtis (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 765. 
 Validity of contract relieving 
 master from liability. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Hosea (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 692. 
 Pittsburg, C. , C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Moore (Ind.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 678. 
 Validity of release of company 
 from liability for damages. 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Cox (Ohio), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 152. 
 Whether pledge of certificate 
 on assignment of widow's 
 right of action for death of 
 husband. 
 Cowenz/. Ray (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 531. 
 
 REMARKS OF COUNSEL. 
 See New Trial. 
 
 Trial. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Ray (Tenn.), vol. 11, p. 
 174. 
 Masterson v. Chicago & N. 
 W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 p. 395. 
 Ejection. 
 Kansas City, Ft. Scott, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Sokol (Ark.), 
 vol. 2, p. 148. 
 Ground for reversal. 
 Rudiger v. Chicago, St. P., 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 vol. 12, p. 196. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Waren (Ark.), vol. 13, 
 p. 729. 
 Harmless remark. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. 
 Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, p. 
 491. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 557 
 
 REMARKS OF COUNSEL— 
 Continued, 
 
 Reversible error. 
 
 Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co. 
 (Vt), vol. 14, p. 416. 
 When reversible error. 
 
 Alabama & G. S. R. Co. v. 
 Carroll (C. C. A.), vol. 9, 
 p. 759. 
 
 REMITTITUR. 
 See Damages. 
 
 REMOVAL OF CAUSES. 
 
 Louisville Southern Ry. Co. 
 V. Tucker (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 
 805. 
 Lund V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. Neb.), vol. 
 14, p. 826. 
 Adoption of foreign railroad 
 corporation does not destroy 
 right of removal on ground 
 of diverse citizenship. 
 Calvert v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 173. 
 Co-defendant must join in 
 petition for removal. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Martin (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 p. 4.' 
 Effect of foreign corporation 
 becoming domestic. 
 Allison V. Southern Rj'. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 714. 
 Effect of removal to federal 
 court on married woman's 
 right of action for her per- 
 sonal injuries, under Sand. 
 & H. (Ark.), Dig. sec. 5641. 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hum- 
 ble (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 821. 
 Filing petition. 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 Adams (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 p. 428. 
 Joinder of formal parties as 
 affecting right to remove for 
 diversity of citizenship. 
 Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Ziegler 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 1. 
 Ziegler v. Lake St. El. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 23, 
 p. 1. 
 Joining employees as parties 
 defendant to prevent removal 
 to federal court. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Dixon (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 827. 
 No separable controversy where 
 joint action against em- 
 ployer and employees. 
 C. & O. Ry. Co. V. Lucy 
 
 REMOVAL OF CAUSES— 
 Continued. 
 
 Dixon (U. S.), vol. 21, p'. 
 
 Parties. 
 Chesapeake & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Venable (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 449. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Le 
 
 Blanc (Miss.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 838. 
 Receivers. 
 Carpenter v. Northern Pac. 
 
 R. Co. (D. S.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 712. 
 Removal to federal court. 
 Hickman v. Missouri, K. & 
 
 T. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 375. 
 State V. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 
 
 (La.), vol. 18, p. 399. 
 Right of corporation created by 
 act of congress to remove 
 cause to federal court. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Bar- 
 rett (U. S.), vol. 11, p. 867. 
 Right to remove cause to fed- 
 eral court on ground of diver- 
 sity of citizenship where 
 joinder of nonresident rail- 
 road company and its negli- 
 gent resident employees. 
 Winston v. 111. Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 454. 
 State not real party plaintiff, 
 so as to preclude removal of 
 cause to federal court for 
 diverse citizenship, in suit 
 instituted by railroad com- 
 missioners under Mo. Rev. 
 Stat. 1899, sec. IISO. 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Hickman (U. S.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 493. 
 Suit by railroad commissioners 
 to enforce statute fixing rates 
 is not removable to federal 
 court. 
 Hickman v. Missouri, K. & T. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 37S. 
 The mere fact that action is 
 against federal receiver is no 
 ground for removal to federal 
 court. 
 
 Gableman v. Peoria, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 20, p. SOS. 
 
 REORGANIZATION. 
 
 See Bonds. 
 Railroads . 
 Agreement for assumption of 
 debts of old company did not 
 confer equitable lien on holder 
 
5S8 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 EEORGANIZATION— Cowif'rf. 
 of unpaid floating' indebted- 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. 
 Appeals (C. C. A.), vol. 22, 
 p. 209. 
 Construction and effect of agree- 
 ment between stockholders 
 and bondholders of insolvent 
 railroad companies. 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. Ap- 
 peals (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 209. 
 Right of bondholders to ask for 
 / rescission of reorg a n i z e d 
 agreement. 
 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. Ap- 
 peals (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 209. 
 Subrogation of reorg a n i z e d 
 company purchasing mort- 
 gages as against junior mort- 
 gages refusing to come in 
 under reorganization agree- 
 ment. 
 
 Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. Ap- 
 peals (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 209. 
 
 BEPUTATION. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 RES GEST^. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Declarations. 
 Evidence. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Butler V. Manhattan R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 2, p. 383. 
 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ashley (U. S.), vol. 2, p, 
 
 383. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v 
 
 Roller (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p, 
 
 S9S. 
 St. Ivouis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Greenthal (C. C. A.), vol 
 
 6, p. 261.- 
 Admissibility of conversation 
 with injured employee to show 
 that he was acting within the 
 scope of his employment. 
 Denver & B. P. R. T. Co. v. 
 
 Dwyer (Colo.), vol. 2, p. 383. 
 
 Admissions of conductor and 
 
 brakeman as to intoxication 
 
 of deceased employee. 
 
 Parker v. Winona & St. P. 
 
 R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 594. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Complaint by plaintiff of his 
 
 RES G'SST^— Continued. 
 
 injuries. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. 
 Sanders (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 428. 
 Statement of intention to be- 
 come a passenger by party 
 killed by defendant's loco- 
 motive. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 Chancellor (111.), vol. 10, 
 p. 842. 
 Complaints or manifestations of 
 pain and suffering admissible 
 to prove bodily suffering. 
 Williams v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 
 230. 
 Conversation as res gestas. 
 St. l/ouis, etc., Rl Co. v. 
 Greenthal (C. C. A.), vol. 6, 
 p. 261. 
 Conversation of engineer in- 
 jured in collision, in action by 
 another employee injured in 
 same collision. 
 
 Williams v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 22, p. 442. 
 Conversation of plaintiff with 
 switchman immediately after 
 his wagon had been struck. 
 Wilson V. Southern Pac. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 40. 
 Correspondence between parties 
 to contract after its execution, 
 not admissible in action 
 thereon as res gestae. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 ( Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Declarations as part of. 
 Heckle v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. IS, p. 584. 
 Means v. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 363. 
 Declarations of employee. 
 
 Cole V. New York, N. H. & H. 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 18, p. 
 383. 
 Electric Ry. Co.. v. Carson 
 (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 770. 
 Declarations of present suffer- 
 ing. 
 
 Beath v. Rapid Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 15, p. 793. 
 
 Declarations of superior engaged 
 with plaintiff in* performing 
 the work in which plaintiff 
 was injured, made on the 
 spot where the injuries oc- 
 curred, and almost simultane- 
 ous with the injury, and 
 describing how it was caused. 
 Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 7, p. 2. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 559 
 
 BES GEST.Si— Continued. 
 
 Evidence of movements of other 
 trains, in action for injury to 
 bicycle rider at crossing. 
 Louisville &N. R. Co. w. Stew- 
 art (Ala.), vol.' 21, p. 34. 
 Quarrel between stockmen and 
 trainmen. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bell 
 (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 413. 
 Statements by injured party and 
 person who attempted to help 
 him made just after the acci- 
 dent are admissible as part of 
 res gestae. 
 
 Coll V. Easton Transit Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 11, p. 722. 
 Statements made within five 
 minutes after accident. 
 Eastman v. Boston, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 435. 
 Statements of motorman im- 
 mediately after running over 
 a person, admissible as part of 
 res gest». 
 
 Coll V. Eastern Transit Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 11, p. 722. 
 What admissible as. 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & C. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 18, 
 p. 340. 
 
 BESIDENOE. 
 See Railroads. 
 
 BES JUDICATA. 
 
 See Judgments. 
 
 Law of Case. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Douot 
 van (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 669. 
 Action of ejectment not conclu- 
 sive of equitable rights grow- 
 ing out of its subject-matter. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Cowan 
 (Ala.), vol. 22, p. ISO. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Whether recovery by a per- 
 sonal representative of a wife 
 for her wrongful death bars 
 an action by the husband. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 McElwain (Ky.), vol. 3, p. 
 309. . 
 In action by city, where pur- 
 chaser of railroad claimed ex- 
 emption. 
 
 Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. v. 
 Commissioners of Wicomico 
 County (Md.), vol. 21, p. 284. 
 Commissioners of Wicomico 
 Co. V. Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. 
 Co. (Md.), vol. 21, p. 284. 
 
 BES STS-DIO^'^K— Continued. 
 Prior decision as to effect of 
 statute requiring railroad to 
 sell stop-over tickets is not 
 stare decisis in action to re- 
 cover penalty for violation of 
 statute. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Robin- 
 son (Cal.), vol. 21, p. 160. 
 
 BBVENUE STAMPS. 
 See Bills of Lading. 
 
 BEVENXTE TAX. 
 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 
 BEVEBSION. 
 See Grants. 
 
 Public Lands. 
 
 EEVIEW. 
 
 See Appeal. 
 Evidence. 
 
 BEVIVAL. 
 See Actions. 
 
 BIDING ON PLATPOBM. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 BIGHT OP ACTION. 
 
 Injury to land held by tenant. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 King (Ark.), vol. 7, p. 780. 
 
 BIGHT OP -WAY. 
 See Abandonment. 
 
 Adverse Possession. 
 Bills in Equity. 
 Crossings. 
 Dedication. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Estoppel. 
 Fences. 
 Liens. 
 
 Public Lands. 
 Railroads. 
 Taxation. 
 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 Abandonment. 
 Jones V. VanBochove (Mich.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 664. 
 Matthews v. Lake Shore, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 6, p. 791. 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. 
 Hargrove (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 
 667. 
 Scarritt v. Kansas City, O. & 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. IS, p. 
 809. 
 
560 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 RIGHT OF '^K^— Continued. RIGHT OF -^ h.'^— Continued. 
 
 Abandonment of rig-ht of way, 
 occupation under a parol 
 license, rigfht of company to 
 reoccupy the land afterwards 
 purchased by third party. 
 St. Louis S. W. K. Co. v. 
 Hargrove (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 
 667. 
 Abandonment permitting- title 
 by adverse possession to be 
 acquired. 
 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ely 
 (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 90. 
 Acceptance of grant. 
 Louisville, St. L. & T. R. Co. 
 V. Taylor (Ky.), vol.1, p. 
 718. 
 Action for malicious prosecution 
 where defendant tore up the 
 track on right of way claimed 
 by him as his own. 
 Wichita & W. Ry. Co. v. Quinn 
 (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 217. 
 Adverse Possession. 
 
 Hanlou v. Union Pac. Rail- 
 road Co. (Neb.), vol. 1, p. 
 701. 
 Matthews v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 6, p. 791. 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 Holton (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 
 336. 
 Acquisition of land owned by 
 railroad. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Stickley (Ind.), vol. 20, p. 
 148. 
 Adverse use of right of way as 
 passway. 
 
 Thompson v. Louisville & 
 N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 
 665. 
 Against railroad. 
 Virginia & S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Crow (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 
 506. 
 Of owner of servient estate. 
 Wilmot V. Yazoo & M. Val. 
 R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 19, p. 
 263. 
 Possession under claim, sufB- 
 ciency of evidence. 
 Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Stickley (Ind.), vol. 20, p. 
 148. 
 Presumption of grant where 
 railroad lands have been oc- 
 cupied adversely for 20 
 years. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Stickley (Ind.), vol. 20, p. 
 148. 
 
 Public policy does not prevent 
 title by adverse possession 
 from being acquired in rail- 
 road right of way. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Ely (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 90. 
 SuflSciency of evidence. 
 Pittsbuig, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Stickley (Ind.), vol. 20, p. 
 148. 
 Where fee is in grantor. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Dono- 
 van (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 
 669. 
 A person who has conveyed a 
 right of way through his land 
 to a railroad company, and 
 thereby cuts off access to a 
 part of his land, has a way of 
 necessity over the land con- 
 veyed to the railroad company. 
 New York & New England 
 Railroad Co. v. Railroad 
 Commissioners (Mass.), vol. 
 1, p. 660. 
 Appropriation of land by con- 
 sent. 
 
 Pries V. Wheeling & L. E. 
 Ry. Co. (Ohio), vol. 6, p. 489. 
 Cancellation of deed to by 
 breach of contract. 
 Moseley v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 R. Co. (Neb.), vol. 15, p. 426. 
 Cannot be sold to enforce pay- 
 ment of taxes for public im- 
 provements under Arkansas 
 statute. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Board Water Works (Ark.), 
 vol. 20, p. 265. 
 Color of title. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. War- 
 fel (111.), vol. 6, p. 791. 
 Company may determine neces- 
 sity of exercising the power to 
 appropriate land under Sand. 
 & H. Dig. sec. 6175. 
 McKennon v. St. Louis I. M. 
 & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. 21, 
 p. 527. 
 Conditional grants. 
 
 Bredin v. Pittsburgh & W. R. 
 
 Co. (Pa ), vol. 1, p. 718. 
 Mills V. Seattle & M. R. Co. 
 
 (Wash.), vol. 1, p. 718. 
 Nashville, C. St. L. R. Co. 
 V. Hammond (Ala.), vol. 1, 
 p. 718. 
 Consequential injuries from 
 grant of. 
 
 Harrelson v. Kansas City & 
 A. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 
 848. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 561 
 
 RIGHT OF "WK^— Continued. 
 CojQstructiou of charter. 
 
 Raleigh & A. Air-I<ine R. Co. 
 V. Sturgeon (N. Car.), vol. 
 8, p. 272. 
 Construction of deed. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Richards (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 
 668. 
 Hanlon v. Uttion Pac. Rail- 
 road Co. (Neb.), vol. 1, p. 701. 
 Mercantile Co. v. Atlantic & 
 P. R. Co. (Cal.), vol. 1, p. 
 910. 
 Construction of deed with re- 
 spect to right of grantor to 
 cross. 
 
 Mt. Pleasant Coal Co. v. Del- 
 aware, etc., R. Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 23, p. 568. 
 Continuance of condition in 
 grant as to stopping of trains. 
 Gray v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 21, p. 252. 
 Continuance of conditions sub- 
 sequent of grant. 
 Lyman v. Suburban R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 21, p. 828. 
 Conveyance with release of dam- 
 ages by reason of the location 
 or construction, does not re- 
 lease grantor's right to a way 
 across the right of way. 
 New York & New England 
 Railroad Company v. Rail- 
 road Commissioners (Mass.), 
 vol. 1, p. 660. 
 County road over. 
 Gulf, C. & S. E. Ry. Co. v. 
 Milam County (Tex.), vol. 7, 
 p. 780. , 
 Cultivation of by owner of serv- 
 ient estate. 
 
 Wilmot V. Yazoo & M. Val. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 19, p. 263. 
 Damages for running ditch 
 across. 
 
 Northern Ohio Ry. Co. v. 
 Com'rs (Ohio), vol. 18, p. 
 767. 
 Deeds. 
 Owensboro, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Barker (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 791. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. War- 
 fel (111), vol. 6, p. 791. 
 Deed construed to convey ease- 
 ment only. 
 
 Jones V. Van Bochove (Mich.), 
 vol. 1, p. 664. 
 Deed is not competent as evi- 
 dence of title where no title is 
 shown in grantor. 
 Pollock V. Maysville & B. S. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 821, 
 
 ID— 36 
 
 RIGHT OF VJA^—Continued. 
 Definition of. 
 
 Territory of New Mexico v. 
 United States Trust Co. of 
 New York (U..S.), vol. 14, p. 
 811. 
 Delivery of deed. 
 
 Dickey v. Kansas City & Inde- 
 pendence Rapid Transit Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 710. 
 Division fences, duty to con- 
 struct under Kentucky statute. 
 Owensboro & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 Courts (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 125. 
 Duty of railroad to keep right of 
 way in good condition. 
 Dobbins v. Missouri, K. & T. 
 Ry. Co. of Texas (Tex.), vol. 
 8, p. 179. 
 Easement only acquired under 
 North Carolina Code, sec. 1946. 
 Shields v. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 22, p. 635. 
 Ejectment by owner. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Englehart (Neb.), vol. 15, p. 
 404. 
 Ejectment of company for fail- 
 ure to condemn and make 
 compensation. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Hood 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 166. 
 Ejectment to recover excess of 
 land appropriated. 
 McKennon v. St. Louis, I. M. 
 & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. 21, 
 p. 527. 
 Equitable estoppel of owner of 
 homestead. 
 
 Hendrix v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 272. 
 Equitable estoppel to action in 
 ejectment. 
 
 Scarritt v. Kansas City, O. & 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 15, p. 
 809. 
 Estoppel of landowner from 
 evicting railroad company. 
 Hendrix v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 272. 
 Exclusiveness of remedy of 
 land owner, under Sand. & H. 
 Dig. sec. 2734, to recover 
 damage where land has been 
 appropriated by railroad. 
 McKennon v. St. Louis, I. M. 
 & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. 21, 
 p. 527. 
 Extension of street over right of 
 way. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. City of Milwaukee (Wis.), 
 vol. 9, p. 537. 
 
562 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 RIGHT OF 'WA.'^— Continued. 
 
 Extent of grant. 
 St. Paul & D. E. Co. V. City 
 of Duluth (Minn.), vol. 13, 
 p. 855. 
 Failure to fence. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lyon 
 (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 764. 
 Fee to land covered by right of 
 way acquired by warranty 
 deed. 
 
 Hicks, Atty. Gen., ex rel. 
 Askew V. Smith (Wis.), vol. 
 20, p. 694. 
 Foot path. 
 
 Haley v. Kansas . City, M. & 
 B. R. Co. (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 
 780. 
 Forfeiture by adverse posses- 
 sion. 
 
 Pollock V. Maysville & B. S. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 821. 
 Forfeiture, demand for compli- 
 ance with conditions subse- 
 quent of grant. 
 L,yman v. Suburban R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 21, p. 828. 
 Forfeiture for nonuser. 
 Pollock V. Maysville & B. S. 
 R. Co. (Ky. ) , vol. 14, p. 821. 
 Forfeiture, grantor not debarred 
 to recover easement in street 
 as having adequate remedy 
 at law. 
 
 Lyman v. Suburban R. Co. 
 (III.), vol. 21, p. 828. 
 Forfeiture, nonuser, sufficiency 
 of allegations of bill. 
 Lyman v. Suburban R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 21, p. 828. 
 Fraud in procuring contract to 
 convey laud to railroad com- 
 pany. 
 
 Grand Tower and Cape 
 Girardeau R. Co. v. Wolton 
 (111.), vol. 1, p. 686. 
 Grantee's liability for injury to 
 abutting property from con- 
 struction and operation of 
 road. 
 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 Ball (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 187. 
 Grant of right of way on public 
 streets or highways subject to 
 the rights therein of the pub- 
 lic. 
 
 Jones V. Erie & Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol.3, p. 18. 
 Implication as to width of way 
 granted. 
 
 Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. 
 V. Hammond (Ala.), vol. 1, 
 p. 683. 
 
 RIGHT OF WA.1C— Continued. 
 Institution of condemnation pro- 
 ceedings by railroad to recover 
 right of way. 
 
 Southern Ry; Co. v. Standi- 
 ford (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 154. 
 Intervening- third party who no- 
 tifies vendor com^pany of its 
 right to the land. 
 Chamberlain v. Northeastern 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 1, p. 
 694. 
 Land held as, subject to assess- 
 ment by state board, not by 
 local assessor. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Grant (111.) , vol. 11, p. 823. 
 Liability for injury caused by 
 spreading of Bermuda grass 
 from right of way. 
 Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Oakes 
 (Tex.), vol. 19, p. 395. 
 Liability of company where 
 child fell into an excavation 
 on right of way and was. 
 drowned. 
 
 Dobbins v. Missouri K. & T. 
 Ry. Co. of Texas (Tex.), vol. 
 8, p. 179. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for expense of moving build- 
 ing from right of way, which 
 it has purchased. 
 Delsol V. Spokane & P. Ry. Co. 
 (Idaho), vol. 1, p. 683. 
 License. 
 
 Minneapolis Western Railway 
 
 Co. V. Minneapolis & St. 
 
 Louis Railway Co. (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 725. 
 
 Marble or lime rock upon right 
 
 of way. 
 
 Lime Rock R. Co. v. Farns- 
 worth (Me.), vol. 3, p. 13. 
 Not assessable for local improve- 
 ments unless benefit is shown. 
 Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Board Waterworks (Ark.), 
 vol. 20, p. 265. 
 Obligation to construct fences 
 under deed conveying right of 
 way, in absence of stipulation. 
 Owensboro & N. Ry. Co. v. 
 Courts (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 125. 
 Power of county board under 
 Indiana statute to locate drain 
 across railroad right of way. 
 Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Board of Com'rs (Ind.), vol. 
 22, p. 408. 
 
 Pre-emption of public lands. 
 Lewis V. Rio Grande & W. Ry. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 14, p. 822. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 563 
 
 HIGHT OP VJATZ— Continued. 
 Prescription cannot perfect im- 
 perfect title. 
 
 Narron v. Wilmington & W. 
 E. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 13, p. 
 852. 
 Presumption that cultivation 
 was permissive. 
 Southern Rv. Co. v. Cowan 
 (Ala. ) , vol. 22, p. ISO. 
 Presumption that proper pre- 
 liminary steps to acquire right 
 of way over public lauds have 
 been taken where grant has 
 been made and map approved. 
 Eierson v. St. Louis & S. F. 
 Ry. Co. (Kan.), vol. 11, p. 
 667. 
 Property of railroad company in 
 right of way. 
 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Har- 
 
 risburg & M. Electric R. Co. 
 
 (Pa. St.), vol. 6, p. 151. 
 
 Purchaser of land cannot claim 
 
 compensation for where his 
 
 grantor permitted or a c- 
 
 quiesced in the construction 
 
 of the road. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Englehart (Neb. ) , vol. IS, p. 
 404. 
 Release of easement of way to 
 owner of fee. 
 
 Flaten v. Moorhead (Minn.), 
 vol. 1, p. 668. 
 Remainderman not estopped to 
 recover land entered upon by 
 railroad under parol purchase 
 from life tenant. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Standi- 
 ford (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 154. 
 Revocation of license. 
 
 Hewlins v. Shipham (Eng.), 
 vol. 1, p. 728. 
 Right of company as to con- 
 struction of its lines over 
 right of way by purchase. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Richards (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 
 668. 
 Right of railroad company to 
 hold land by dedication. 
 Gulf, C. & S. E. Ry. Co. v. 
 Milam County (Tex.), vol. 
 7, p. 780. 
 Right of subsequent purchaser 
 of land to compensation. 
 Green v. South-Bound R. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 664. 
 Right to affirmative relief in 
 suit to enjoin action to eject 
 railroad from right of way. 
 Hendrix v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 272. 
 
 RIGHT OP -WA-Y— Continued. 
 Right to enjoin occupation of 
 land reco\7ered by railroad in 
 ejectment until payment of 
 value of improvements. 
 Rutland R. Co. v. Chaffee 
 (Vt.), vol. 21, p. 513. 
 Right to enjoin prosecution of 
 suit by second company for 
 condemnation of land already 
 condemned. 
 
 Eureka, etc., R. Co. v. Cali- 
 fornia, etc., Ry. Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 22, p. 404. 
 Right to recover value of im- 
 provements in land recovered 
 by railroad in ejectment. 
 Rutland R. Co. v. Chaffee 
 (Vt.), vol. 21, p. 513. 
 Scope of decree in action to en- 
 join ejection from right of 
 way. 
 
 Hendrix v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 272. 
 Spreading of embankment caus- 
 ing injury to abutting land. 
 Sims V. Ohio River & C. Ry. 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. IS, p. 666. 
 Statutory right to select location 
 in exercisingpower of eminent 
 domain. 
 
 Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. North- 
 western Coal & Min. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 593. 
 Sufficiency of judgment to vest 
 right of way. 
 
 Ft. Worth Ice Co. v. Chicago, 
 
 R. I. & T. R. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 169. 
 
 Sufficiency of notice of existence 
 
 of unrecorded deed of right of 
 
 way. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 Wright (111.), vol. 1, p. 716. 
 Title against railroad cannot be 
 acquired by prescription. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Hyatt 
 (Cal.), vol.20, p. 576. 
 Title by actual and continuous 
 possession. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Grant (111.) , vol. 11, p. 823. 
 Title by adverse possession could 
 not be defeated on ground that 
 occupation was not inconsist- 
 ent with use for railroad pur- 
 poses. 
 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ely 
 (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 90. 
 Unauthorized acceptance of con- 
 veyance in fee by railroad can- 
 not be collaterally attacked by 
 private persons. 
 Hicks, Atty. Gen., Askew v. 
 Smith (Wis.), vol. 20, p. 694. 
 
564 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 BIGHT OP 'WA.'^— Continued. 
 Validity of condition as to stop- 
 page of accommodation trains, 
 public policy. 
 Gray v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 21, p. 2S2. 
 Verbal contract for right of way. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Scott 
 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 8, p. 309. 
 Way of necessity, a person who 
 has conveyed a right of way 
 through his land to a railroad 
 company, and thereby cuts off 
 access to a part of his land has 
 a way of necessity over the land 
 conveyed to the railroad com- 
 pany. 
 New York & New England 
 
 Railroad Co. v. Railroad 
 
 Commissioners (Mass.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 660. 
 Way of necessity, conveyance 
 with release of damages by 
 reason of the location or con- 
 struction, does not release 
 grantor's fight to a way of 
 necessity across the right of 
 way. . 
 New York & New England 
 
 Railroad Company v. Rail- 
 road Commissioners (Mass.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 660. 
 What presumed as included in 
 the consideration for. 
 Moseley v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (Neb.), vol. IS, p. 426. 
 Whether conditions subsequent 
 of grant requiring erection of 
 passenger station at certain 
 points void as against public 
 policy. 
 Lvman v. Suburban R. Co. 
 
 ■(111.), vol. 21, p. 828. 
 Whether deed required company 
 to enter within certain period. 
 Virginia & S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Crow (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 506. 
 
 Whether grantor's occupation 
 
 for farming purposes was 
 
 adverse or permissive. 
 
 Northern Counties Inv. Trust, 
 
 Limited, v. Enyard (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 830. 
 Whether town could release from 
 performance of conditions sub- 
 sequent of grant. 
 Lyman v. Suburban R. Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 21, p. 828. 
 Who may grant. 
 Narron v. Wilmington & W. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 13, p. 8S2. 
 
 RIGHTS OF PURCHASERS. 
 See Cattle Guards. 
 Sales. 
 Successors. 
 
 Vendor and Purchaser. 
 Liability of purchaser at re- 
 ceiver's sale for damages from 
 failure to maintain cattle 
 guards. 
 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Glover 
 (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 708. 
 
 RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 
 
 See Water and Watercourses. 
 
 ROADBED. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servants. 
 
 ROADWAY. 
 
 See Taxation. 
 
 ROLLING STOCK. 
 
 See Taxation. 
 Landlord's lien upon rolling 
 stock of leased railroad. 
 Trust Company of North 
 America v. Manhattan Trust 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 220. . 
 Pledge. 
 Mechanics' Trust Co. v. Dand- 
 ridge (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 348. 
 
 ROPES. 
 Are not a part of the machinery, 
 etc., of railroads under em- 
 ployer's liability act of Ala- 
 bama. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Moore 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 896. 
 
 RUDENESS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 RULES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence, 
 Evidence. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 Admissibility in evidence of 
 post-of&ce department rule in 
 action for death of mail clerk. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kelly 
 (111.), vol. 17, p. 52. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 habitual disregard of rules, in 
 action for injury to employee, 
 to excuse plaintiff's violation 
 of rules. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hiltner (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 279. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 565 
 
 "RXJljES—Continued. 
 
 Effect of customary violation by- 
 employees. 
 
 Chattanoog-a S. R. Co. v. 
 Myers (Ga.), vol. 19, p. 776. 
 Knowledge of rules must be 
 pleaded. 
 
 Union Stock-Yards Co. v. 
 Goodwin (Neb.), vol. 12, tj. 
 502. 
 Mail clerks may rely on rules as 
 to movement of train near sta- 
 tion. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kelly 
 (111.), vol. 17, p. 52. 
 Reasonableness and sufBciency 
 of standard rules. 
 Ivittle Rock & M. R. Co. v. 
 Barry (C. C. A.), vol. 11, p. 
 453. 
 Sufficiency of, a question of law. 
 Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. 
 Barry (C. C. A.), vol. 11, p. 
 453. 
 Sufficiency of, to prevent colli- 
 sions. 
 
 I<ittle Rock & M. R. Co. v. 
 Barry (C. C. A.), vol. 11, p. 
 453. 
 Violation of, as contributory 
 negligpnce. 
 
 Shortet v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 761. 
 Where the rules of a company 
 were substantially the same as 
 those of 90 per cent, of the 
 railroads of the United States, 
 it was held error to find that 
 defendant failed to exercise 
 proper supervision of the run- 
 ning of the train. 
 Nolan V. New York, N. H. & H. 
 R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 10, p. 
 637. 
 
 UTILES AND REGULATIONS. 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 SAFETY GATES. 
 5^1? Crossings. 
 
 SALES. 
 
 See Foreclosure. 
 Insolvency. 
 Judicial Sales. 
 Mortgages. 
 Receivers. 
 Liability of purchaser of rail- 
 road for unpaid condemnation 
 money. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hen- 
 rie (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 790. 
 
 ^AXJ^^— Continued. 
 Liability of purchaser of rail- 
 road on account of life passes 
 issued by predecessor. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hen- 
 rie (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 790. 
 Obligation of vendor. 
 Texas Central Railway Co. v. 
 Lyons (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 316. 
 Ohio acts of May 4, 1885, not 
 applicable to conditional sale 
 of equipment to railroad com- 
 panies, which were especially 
 provided for by acts March 16, 
 1882. 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 
 Railroad Equipment Co. (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 22, p. 144. 
 Railroad Equipment Co. v. 
 Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 22, p. 144. 
 Rights acquired by purchaser at 
 judicial sale. 
 
 Heudrix v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 272. 
 Rights of purchaser of railroad. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Henrie (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 790. 
 Right to take back equipments 
 upon conditional sale to rail- 
 road on foreclosure of mort- 
 gage, etc. 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 
 Railroad Equipment Co. (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 22, p. 145. 
 Railroad Equipment Co. v. 
 Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 22, p. 145. 
 
 SAND BOX. 
 Absence of sand box. 
 Atlantic Avenue R. Co. v. 
 Van Dyke (C. C. A.), vol. 3, 
 p. 623. 
 
 SCALPERS. 
 
 See Ticket Brokers. 
 
 SCHEDULES. 
 
 See Blackboards. 
 
 SCHOOLS. 
 
 See Taxation. 
 Taxation of railroads for school 
 purposes. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Board of Supervisors (Va.), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 265. 
 
 SEASON TICKETS. 
 See Tickets and Fares. 
 
 SECONDARY EVIDENCE. 
 See Evidence. 
 
566 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 SECTION BOSS. 
 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 
 SEPARATE COACHES. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 SERVICE OP PROCESS. 
 See Actions. 
 
 Foreign Corporations. 
 Garnishment. 
 Process. 
 Summons. 
 Eel River R. Co. v. State ex 
 rel. Kistler, Pros. Atty. 
 (Ind.), vol. 17, p. 595. 
 State V. Adams Exp. Co. 
 (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 781. 
 Action for injuries to live stock. 
 Douglass V. Kanawha & M. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 10, p. 
 883. 
 Ag-ents of foreign corporations. 
 " Wall V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 15, p. 
 413. 
 Foreign corporations. 
 Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 7, p. S64. 
 Xrocality of service in action 
 against railroad companies. 
 Hillary v. Great Northern R. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, p. 51. 
 Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 
 V. Mattingly (Ky.), vol. 11, 
 p. 736. 
 Motion to quash invalid service. 
 Wall V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. IS, p. 
 413. 
 Service of process on foreign 
 railroad company. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Roller (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p. 
 595. 
 
 SERVITUDE. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 SET OFF. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 SHERIFFS. 
 Right of sheriff to ride on freight 
 train. 
 
 Allen V. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 Ry. Co. (Ohio), vol. 9, p. 25. 
 
 SHIPPING CONTRACTS. 
 See Bills of Lading, 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 "Horse" does not include 
 "jack." 
 
 Richardson v. Chicago & A. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, p. 170. 
 
 SHIPPING CONTRACTS— 
 Continued. 
 Limitation of time for bringing 
 action unconstitutional. 
 Richardson v. Chicago & A.. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, p. 170. 
 Notice of lost provision not en- 
 forceable where carrier's con- 
 duct has made giving of notice 
 impracticable. 
 
 Richardson v. Chicago & A.. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 13, p. 170. 
 
 SHIPPING RECEIPTS. 
 See Bills of Lading. 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 
 SICK BENEFIT FUND. 
 See Damages. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Relief Fund. 
 
 SICKNESS. 
 
 See Injuries to Property. 
 Sickness caused by stagnant 
 pools of water formed near 
 plaintiff's house. 
 Gulf, Colorado, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Richards (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 
 668. 
 
 SIGNALS. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Bridges. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Frightening Teams. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 Street Railways. 
 Commonwealth v. Louisville 
 & N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 6, 
 p. 61. 
 Distance at which to be given. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Davis. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 708. 
 Duty of company to give at 
 points other than crossings. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 V. Foxworth (Fla.), vol. 
 13, p. 469. 
 Failure to give signal not con- 
 tributing to the injury. 
 Wood V. Penn. R. Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 5, p. 672. 
 Failure to give useless signals,, 
 not negligence. 
 Johnson v. Rio Grande W. 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 13, p. 
 691. 
 Failure to obey statutory re- 
 quirements as to, as prox- 
 imate cause. 
 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Davis. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 708. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 567 
 
 SIGNALS— Continued. 
 
 Negligence in failing to give 
 as affected by contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Neal V. Carolina Cent. E. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 18, p. SI. 
 Statute construed. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Davis 
 (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 708. 
 SufBciency of signals at cross- 
 ings. 
 
 Green v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 13, p. Sll. 
 Time for giving signals to 
 ■warn trepassers on track. 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Tinkham (Ky.), vol. 13, p. 
 800. 
 Whether failure to give signals 
 is negligence per se. . 
 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Geist (Neb.), vol. S, p. 421. 
 Strother v. South Carolina, 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 S, p. 430. 
 
 SLEEPING CARS. 
 See Taxation. 
 
 SLEEPING OAR COMPA- 
 NIES. 
 See Assaults. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Common Carriers. 
 
 Baggage. 
 
 Dawley v. Wagner, etc., 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 
 766. 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. 
 V. Martin (Ga.), vol. 2, 
 p. 475. 
 Delivery of baggage between 
 cars and station. 
 Voss V. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. L. R. Co. (Ind. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 427. 
 Liability for delivery of bag- 
 gage between cars and sta- 
 tion. 
 
 Voss V. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. L. R. Co. (Ind. App.), 
 vol. 3, p. 427. 
 Care to be exercised to guard 
 against theft. 
 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. 
 Hall (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 229. 
 Common carriers. 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 Lawrence (Miss.), vol. 8, 
 p. 59. 
 Evidence of usual conduct of 
 employees. 
 Harriman v. Pullman Palace 
 
 SLEEPING OAR COMPANIES 
 — Continued. 
 
 Car Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 277. 
 Failure to atfaken passengers. 
 McKeon v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 8, p. 219. 
 For what articles of passengers 
 responsible. 
 
 Cooney v. Pullman Palace 
 Car Co. (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 
 587. 
 Injury to passenger through 
 negligence of porter. 
 Earriman v. Pullman Palace 
 Car Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 
 10, p. 277. 
 Liability for loss of jewelry 
 through negligence of em- 
 ployees. 
 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. 
 Harvey (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 
 77. 
 Liability for loss of passen- 
 ger's property. 
 Cooney v. Pullman Palace Car 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 587. 
 Liability for theft of passen- 
 ger's personal effects. 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v.. 
 Hall (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 229. 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 Hunter (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 
 204. 
 Liability of company for neg- 
 ligence of sleeping car em- 
 plovees. 
 
 Airey v. Pullman Palace Car 
 Co. (La.), vol. 11, p. 836. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 in Illinois for assault by 
 porter on passenger. 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 Lawrence (Miss.), vol. 8, p. 
 59. 
 Liability of sleeping car com- 
 pany where passenger is.mur- 
 dered. 
 
 Connell v. Chesapeake & O. 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. 5, p. 333. 
 Right of passenger to recover 
 for injuries caused by car 
 window being left open. 
 Edmunson v. Pullman Palace 
 Car Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 14, 
 p. 336. 
 Sleeping car employees as rail- 
 way employees. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Ray (Tenn.), vol. 11, p- 
 174. 
 
568 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 SLEEPING CAR COMPANIES 
 — Continued. 
 
 "Where a railway company has 
 sold a sleeping car ticket to 
 a point on its road where the 
 passenger has to change cars 
 in order to reach her destina- 
 tion, it is the duty of such 
 company to awaken the pas- 
 senger in sufficient time to 
 allow her to dress, or, if it 
 has failed to do so, to hold 
 the train until she can dress 
 in a manner suitable to make 
 such change of cars, and the 
 neglect of the company to 
 perform such duty, resulting 
 in damage to the passenger 
 is sufBcient to authorize a re- 
 covery, even though the duty 
 is not expressly prescribed in 
 the contract of carriage. 
 McKeon v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 219. 
 
 SMOKING. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 SNOW SLIDE. 
 
 Derailment of train. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Pilgrim (Colo.), vol. 8, p. 
 249. 
 
 SPABK ARRESTERS. 
 See Fires. 
 
 SPECIAL DAMAGES. 
 See Damages. 
 
 SPECIAL ELECTIONS. 
 See Taxation. 
 
 Contests. 
 Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Scott, Sheriff (La.), vol. 
 17, p. 74S. 
 
 SPECIAL INTERROGA- 
 TORIES. 
 See Interrogatories. 
 
 SPECIAL SESSION. 
 See Legislature. 
 
 SPECIAL VERDICT. 
 See Appeals. 
 Trial. 
 Verdicts. 
 
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 
 Bonds. 
 O'Beirne v. Alleghany & K. 
 R.,Co. (N. Y.), vol. 10, p. 
 860. 
 
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE— 
 Continued. 
 Fraud in procuring contract to 
 convey right of way. 
 Grand Tower & Cape Girar- 
 deau Railroad Co. v. Wol- 
 ton (111.), vol. 1, p. 686. 
 Lease of land to railroad com- 
 pany for stock yards with 
 option of purchase. 
 Bacon v. Kentucky Cent. 
 Railway Co. (Ky. ), vol. 
 
 I, p. 718. 
 Right to use bridge. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S. ), 
 vol. 6, p. 1. 
 Street railways, contract to 
 
 supply electric power to street 
 
 railroad. 
 
 Electric Lighting Co. v. 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. (Ala.), 
 vol. 4, p. 265. 
 
 SPECULATIVE DAMAGES. 
 See Damages. 
 
 SPEED. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Fires Set by Locom,otives. 
 
 Frightening Teams. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 Ordinances. 
 
 Proximate Cause. 
 
 Questions ofZ^aw and Fact. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Yards. 
 
 Contributory negligence as 
 
 affected by failure to give 
 
 signals and excessive speed. 
 
 Schneider v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 II, p. 81. 
 Contributory negligence cures 
 
 failure to admit evidence of 
 ordinance limiting speed. 
 Sutherland v. Cleveland, C, 
 
 C. &St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 424. 
 Crossings. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Patchen (111.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 852. 
 Crossings, running a railroad 
 train at a country crossing 
 at the rate of forty miles an 
 hour is not negligence per se. 
 Sutton V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 10, p. 100. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 569 
 
 SFEED— Continued. ; 
 
 Evidence as to speed of train 
 in action for personal injury 
 at crossing. 
 
 Overtoom v. Chicago & E. 
 I. R. Co. (111.), vol. IS, p. 
 849. ^ 
 
 i'ailure to instruct where no 
 special rate prescribed. 
 Driver v. Atchison, T. & S. 
 P. R3'. Co. (Kan.), vol. 10, 
 p. 98. 
 Ordinances regulating, admis- 
 sible as evidence. 
 Overtoom v. Chicago & EJ. I. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. IS, p. 
 849. 
 Ordinances regulating speed of 
 street railway car. 
 State V. City of Cape May 
 (N. J.), vol. 6, p. S07. 
 Passing between station and 
 train at high rate of speed. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Ryan (111.), vol. 8, p. 7S4. 
 Rate of speed not negligence 
 per se. 
 
 Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. 
 Krayenbuhl (Neb.), vol. 4, 
 p. 483. 
 
 Eight of engineer to recover 
 for injury received while 
 running at speed in excess of 
 ordinance. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Roberts (Tex.), vol. H, 
 p. 21. 
 Speed in excess of ordinance is 
 negligence prima facie. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Win- 
 ters (111.), vol. 12, p. 93. 
 Trespasser on tradk in city 
 limits injured by train run- 
 ning at excessive rate of 
 speed. 
 
 Schug V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. IS, 
 p. 70S. 
 Under Mississippi Code 1892, ^ 
 3S46, ch, 63, speed within 
 city limits in violation of 
 statute will not render com- 
 pany liable for fires set by 
 locomotive exceeding such 
 speed, unless proximate 
 cause. 
 
 CHsby V. Mobile & O. R. Co. 
 (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 179. 
 Violation of city ordinances 
 regulating, as negligence 
 per se. 
 
 Barfield v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. IS, p. 73S. 
 
 SFEEH—Coniinued. 
 
 Violation of statute regulating 
 speed as affecting contrib- 
 utory negligence. 
 Schug V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. IS, 
 p. 70S. 
 Whether speed in excess 
 of ordinance is negligence 
 per se. 
 
 Reidel v. Phila., W. & .B. 
 R. Co. (Md.), vol. 10, p. 91. 
 
 SPUR TRACKS. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 
 STATE RAILROAD COMMIS- 
 SIONS. 
 See Railroad Commissions. 
 
 STATES. 
 
 See Jurisdiction. 
 Parties. 
 
 Rem,oval of Cause. 
 Conditional consent to be sued. 
 Smith V. Reeves (U. S.), 
 vol. 19, p. 591. 
 Exemption from suit by federal 
 corporation. 
 
 Smith V. Reeves (U. S. ), vol. 
 19, p. S91. 
 
 STATION AGENTS. 
 See Bills of Lading. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Authority of station agent to 
 bind carrier by through con- 
 tract. 
 
 Page V. Chicago, St. Paul, 
 etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 
 2, p. 622. 
 
 STATIONS AND DEPOTS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Cattle Guards. 
 Drunkenness. 
 Fences. 
 Licensees. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Railroad Commissions. 
 Station Agents. 
 Absence of station facilities on 
 partially constructed road. 
 Chicago, Kansas & Western 
 R. Co. V. Frazer (Kan.), 
 vol. 2, p. 206. 
 Action by individual the value 
 of whose property is injured 
 by change of depot. 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Colburn (Tex.), vol. 6, p. 
 787. 
 
570 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STATIONS AND DEPOTS— 
 Continued. 
 Action for breach of contract 
 to establish depot, defenses. 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 Baldwin (Miss.), vol. 21, 
 p. 479. 
 Action of railroad commis- 
 sioners in permitting aban- 
 donment of station is subject 
 to review by certiorari. 
 * People, l/oughran v. Board 
 of R. Com'rs of State of N. 
 Y. (N. Y.), vol. 15, p. 441. 
 Agreement to erect stations, 
 perpetual maintenance. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Scott 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 8, p. 309. 
 Backing of car upon passen- 
 ger leaving railroad prem- 
 ises. 
 
 Dallas & O. C. R. Co. v. 
 Reeman {Tex. Civ. App. ), 
 vol. 2, p. 281. 
 Carriers of passengers, evi- 
 dence that defective plat- 
 form causing injury was 
 crowded. 
 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Robinson (Ind.), vol. 23, 
 p. 628. 
 Change of depot grounds. 
 Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Colburn (Tex.), vol. 6, p. 
 787. 
 Contract between company and 
 citizens for stopping trains 
 at certain stations is not en- 
 forceable by the railroad 
 commissioners. 
 People, Loughran v. Board 
 of R. Com'rs of State of N. 
 Y. (N. Y.), vol. IS, p. 
 441. 
 Contributory negligence, injury 
 to passenger while leaving 
 railroad premises. 
 Illinois Central R. Co. v. 
 Davidson (C. C. A.), vol. 
 2, p. 265. 
 Contributory negligence, leav- 
 ing railway premises by 
 unsafe route. 
 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 
 V. Cox (Ark.), vol. 2, p. 
 280. 
 Court's jurisdiction to direct 
 location of union station. 
 Concord & M. R. R. 'v. Bos- 
 ton & M. R. R. (N. H.), 
 vol. 14, p. 458. 
 Defective platform, negligence 
 as matter of law. 
 Fullerton v. Fordyce (Mo.), 
 vol. 10, p. 729. 
 
 STATIONS AND DEPOTS— 
 Continued. 
 Duty of company to keep in 
 safe condition. 
 Eichorn v. Missouri, K. & T. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 279. 
 PuUerton v. Fordyce (Mo.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 729. 
 Madden v. Port Royal & W. 
 C. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 2, p. 279. 
 Duty of railroad company to 
 furnish proper stational facil- 
 ities. 
 
 Warren v. Fitchburg R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 283. 
 Duty; of railroad to maintain a 
 wagon way to freight yard. 
 Curtis V. De Coursey (Pa.), 
 vol. 5, p. 416. 
 Duty of railroad to provide. 
 Boothby v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 3, p. 655, 
 Chaddick v. Lindsay (C3kla.), 
 vol. 8, p. 754. 
 Duty to establish and maintain 
 depot under Georgia statute. 
 Page V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 1. 
 Duty to fence station grounds. 
 Hathaway v. Detroit, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 19, 
 p. 714. 
 Duty to maintain waiting 
 room. 
 
 Page V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 1. 
 Duty to protect passenger at. 
 Exton V. Central R. Co. of 
 N.J. (N. J.), vol. 14, p. 240. 
 Duty to provide reasonably safe 
 station. 
 
 Texas & Pacific Railwaj' Co. 
 V. McLane (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), vol. 2, p. 263. 
 Effect of depot grounds being 
 in excess of legal limit where 
 stock are injured because of 
 failure to fence. 
 Eaton V. McNeill (Ore.), vol. 
 8, p. 680. 
 Evidence of fellow passenger 
 as to insuEBcient station facil- 
 ities. , 
 Ranney v. St. Johnsbury & 
 L. C. R. Co. (Vt.), vol. 2, 
 p. 282. 
 Evidence of usage of a railroad 
 company that one train should 
 not enter station while an- 
 other is delivering passen- 
 gers. 
 
 Floytrup v. Boston & Maine 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 
 273. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 571 
 
 STATIONS AND DEPOTS- 
 Continued. 
 
 E'ailure of carrier to repair 
 dangerous station. 
 Ranney v. St. Johnsbury & 
 L. C. R. Co. (Vt.), vol. 
 2, p. 282. 
 Foot stools, negligence in 
 failing to provide. 
 Madden v. Port Royal & W. 
 C. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 2, 
 p. 280. 
 Grants of special privileges to 
 local carriers of baggage. 
 Kates V. Atlanta B. & C. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 140. 
 Hackmen. 
 
 Cannot take up stand on street 
 running through company's 
 premises. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bork (R. I.), vol. 22, p. 
 511. 
 Defences in action to enjoin 
 trespasses by hackmen. 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Sulli- 
 van (Mass.), vol. 20, p. 
 356. 
 Discrimination in admitting 
 hackmen. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. City of 
 Chicago (111.), vol. 15, p. 
 618. 
 Enjoining establishment by 
 municipality of hack stand 
 in street before station. 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. City of 
 Chicago (111.), vol. IS, p. 
 618. 
 Establishment of hack stands 
 in front of depots. 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. City 
 of Chicago (111.), vol. IS, 
 p. 618. 
 Exclusive privileges. 
 Godbout V. St. Paul Union 
 Depot Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 16, p. 821. 
 Hedding v. Gallagher (N. 
 
 H.), vol. 17, p. 192. 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. 
 Co. V. Dohn (Ind. ), vol. 
 14, p. 543. 
 State V. Reed (Miss.), vol. 
 12, p. 22. 
 Local carrier guilty of tres- 
 pass in going upon station 
 ground to solicit patronage 
 after being notified of ex- 
 clusive privilege of rival 
 carrier. 
 
 Boston & A. R. Co. v. 
 Brown (Mass.), vol. 19, 
 p. 304. 
 
 STATIONS AND DEPOTS— 
 Continued. 
 
 Power of company to desig- 
 nate hack stands. 
 Ivucas V. Herbert (Ind.), 
 vol. 7, p. 729. 
 Right to enjoin continuing 
 trespass on station grounds 
 by other hackmen, where 
 exclusive privilege has been 
 granted. 
 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Sul- 
 livan (Mass.), vol. 20, 
 p. 356. 
 Right to enter depot. 
 
 Godbout V. St. Paul Union 
 Depot Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 16, p. 821. 
 Right to exclude. 
 
 Godbout V. St. Paul Union 
 Depot Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 16, p. 821. 
 Right to solicit business in 
 depot. 
 
 Godbout V. St. Paul Union 
 Depot Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 16, p. 821. 
 Trespasses by hackmen, sufiB- 
 ciency of bill to enjoin. 
 Boston & M. R. R. v. Sul- 
 livan (Mass.), vol. 20, p. 
 356. 
 Validity of agreement with 
 stranger to suit giving him 
 exclusive privileges on de- 
 pot premises could not be 
 brought in issue by defend- 
 ant, in trespass against 
 hackmen for remaining on 
 company's premises to 
 solicit traffic. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bork {R. I.), vol. 22, p. 
 511. 
 Implied invitation to enter. 
 Gray v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 481. 
 Injuries caused by projecting 
 pin on car platform. 
 111. Cent. R. Co. v. O'Connell 
 (111.), vol. 4, p. 260. 
 Injury through ejection of per- 
 son from station. 
 Gray v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (Mass.), vol. 8, p. 481. 
 Injury to licensee at depot. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Spencer (Colo.), vol. 10, 
 p. 536. 
 Injury to passenger through 
 failure to repair depot plat- 
 form. 
 
 Fullerton v. Fordyce (Mo.), 
 vol. 10, p. 729. 
 
572 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STATIONS AND DEPOTS- 
 Coniinued. 
 Inquiry into propriety of loca- 
 tion of station in such prox- 
 imity to public highway that 
 cattle guard could not be con- 
 structed. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. E. Co. 
 
 V. Clonch (Kan.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 240. 
 Xfiability for injuries to passen- 
 ger caused by stepping on 
 banana skin. 
 Goddard v. Boston & M. R. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 423. 
 ^liability for injury to passen- 
 ger stepping into hole in de- 
 pot platform as affected by 
 crowded condition of plat- 
 form. 
 Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Robinson (Ind. ), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 628. 
 Liability of company for inciv- 
 ility and discomfort to pas- 
 senger at station. 
 Missouri, Kansas, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. Kendrick (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. ), vol. 2, p. 179. 
 I/iability of railroad for injury 
 to passenger by mail pouch 
 thrown from train. 
 Shaw V. Chicago & G. T. 
 
 Ey. Co. (Mich.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 131. 
 Licensee on platform injured 
 by bundle thrown from car. 
 McGrath v. Eastern Ry. Co. 
 
 of Minnesota (Minn.), vol. 
 
 13, p. 768. 
 
 Lights. 
 
 Failure to light station as 
 
 affected by intention to 
 
 remain unreasonable time. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Wood (C. C. A.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 493. 
 
 Ivighting platforms. 
 XfOuisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Ricketts (Ky.), vol. 6, 
 p. 186. 
 Proof as to sufBciency of 
 lights at depot platform. 
 Rothschild z/. Central R. Co. 
 of N. J. (Pa.), vol. 2, p. 
 282. 
 
 Lookout need not be kept for 
 prospective passenger sleep- 
 ing near track. 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Bolton (Ind. Ter.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 130. 
 
 STATIONS AND DEPOTS— 
 
 Continued. 
 Mail clerks may rely on rules 
 as to movement of trains 
 near station. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v, Kelly 
 (111.), vol. 17, p. 52. 
 Mandamus to compel erection of 
 depot. 
 
 State ex rel. Smart v. Kansas 
 City, S. & G. Ry. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 14, p. 461. 
 No' cause of action, under Ala- 
 bama statute, for failure to 
 maintain waiting room, until 
 performance of duty has 
 been required by railroad 
 commissioners. 
 Page V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 1. 
 Passing between train and de- 
 pot at high rate of speed, 
 negligence. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Ryan (111.), vol. 8, p. 754. 
 
 Platforms. 
 Care required as to passenger 
 platforms. 
 Robertson v. Wabash R. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 16. 
 Company not required to keep 
 platform free from ice and 
 snow for licensees. 
 Clark V. Howard (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 13, p. 743. 
 Defective platform of elevated 
 railroad. 
 Barth v. Kansas City El. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 281. 
 Defects. 
 
 Robertson v. Wabash R. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 16. 
 Wilkes V. Western & A. 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 826. 
 Liability of intersecting 
 railroads as joint tort fea- 
 sors because of proximity of 
 defective platform of other 
 company used by its own 
 passengers. 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Battle (Ark.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 700. 
 Person injured in boarding 
 train by passing over the 
 sloping part of the plat- 
 form instead of going down 
 the steps. 
 Rathgebe v, Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 288. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 573 
 
 STATIONS AND DEPOTS— 
 Continued. 
 
 Platforms, right of passenger 
 to assume that platform can 
 be crossed safely. 
 FuUerton w. Fordyce (Mo.), 
 vol. 2, p. 282. 
 Platform steps defective. 
 Dougherty v. Kansas City 
 & I. R. T. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 2, p. 280. 
 Power of railroad commis- 
 sioners to permit abandon- 
 ment of. 
 
 People ex rel. Loughran v. 
 Board of Railroad Com'rs 
 of State of New York 
 (JI. Y.), vol. 15, p. 441. 
 Power to grant privileges to 
 local carriers at station. 
 Hedding v. Gallagher (N. 
 H.), vol. 17, p. 192. 
 Question of company's notice 
 of dangers at, for jury. 
 Extou V. Central R. Co. v. 
 New Jersey (N. J.), vol. 14, 
 p. 240. 
 Remedies where breach of con- 
 tract to establish depot. 
 Yazoo . & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 Baldwin (Miss.), vol. 21, 
 p. 479. 
 Right to enjoin carrier from 
 allowing rival baggage com- 
 pany from entering station 
 grounds. 
 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Old 
 Dominion Baggage Co. 
 (Va.), vol. 20, p. 479. 
 Right to exclude persons from 
 station. 
 
 Perth, General Station Com- 
 mittee, V. Ross (Eng. ), vol. 
 8, p. 639. 
 Station grounds, definition. 
 Hathaway v. Detroit, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 19, 
 p. 714. 
 Street railroads, duty to pro- 
 vide. 
 
 Wilson V. Duluth Street R. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, p. 53. 
 SuflBciency of proof as to dis- 
 tance between depot platform 
 and car. 
 
 Rothschild v. Central R. Co. 
 of N. J. (Pa. St.), vol. 2, 
 p. 283. 
 Whether condition subsequent 
 of grant of right of way re- 
 quiring erection of passenger 
 stations at certain points are 
 void as against public policy. 
 Lyman v. Suburban R. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 21, p. 828. 
 
 STATIONS AND PLAT- 
 FORMS. 
 See Drunkenness. 
 
 STATUTE OF FRAUDS. 
 
 Contract between railroad and 
 
 electric road for maintenance 
 
 of gates and watchmen at 
 
 crossing as affected by. 
 
 Richmond Union Pass. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Richmond, F. & P. 
 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 206. 
 
 STATUTES. 
 See Charter. 
 
 Conflict of Laws. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 Crossings. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 Employers' Liability Acts. 
 
 Federal Courts. 
 
 Fellow Servants. 
 
 Fences. 
 
 Fires. 
 
 Interstate Commerce. 
 
 Judicial Notice. 
 
 Legislature. 
 
 Master and Servant, 
 
 Railroad Commissioners. 
 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 
 Signals. 
 
 Usury. 
 
 Adoption of foreign statute. 
 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hum- 
 ble (U. S.), vol. 20, p. 821. 
 Application of Ohio statute as 
 
 to railroad's liability for 
 
 damage from fire. 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Kreager (Ohio), vol. 18, p. 
 99. 
 Authority of railroad commis- 
 sioners under. 
 
 State ex rel. Lamar, Atty. 
 Gen., v. Jacksonville Ter- 
 minal Co. (Fla.), vol. 16, 
 p. 727. 
 California statute as to service 
 
 of process on foreign corpo- 
 ration, construed. 
 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Roller (C. C. A.), vol. 18, 
 p. 595. 
 Carrier's duty to care for live 
 
 stock in transit under South 
 
 Carolina statute. 
 
 Milam v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (S. Car.), vol. 18, p. 253. 
 Colorado statute as to recovery 
 
 of punitive damages from 
 
 master for malicious acts of 
 
 servant. 
 
 Ristine v. Blocker (Colo.), 
 vol. 18, p. 139. 
 
574 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STATUTES— Continued. 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 authorizing establishment 
 of joint rates by' railroad 
 commission. 
 
 State, Railroad & Ware- 
 house Commission v. 
 Minneapolis & St. L. 
 R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, 
 p. 630. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 forbidding a railroad com- 
 pany to enter into any 
 agreement with its em- 
 ployees to relieve it from 
 liability to them for neg- 
 ligence. 
 
 Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 7, p. 1. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 making railroads liable for 
 negligence of fellow serv- 
 ants. 
 
 TuUis V. Lake Erie & W. 
 R. Co. (U. S.), vol. 16, 
 p. 462. 
 Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 7, p. 1. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 providing penalty for fail- 
 ure to give crossing sig- 
 nals. 
 
 State ex rel. Cass County 
 V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. IS, p. 175. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 requiring railroads to sell 
 mileage books. 
 Beardsley v. New York, L. 
 E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 17, p. 149. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 requiring railroads to 
 transport shippers of live 
 stock free of charge. 
 Atchison, T. & S. E. Ry. 
 Co. V. Campbell (Kan.), 
 vol. 16, p. 828. 
 Missouri statute requiring 
 railroads to pay attorney's 
 fee in addition to damages 
 for injuries to live stock in 
 transit is unconstitutional. 
 Paddock v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 17, 
 p. 310. 
 Statute creating liability for 
 injury of passenger in the 
 absence of negligence. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Zernecke (Neb.), vol. 
 VT, p. 76. 
 
 STATUTES— Co«iz««^rf. 
 Construction of. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Zernecke (Neb.), vol. 17, 
 p. 76. 
 Godbout V. St. Paul Union 
 Depot Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 16, p. 821. 
 Nickolson v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 18, 
 p. 682. 
 Union Refrig. Trans. Co. v. 
 Lynch, County Treas. 
 (Utah), vol. 13, p. 868. 
 Construction of Arkansas stat- 
 ute providing for municipal 
 improvements. 
 
 Kansas Citj', etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Board Waterworks (Ark.), 
 vol. 20, p. 265. 
 Construction of foreign stat- 
 utes. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Stewart (Ark.), vol. 20, p. 
 571. 
 Construction of Lord Camp- 
 bell's act. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Zernecke (Neb.), vol. 
 17, p. 76. 
 Construction of Nebraska stat- 
 ute giving injured passenger 
 right of action. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Zernecke (Neb.), vol. 17, 
 p. 76. 
 Construction of New York 
 statute fixing rates of fare 
 where railroads are consoli- 
 dated. 
 
 Parker v. Elmira, C. & N. R. 
 . Co. (N. Y.), vol. 20, p. 344. 
 Construction of state from 
 which statute was adopted 
 will prevail, as far as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mooney (Fla.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 722. 
 
 Construction of state statute by 
 
 state court accepted by federal 
 
 court. 
 
 Cargill Co. v. Minnesota (U. 
 S.)j vol. 20, p. 658. 
 Construction of statute allow- 
 ing leases of railroad. 
 Eel River R. Co. v. State ex 
 rel. Kistler, Pros. Atty. 
 (Ind.), vol. 17, p. 595. 
 Construction of statute giving 
 right of action against city 
 for injury caused by defect- 
 ive street. 
 
 Schaefer v. City of Fond du 
 Lac (Wis.), vol. 11, p. 342. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 S7S 
 
 STATTyr-ES— Continued. 
 
 Construction of statute in ref- 
 erence to powers of railroad 
 commissioners. 
 Davis V. San Antonio & G. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. IS, 
 p. 449. 
 Construction of statute provid- 
 ing for penalty on "owner" 
 of railroad for failure to 
 give signal at crossing. 
 State ex rel. Cass County v. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. IS, p. 17S. 
 Contests of special elections. 
 Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 
 V. Scott, SherifE (L,a.), vol. 
 17, p. 74S. 
 Damages recoverable under 
 Missouri statute for injuries 
 to live stock in transit. 
 Paddock v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 17, p. 
 310. 
 Duty to look out for licensees. 
 Flaming v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, p. 
 S49. 
 Effect of omitting mere sur- 
 plusage in revision. 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cedar Rapids, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 152. 
 Exclusive privileges to local 
 carriers, construction of 
 English statute prohibiting. 
 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. 
 Old Dominion Baggage 
 Co. (Va.), vol. 20, p. 479. 
 Expression of subject in title. 
 Parker v. Elmira, C. & JST. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 20, p. 
 344. 
 Extraterritorial effect of Mis- 
 souri statute giving right of 
 action for death by wrongful 
 act. 
 
 Matheson v. Kansas City Ft. 
 S. & M. R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 
 17, p. 738. 
 Eederal statute authorizes 
 bringing of suit in state 
 court against receiver ap- 
 pointed by federal court with- 
 out leave' obtained from fed- 
 eral court. r-r ^ s 1 
 
 Malott V. Shimer (Ind. ), vol. 
 IS, p. 774. 
 Iowa statute prohibiting extor- 
 tion and discrimination in 
 making freight rates is appli- 
 cable to joint freight rates. 
 Blair V. Sioux City & P. Ry- 
 
 STATUTES— Co»/j«««rf. 
 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 17, p. 
 363. 
 Liability of receivers under 
 penal statute. 
 
 United States v. Harris (U. 
 _ S.), vol. 17, p. S82. 
 Minnesota statute not applica- 
 ble to case where servant was 
 injured by fall of coal dis- 
 lodged from tender by fellow 
 servant. 
 
 Weisel v. Eastern Ry. Co. of 
 Minnesota (Minn.), vol. 17, 
 p. 446. 
 Missouri statute as to exemp- 
 tion of land devoted to public 
 use from statute of limita- 
 tions, construed. 
 Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. z/. 
 Totman (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 
 69S. 
 Pleading invalidity of statutes 
 and ordinances. 
 City of York v. Chicago, B. 
 & Q. R. Co. (Neb.), vol. 14, 
 p. 200. 
 Presumption as to existence of 
 employers' liability act in 
 another state. 
 
 MacCarthy v. Whitcomb 
 (Wis.), vol. 20, p. 860. 
 Presumption that statute re- 
 quiring construction of con- 
 nections between railroads 
 is a valid exercise of police 
 power. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 State (Fla.), vol. 20, p. SOl. 
 Reading statutes to jury. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 613. 
 
 Repeal. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Foxworth (Fla.), vol. 13, 
 p. 469. 
 Separate coach statute, con- 
 strued. 
 
 Brown v. State (Ga.), vol. 
 17, p. 247. 
 State's consent to be sued not 
 contained in § 3669 of the 
 Political Code of California. 
 Smith zi. Reeves (U. S. ), vol. 
 19, p. S91. 
 State statutes allowing married 
 women to maintain suit in 
 state court is applicable in 
 federal courts. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Hum- 
 ble (C. C. A.), vol. 17, p. 
 83. 
 
576 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STATUTES— Continued. 
 
 Statute requiring blocking of 
 frogs, construed. 
 Gillin V. Patten & S. R. Co. 
 .(Me.), vol. 16, p. 508. 
 Wiscoijsin statute as to fellow 
 servants, construed. 
 ■Medberry v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ey. Co. (Wis.), 
 vol. 17, p. 494. 
 
 STATUTES OP LIMITA- 
 TION. 
 
 See Actions. 
 
 Limitation of Actions'. 
 
 STEPS OP OARS. 
 See Street Railways. 
 
 STIPULATIONS. 
 Continuance. 
 Southern Kan. Ey. Co. v. 
 Pavey (Kan.), vol. S, p. 
 S90. 
 
 STOCK. 
 
 See Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Fences. 
 Stock, Injuries to. 
 
 Statute prohibiting the trans- 
 fer of infected cattle through 
 state. 
 Selvege v. St. Louis & S. F. 
 
 E. Co. (Mo.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 625. 
 
 STOCK AND STOCK- 
 HOLDERS. 
 
 See Taxation, 
 Amendment of charter with- 
 out consent of. 
 Alexander v. Atlanta & W. 
 P. E. Co. (Ga.), vol. IS, 
 p. ^37. 
 Disqualification of judge. 
 Eobinson v. Southern Pacific 
 Co. (Cal. ), vol. 2, p. 44. 
 Effect upon stockholders' rights 
 of sale of property by re- 
 ceiver. 
 
 Davis V. San Antonio & G. 
 
 S. Ey. Co. (Tex.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. 449. 
 
 Enjoining state officers from 
 
 enforcing certain rates of 
 
 transportation. 
 
 Smyth, Attorney General, v.- 
 Ames (U. S.), vol. 10, p. 1. 
 Increase of. 
 Union Ry. Co. v. Sneed 
 (Tenn.), vol. 13, p. 876. 
 
 STOCK AND STOCKHOLD- 
 ERS — Continued. 
 
 Interest of railroad stockholders 
 secondary to that of the pub- 
 lic. 
 
 People, Cantrell, v. St. Louis, 
 A. & T. H. R. Co. (111.), 
 vol. 12, p. 227. 
 Lease of land to company for 
 stock yards. 
 
 Bacon v. Kentucky Central 
 Railway Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 1, p. 718. 
 Pacific railroads, liability of 
 stockholders. 
 
 United States v. Stanford 
 (U. S.), vol. 3, p. 331. 
 Preferred stock not a debt. 
 People, Cantrell, v. St. Louis, 
 A. & T. H. R. Co. (111.), 
 vol. 12, p. 227. 
 Railroad commissioners cannot 
 authorize, prohibit or annul 
 issues of stock. 
 Davis 7). San Antonio & G. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. IS, 
 p. 449. 
 Right to issue stock in pay- 
 ment for construction of rail- 
 road under Const. 111., art. 
 11, sec. 13. 
 
 Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Zieg- 
 
 ler (C. C. A.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 1. 
 
 Ziegler v. Lake St. El. E. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 1. 
 
 Ultra vires issue of stock in 
 
 violation of Const. 111., art. 
 
 11, sec. 13. 
 
 Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Zieg- 
 ler (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 1. 
 Ziegler v. Lake St. El. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 23, 
 p. 1. 
 Validity of stock issued in 
 good faith in exchange 
 to effect reorganization. 
 Sioux City, O. & W. Ry. Co. 
 V. Manhattan Trust Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. IS, p. 430. 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES TO. 
 See Actions. 
 
 Cattle Guards. 
 
 Fences. 
 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 Absence of proof of negligence 
 in action for injury to stock. 
 Jones V. Oregon Short Line 
 
 R. Co. (Idaho), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 26. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 577 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES 'TO-Coni'd. 
 Absolute liability under stat- 
 ute requiring cattle guards, 
 although animals are unlaw- 
 fully on crossing. 
 Quimby v. Boston & M. R. R. 
 (Vt.), vol. 19, p. 242. 
 Action for injuries to live 
 stock, defective summons. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Boweu (Ky.), vol. 9, p. 276. 
 Age of boy driver, no excuse 
 for contributory negligence. 
 McGill V. Minneapolis & St, 
 Li. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, 
 p. 790. 
 All employees not required to 
 keep lookout for stock. 
 Arkansas & L. Ry. Co. v. 
 Sanders (Ark.), vol. 23, p. 
 744. 
 Burden of proof as to the giv- 
 ing of signals, in action for 
 killing stock at crossing. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Wood (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 906. 
 Burden of proof to show com- 
 pliance with statutory re- 
 quirements as to the giving 
 of crossing signals, in ac- 
 tion for injuries to stock, 
 under Alabama Code, ^'i 3440, 
 3443. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Reaves 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 784. 
 Burden of proving negligence. 
 Talbott V. W. Va., etc., Ry. 
 Co.( W. Va.), vol. 8, p. 
 768. 
 Burden of proving that stock 
 was killed by train. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Forsythe 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 51. 
 Care required of company. 
 Beattyville & C. G. R. Co. v. 
 Maloney (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 24. 
 Savannah, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Wideman (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 
 714. 
 Care required to avoid injuring 
 cattle seen near track. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Reaves 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 784. 
 Cattle killed within cities and 
 towns. 
 
 Evans V. Sherman, S. & S. 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. S, 
 p. 184. 
 Colorado stock-killing act un- 
 constitutional. 
 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Thompson (Colo.), vol. 14, 
 p. 47. 
 
 ID— 37 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES TO— Cont'd. 
 
 Sweetland v. Atchison, T. & 
 
 S. F. R. Co. (Colo.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 449. 
 
 Company's negligence where it 
 
 killed a cow between street 
 
 crossings in a populous town, 
 
 while running at high rate 
 
 of speed without signals, ^is 
 
 for jury. 
 
 Ford V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. 
 
 Ry. Co.( Ark.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 142. 
 
 Company not liable for injury 
 
 to, where there is absence of 
 
 proof of negligence. 
 
 Jones V. Oregon Short Line 
 
 R. Co. (Idaho), vol. 14, p. 26. 
 
 Conflict of evidence as to 
 
 whether the animal was 
 
 standing on the track when 
 
 the train was more than one 
 
 mile distant and remained 
 
 there until struck, or came 
 
 suddenly in front of the 
 
 passing train. 
 
 Bennett v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. S, p. 148. 
 Constitutionality of statute im- 
 posing a penalty of double 
 the value of stock killed for 
 failure to give notice. 
 Joliffe V. Brown (Wash.), vol. 
 3, p. 2S4. 
 Contract stipulating for exemp- 
 tion from liability for injury 
 to stock on certain side track 
 relates exclusively to such 
 side track. 
 
 Weinkle v. Brunswick & W. 
 R. Co. (Ga. ), vol. 14, p. SO. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Cornell v. Manistee & N. 
 
 E. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 263. 
 Croft V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 11, p. 6S2. 
 Hutchinson v. Chicago, 
 
 etc., Ry. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 
 vol. S, p. 714. 
 Contributory negligence no 
 defense, if negligence was 
 proximate cause. 
 Sauls V. D. W. Alderman 
 
 & Sons Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 IS, p. SS8. 
 In action for injury to stock 
 under Wisconsin statute, 
 contributory negligence is 
 not a defence. 
 Cole V. Duluth, S. S. & 
 
 A. Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 749. 
 
578 
 
 GEKERAL INDEX 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES TO— Cont'd. 
 Leaving team insufficiently 
 hitched. 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Strickland (Ga.), vol. 23, 
 p. 510. 
 Crossing signals, whether fail- 
 ure to give was cause of in- 
 jury, question for jury. 
 McGill V. Minneapolis & St. 
 L. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, 
 p. 790. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 Expense of caring for in- 
 jured animals. 
 Cully V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 9, p. 872. 
 Interest on damages. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Calhoun (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 334. 
 Measure of damages. 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Billingsby (Tex. Civ. 
 App. ), vol. S, p. 714. 
 Omission to include in the 
 charge all the items of 
 damages claimed. 
 Terry v. Gulf, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. S, p. 714. 
 Whether claim for damages 
 for killing stock on track 
 bears interest. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Brown (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 
 107. 
 
 Defective fastening to cattle 
 pen. 
 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Big- 
 ham (Tex.), vol. 6, p. 791. 
 Duty of employees to give 
 signals. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bowen (Ky. ), vol. 9, p. 
 276. 
 
 Duty of engineer to animals 
 near track. 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Whittington (Miss.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 792. 
 Duty of engineer to keep look- 
 out. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bowen (Ky.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 276. 
 Duty of railroad company in 
 respect to stock is subor- 
 dinate to its duty to passen- 
 gers and freight. 
 Kirk V. Norfolk & W. R. Co. 
 
 (W. Va.), vol. 4, p. lOS. 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES '^O— Cont'd. 
 
 Duty of trainmen to look out 
 for stock. 
 Georgia R. & Banking Co. 
 
 V. Churchill (Ga.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 17. 
 Duty of trainmen where cattle 
 are seen near track. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Dumas (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 956. 
 Graybill v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 
 
 178. 
 Duty to fence against hogs un- 
 lawfully at large. 
 Kingsbury v. Missouri, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 719. 
 Duty to keep right of way free 
 from obstructions. 
 Arkansas & L. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Sanders (Ark.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 744. 
 Duty to look out for animals 
 on track. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Dumas (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 956. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kice (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 45. 
 . Duty to look out for cattle near 
 track. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Reaves 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 784. 
 Engineer's negligence, ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 5, 
 
 p. 714. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Louisville & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hall (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 7. 
 Burden of proof on plaintiff 
 to show that the killing of 
 stock on track was the 
 result of defendant's negli- 
 gence. 
 Mire v. Yazoo & M. Val. 
 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 761. 
 
 Compromise, admissibility 
 in evidence of letter offer- 
 ing compromise, in action 
 for injuries to stock. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Roberts (Colo.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 572. 
 
 Evidence as to value of stock. 
 Terry v. Gulf, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 vol. 5, p. 715. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 579 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES TO—Conl'd. 
 In an action to recover dam- 
 ages for the negligent kill- 
 ing of stock by a railroad 
 company, evidence to 
 show that signboards had 
 been erected at its cross- 
 ings and proper signals had 
 been given subsequent to 
 , the accident is inadmis- 
 sible. 
 Ivottisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bowen (Ky.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 276. 
 InsuflBcient evidence to war- 
 rant recovery for killing of 
 stock. 
 Schmidt v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. S, 
 
 p. 714. 
 Xilling stock, testimony of 
 engineer uncontradicted. 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Weems (Miss.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 788. 
 X/iability of railway com- 
 panies. 
 Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. ?/. 
 
 Weisel (Ohio), vol. S, 
 
 p. 714. 
 Ivimitation of actions. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Whitehead (Ala.), vol. 
 
 4, p. 262. 
 Ivookout for trespassing 
 stock. 
 Keilbach v. Chicago, M. 
 
 & St. P. Ry. Co. (N. 
 
 Dak.), vol. 14, p. 28. 
 Negligence. 
 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Irwin (Ga. ), vol. 8, p. 
 
 768. 
 Blankenship v. Kanawha, 
 
 etc., Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 768. 
 Notice, place of killing must 
 be designated in. 
 Ryan V. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 4. 
 Of failure to give crossing 
 signals, in action for in- 
 jury to stock near crossing. 
 Willingham v. Macon & B. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 340. 
 
 Of value. 
 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Calhoun (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 334. 
 Ordinance limiting speed. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wood 
 (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 570. 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES TO— CoTZif'rf. 
 Other killings. 
 Whitmore v. Rio Grande 
 Western Ry. Co. (Utah), 
 vol. 23, p. 742. 
 Weight of engineer's testi- 
 mony, in action for injury 
 to stock. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Reaves 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 784. 
 Failure to construct cattle 
 guards not actionable negli- 
 gence unless cause of injury. 
 McGill V. Minneapolis & St. 
 Li. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, 
 p. 790. 
 Failure to give signal and 
 slacken speed for crossing 
 is not negligence per se in 
 action to recover for stock 
 killed beyond crossing. 
 Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Clary 
 (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 8S6. 
 Failure to observe statutory 
 rule in approaching crossing 
 does not render company lia- 
 ble for injuries to stock be- 
 yond crossing. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. New 
 (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 19. 
 Fences. 
 Common law does not require. 
 Sinard v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 14, p. 17. 
 Duty to fence. 
 Patrie v. Oregon Short- 
 Line R. Co. (Idaho), vol. 
 14, p. 39. 
 Failure to fence does not 
 render company liable 
 where stock was not struck 
 by train. 
 
 Sinard v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 14, p. 17. 
 Failure to fence track in city 
 not prima facie evidence of 
 negligence. 
 
 Ryan v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 11, p. 
 647. 
 Fencing of switch limits. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Billingsby (Tex: Civ. 
 App.), vol. 5, p. 714. 
 Gate left open by land- 
 owner. 
 
 Harding v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 6, p. 615. 
 Iviability fixed by place of 
 killing. 
 
 Patrie v. Oregon Short 
 Line R. Co. (Idaho), vol. 
 14, p. 39. 
 
580 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES HO—ConVd. 
 Jjiability for failure to keep 
 in repair fence not required 
 by law. 
 
 Georgia S. & F. Ry. Co. 
 V. Wiseubaker (Ga.), vol. 
 22, p. 186. 
 Railroad liable for killing 
 stock at place where it 
 should have fence. 
 Patrie v. Oregon Short 
 Line R. Co. (Idaho), vol. 
 14, p. 39. 
 The fact that a railroad com- 
 pany neglected to fence 
 its track at a place where it 
 could have been fenced does 
 not render it liable for kill- 
 ing a horse prohibited to 
 be at large. 
 
 Evans V. Sherman, S. & S. 
 Ry. Co. (Tex.), vol. 5, 
 p. 184. 
 Under sees. 1, 2, art. 1, c. 
 72, Comp. St., a railroad 
 company is liable for in- 
 juries caused by a moving 
 train to cattle, horses, sheep 
 or hogs upon its track, at 
 a place where it ought to 
 have been, but was not, 
 fenced, although there was 
 no actual collision between 
 the train and the animals 
 injured. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Cox (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 379. 
 Gate left open by unknown 
 person without actual or im- 
 putable knowledge or notice 
 of the company. 
 Kavanaugh v. Atchison, T. 
 & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 21, p. 7SS. 
 Harmless error as to amount of 
 damages awarded. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Aber- 
 nathey (Tenn. ), vol. 22, 
 p. 206. 
 In action to recover for stock 
 killed, negligence in failing 
 to see stock and after seeing 
 it are questions for jury. 
 Ryan v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 11, p. 647. 
 Injuries to stock at farm cross- 
 ings. 
 
 Mooers v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, p. 753. 
 Injuries to stock, duty to con- 
 struct cattle guards. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Billings (Kan.), vol. 10, 
 p. 740. 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES rO— Cont'd. 
 Instructions. 
 Graybill v. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 20, p. 178. 
 Jurisdiction of supreme court 
 of Washington where stock 
 is killed. 
 
 Huber v. Brown (Wash.), 
 vol. 10, p. 884. 
 Justices of the peace, jurisdic- 
 tion of stock killing cases. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Whitehead (Ala.), vol. 4, 
 p. 262. 
 Killing of stock on track. 
 Lovejoy v. Chesapeake, etc., 
 R. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 4, 
 p. 261. 
 Killing of trespassing stock. 
 Roberds v. Mobile & O. R. 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 7, p. 93. 
 Killing stock, conflicting tes- 
 timony. 
 
 Quinu V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Miss.), vol. 7, p. 788. 
 Liability for killing stock a 
 question for jury. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Brown (Ga. ), vol. 10, p. 
 107. 
 Liability for killing stock at 
 crossing, sufBciency of evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Reaves 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 784. 
 Liability of company for fail- 
 ure to kpep lookout for stock. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 V. Ward (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 11, p. 328. 
 Negligence. 
 
 Negligence must be pleaded 
 in action for killing stock. 
 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 
 Thompson (Colo.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 47. 
 Negligence of owner as to 
 gates. 
 Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Weisel (Ohio), vol. 5, p. 
 
 714. 
 Negligence, question for 
 jury. 
 Hardison v. Atlantic & N. 
 
 C. R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 848. 
 Negligence, sufficiency of 
 evidence to rebut presump- 
 tion of in action for kill- 
 ing stock on track. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Lough- 
 ridge (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 387. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 581 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES 'TO— Cont'd. 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 Mire v. Yazoo & M. Val. 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 21, p. 
 761. 
 Notice, amendment of statute 
 as to does not afEect case in 
 which right of action accrued 
 prior to its passage. 
 Ryan v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 p. 4. 
 Notice, a state statute in relat- 
 ing to the killing or in- 
 juring of stock upon Unfenced 
 railroads provided that vfrit- 
 ten notice should be given to 
 "the nearest station agent of 
 the company to which said 
 railroads shall belong" : held, 
 that the meaning of such 
 statute was that written 
 notice should be given to the 
 agent nearest the accident, 
 whether living in the same 
 civil district or not. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Til- 
 man (Tenn.), vol. 7, p. 73S. 
 Notice, condition precedent to 
 maintenance of action for in- 
 juries to. 
 
 Ryan v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 p. 4. 
 Wood & Gumaer Mfg. Co. v. 
 Whitcomb (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 p. 1. 
 Notice, to construct cattle 
 guards, sufficienc3' of. 
 McGill V. Minneapolis & St. 
 Iv. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, 
 p. 790. 
 Notice, what required in action 
 for stock killing. 
 Ryan v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, 
 p. 4. 
 Placing salt upon track in 
 freezing weather. 
 Kirk V. Norfolk & W. R. Co. 
 (W. Va.), vol. 4, p. 105. 
 Pleading and proving negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Haner v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Idaho), vol. 19, p. 628. 
 Presumptions as to place of 
 entry on track. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Tier- 
 nan (Tenn.), vol. IS, p. 
 564. 
 Presumption of negligence. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Howard (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 15. 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES TIO— Cont'd. 
 Georgia S. & F. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Sanders (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 206. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. Rob- 
 inson (Ga.), vol. 23, p. S08. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 from the mere fact of kill- 
 ing. 
 Alabama Mid. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Gassett (Ga.), vol. S, p. 
 
 607. 
 Davis V. Florida Cent. & P. 
 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 5, 
 
 p. 324. 
 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Wilson (Ark.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 32. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Bragg (Ark.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 34. 
 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Big- 
 ham (Tex.), vol. 6, p. 791. 
 Presumption of negligence in 
 action for killing, where 
 evidence is conflicting. 
 McMillin v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 14, p. 37. 
 Railway not liable for stock 
 killed during receivership. 
 Schurr v. Omaha & St. L. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 5, p. 
 
 152. 
 Rebutting presumption of neg- 
 ligence from injury to. 
 Cantrell v. Kansas City, M. 
 
 c& B. R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 30. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Wood (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 850. 
 Central of Georgia R. Co. v. 
 
 Woolsey (Ga. ), vol. 19, p. 
 
 573.' 
 Keilbach v. Chicago, M. & 
 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), 
 
 vol. 14, p. 28. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Early 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 859. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Bragg (Ark.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 34. 
 Repeal of charter provision as 
 to time in which action must 
 be brought. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Williams (Ky. ), vol. 11, 
 p. 338. 
 Right of action for killing live 
 stock as depending upon own- 
 ership. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Hall 
 
 (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 276. 
 
582 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES TO^Cont'd. 
 Right of defendant to new trial 
 because of insufficiency of 
 evidence. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Whavne 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 319. 
 
 Signals, absence of evidence 
 
 that failute to give was 
 
 cause of injury. 
 
 Maukey v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (S. Dak.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 248. 
 
 Signals, liability for injuries 
 to stock as affected by failure 
 to give at crossings. 
 Gray bill v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 20, p. 
 
 178. 
 Signals, question whether fail- 
 ure to give statutory signals 
 contributed to killing of cow 
 on track is for jury. 
 Ford V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 142. 
 Speed of train as negligence in 
 action for injury to. 
 Alabama Midland Ry. Co. v. 
 
 McGill (Ala.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 20. 
 Speed, whether speed of train 
 was proximate cause of kill- 
 ing cow is for jury. 
 Ford V. St. Louis, I. M. & 
 
 S. Ry. Co. (Ark.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 142. 
 Statutory requirements as to 
 signals not the sole measure 
 of duty of engineer where 
 cattle are seen near track. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Reaves 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 784. 
 Sufficiency of description of 
 land in contract releasing 
 railroad from damages for 
 killing stock. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Webster (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 410. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of neg- 
 ligence. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Shirley 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 60. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Watson 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 23, p. S09. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to show 
 that stock was killed by 
 train. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Forsythe 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. SI. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to sup- 
 port verdict. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Abernathey (Tenn.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 206. 
 
 STOCK, INJURIES rO— Cont'd. 
 Tax return as evidence of 
 value. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Tharp 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 8SS. 
 Unlawful speed as proximate 
 cause. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Neidlinger (Ga. ), vol. 17, 
 
 p. 758. 
 Validity of attorney's fees. 
 Jolliffe V. Brown (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 254. 
 Variance between notice of 
 claim required by Iowa Code 
 1873, g 1289, and .affidavits 
 and evidence did not render 
 the notice insufficient. 
 Brammer v. Wabash R. Coi 
 
 (Iowa), vol. 22, p. 508.- 
 Verdict warranted by evidence. 
 Willingham v. Macon & B. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Ga. ),vol.~21, p. 340. 
 Where defendant introduces 
 evidence tending to show his. 
 innocence, in an action to re- 
 cover for stock killed, his 
 negligence is a question for 
 jury. 
 Hardison v. Atlantic & N. 
 
 C. R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 848. 
 Where evidence as to whether 
 engineer was negligent in 
 failing to see stock on track 
 is conflicting negligence is 
 a question for jury. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Farrington (Ind. Ter. ), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 854. 
 Where horse was killed twenty 
 feet from a public crossing, a. 
 charge to the jury as to statu- 
 tory requirements to sound 
 whistle for public crossings, 
 constituted reversible error. 
 Sims V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 76. 
 Where stock is killed beyond 
 crossing, failure to give sig^ 
 nals and slacken speed is not 
 negligence per se. 
 Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Clary 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 856. 
 Where there is conflicting evi- 
 dence as to question of killing 
 of stock, question of negli- 
 gence is for jury. 
 Roberds v. Mobile & O. R. Co. 
 
 (Miss.), vol. 7, p. 93. 
 Wilfulness on part of owner not 
 shown by evidence of defect 
 in his gate. 
 Enix V. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Iowa) , vol. 23, p. S4. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 583 
 
 STOCKMEN. 
 
 See Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 STOP, LOOK AND LISTEN. 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings. 
 
 STOP-OVER CHECKS. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU. 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of Live Stock. 
 Jeffris V. Fitchburg- R. Co. 
 (Wis.), vol. 4, p. 608. 
 Chaug-e of consig-nee by ship- 
 per's ag;ent after consignment 
 to principal. 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. E. Co. 
 V. National Live Stock 
 Bank (111.), vol. 13, p. 1. 
 Lien for freight. 
 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. 
 Georgia Railroad & Bank- 
 ing Co. (Ga.), vol. 2, p. 685. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS. 
 See Abutters. 
 
 Accidents on Track. 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Children. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings. 
 Damages. 
 Electric Railways. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Exem^plary Damages. 
 Frightening Horses. 
 Injunction. 
 
 Municipal Corporations. 
 Nuisances. 
 Ordinances. 
 Personal Injuries. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Streets, 
 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 Abandonment. 
 Taylor v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 
 170. 
 Abutting owners cannot sue 
 jointly for damages in gross 
 sum where unlawful construc- 
 tion by street railway. 
 Younkin v. Milwaukee L., H. 
 & T. Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, p. 
 500. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Co»!fW. 
 Abutting owner's consent 
 avoided where proper construc- 
 tion of the line becomes im- 
 possible. 
 
 Beeson v. City of Chicago 
 (U. S.), vol. 5, p. 715. 
 Accident at street railway cross- 
 ing, child of about eleven 
 years old. 
 ' Consolidated & C. P. Ry. Co. 
 v. Wyatt (Kan.), vol. 9, p. 
 756. 
 
 Accidents on Track. 
 
 Care to be exercised by motor- 
 man and conductors. 
 Flewelling v. Lewiston & 
 A. H. R. Co. (Me.), vol. 6, 
 p. 501. 
 Care to be exercised by motor- 
 man of electric car. 
 White V. Worcester Consol- 
 idated St. R. Co. (Mass.), 
 vol. 6, p. 110. 
 Deaf persons. 
 Buttelli V. Jersey City, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 
 784. 
 Declaration of motorman as to 
 his failure to apply brakes 
 after discovering plaintiff's 
 peril as res gestae. 
 Floyd V. Paducah Ry. & 
 Light Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, 
 p. 167. 
 Defective track, pleading. 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Sut- 
 ton (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 771. 
 Duties of street railways and 
 public as to use of street. 
 Buttelli v. Jersey City, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 
 784. 
 Duty of electric railroads to 
 give signals of approach. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 Chenowith (N. J.), vol. 5, 
 p. 599. 
 Duty of gripraan towards per- 
 sons approaching tracks. 
 Bunyan v. Citizens' Ry. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 246. 
 Duty to provide fenders. 
 Schepers v. Union Depot R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 9. 
 Duty towards other travelers 
 of employee controlling' 
 moving cars. 
 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. 
 V. Coney (Md.), vol. 11, p. 
 759. 
 Buttelli V. Jersey City, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 
 784. 
 
S84 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cow^'f^. 
 Cincinnati, St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Whitcomb (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 260. 
 Cohen v. West Chicag-o St. 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 261. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 
 Scott (N. J.), vol. 4, p. 371. 
 Daly V. Detroit Citizens' St. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 260. 
 Laethem v. Ft. "Wayne & B. 
 
 I. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 259 i 
 Lake Roland El. R. Co. v. 
 
 McKewen (Md.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 260. 
 Little V. Superior R. T. R. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 260. 
 Montg-omery v. Lansing 
 
 City Electric R. Co. 
 
 (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 260. 
 Stelk V. McNulta (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 778. 
 Thoresen' v. La Crosse City 
 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 259. 
 Yingst V. Lebanon & A. 
 
 St. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 259. 
 Erroneous instruction in ac- 
 tion for injuries. 
 Hig-hland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sampson (Ala.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 718. 
 Error of judgment of motor- 
 man. 
 Bittner v. Crosstown St. Ry. 
 
 Co. of Buffalo (N. Y.) , vol. 
 
 9, p. 152. 
 Evidence as to proper posi- 
 tion of person operating car. 
 Czezewzka v. Benton Belle- 
 
 fontaine R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 267. 
 Evidence of negligent speed. 
 Rilev V. Salt Lake R. T. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 1, p. 266. 
 Yingst V. Lebanon & A. St. 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 266. 
 
 Evidence of person injured 
 
 when supposing car would 
 
 stop. 
 
 Atlantic Consol. St. R. Co. 
 
 V. Beauchamp (Ga.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 267. 
 Evidence of possibility of 
 stopping car. 
 Riley v. Salt Lake R. T. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 1, p. 266. 
 Evidence that tracks were in 
 public highway, in action 
 against street railway for 
 running down wagon. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cbw^'rf. 
 Vincent v. Norton, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 543. 
 Excessive speed. 
 Harper v. Philadelphia Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 257. 
 Expert evidence as to distance 
 within which car may be 
 stopped. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 759. 
 Harmless error in admitting 
 evidence of ordinance re- 
 quiring gripman to exercise 
 vigilance to prevent acci- 
 dents. 
 Schmidt v. St. Louis R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 711. 
 Injury to driver of vehicle on 
 street car track. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 
 V. Knoth (N. J.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 844. 
 Injury to person driving. 
 Laufer v. Bridgeport Trac- 
 tion Co. (Conn.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 788. 
 South Covington & C. St. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Enslen (Ky.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 786. 
 Killing deaf mute on electric 
 railway track, proximate 
 cause. 
 Thompson v. Salt Lake 
 
 Rapid Transit Co. (Utah), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 563. 
 Killing of person on track, 
 negligence a question for 
 
 jury- 
 Coll V. Easton Transit Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 11, p. 722. 
 Negligence, in striking a pe- 
 destrian, question for jury. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 
 Isley (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 457. 
 
 Negligence, obstruction of 
 
 track of street railroad by 
 
 carriage. 
 
 Camden, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Preston (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 616. 
 Negligence, question for jury 
 where no lookout for trav- 
 elers on backing car. 
 Central Ry. Co. v. Knowles 
 
 (111.), vol. 22, p. 795. 
 Obstruction near track of street 
 railway and failure to signal, 
 sufficiency of evidence of 
 negligence. 
 Perry v. Macon Consol. St. 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 819. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 585 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Co«^W. 
 Obstruction on track. 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 Haight(N. J.), vol. 8, p. 
 90. 
 Presumption that tracks were 
 in public highway in action 
 against street railway for 
 running down wagon. 
 Vincent v. Norton, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 543. 
 Public could acquire no right 
 to use as foot path track not 
 in highway. 
 
 Floyd V. Paducah Ry. & 
 Light Co. (Ky.), vol. 23, 
 p. 167. 
 Reciprocal duties of street rail- 
 ways and drivers of vehicles. 
 Moore v. Charlotte Electric 
 St. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 22, p. 785. 
 Restarting street car after 
 accident. 
 
 McDivitt V. Des Moines St. 
 R. Co. (Iowa) , vol. 6, p. 
 106. 
 Right of motorman to assume 
 that person will leave track. 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Shep- 
 herd (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 163. 
 Right of street railways and 
 travelers on street equal 
 except with respect to right 
 of way. 
 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.) , vol. 22, p. 759. 
 Right of way on tracks supe- 
 rior to that of other users. 
 Brown v. Wilmington City 
 Ry. Co. (Del.), vol. 12, p. 
 439. 
 Right to assume that a vehicle 
 will keep out of way of car. 
 White V. Worcester Consol. 
 St. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 6, 
 p. 110. 
 Right to punitive damages 
 where collision between . 
 street car and vehicle. 
 Nashville St. R. R. v. 
 O'Bryan (Tenn.), vol. 22, 
 p. 902. 
 Rule where street car meets 
 person or vehicle. 
 Hall V. Ogden City St. Ry. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 77. 
 
 Runaways. 
 
 Hamilton v. West End R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 221. 
 Signals, duty to give. 
 
 Philadelphia Traction Co. 
 V. Lightcap (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 1, p. 271. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cbwif'rf. 
 Street railway company liable 
 for running down wagon 
 and causing personal in- 
 juries not within Massachu- 
 setts Statute 1898, c. 578, sec. 
 11, requiring notice of in- 
 juries by any person in the 
 management of railway car 
 tracks. 
 Vincent v. Norton, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mass. ) , vol. 23, p. 543. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of neg- 
 ligence of motorman where 
 person was killed on track. 
 Stelk V. McNulta (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 778. 
 Superior right of passenger 
 in streets. 
 Bunyan v. Citizens' Ry. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 246. 
 Hicks V. Citizens' R. Co. 
 
 '(Mo.), vol. 1, p. 253. 
 Moore v. Kansas City & I. 
 
 R. T. Co. (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 254. 
 Omaha St. R. Co. v. Duvall 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 1, p. 253. 
 Orr V. Cedar Rapids &l M. 
 
 C. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 1, p. 
 
 239. 
 Thatcher v. Central Traction 
 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 1, p. 253. 
 Validity of ordinance re- 
 garding fenders on street 
 cars. 
 State V. City of Cape May 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 6, p. 511. 
 Warning of approaching 
 trolley car. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 
 V. Haight (N. J.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 90. 
 Where there was evidence 
 tending to show that a boy 
 injured on street car track 
 was guilty of contributory 
 negligence and that the 
 motorman should have seen 
 him in time to avoid injury, 
 company's liability was a 
 question for jury. 
 Baltimore City Pass. R Co. 
 
 V. Cooney (Md.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 759. 
 Wilful wrong in running 
 down wagon on street rail- 
 way track. 
 Vincent v. Norton, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, p. 543. 
 
 Acquiescence of municipality 
 
 in change of' motive power, 
 
 Potter V. Scran ton Traction 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 4, p. 307. 
 
586 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREET BAIL"WAYS— Cb»i!'(^. 
 Action against street railway 
 company for injuries and 
 death of others than passen- 
 gers. 
 Czezewzka v. Benton-Belle- 
 
 fontaine E. Co. (Mo.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 265. 
 Dunseath v. Pittsburgh, A. & 
 
 M. Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 278. 
 Little V. Superior R. T. R. Co. 
 
 (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 265. , 
 North Hudson Co. R. Co. v. 
 
 Flanagan (N. J.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 265. 
 Radford v. Spokane St. R. Co. 
 
 (Wash.), vol. 1,- p. 265. 
 San Antonio St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mechler (Tex.), vol. l,p. 265. 
 
 Action by abutter for damages 
 
 from construction of railway. 
 
 Taylor v. Bav City Street Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 165. 
 Action to compel operation, in- 
 terest necessary to enable one 
 to maintain. 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 
 
 vol. H, p. 62. 
 Action to compel operation, nec- 
 essity of demand. 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 11, p. 62. 
 
 Additional Servitude. 
 
 Canastota Knife Co. v. New- 
 ingtou, etc., Co. (Conn.), 
 vol. 7, p. 787. 
 
 Chicago & Calumet Termi- 
 nal Ry. Co. V. Whiting, 
 Hammond & East Chicago 
 St. Ry. Co. (Ind.), vol. 1, 
 p. 181. 
 
 Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Milwaukee R. & K. i^lec- 
 
 tric Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 7, p. 787. 
 
 Bridges over railway tracks. 
 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 mington St. Ry. Co. (N. 
 Car.), vol. 7, p. 786. 
 Not additional servitude. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta 
 R. T. Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 
 425. 
 
 Proximity to abutting prop- 
 erty. 
 
 Ashland & C. St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Faulkner (Ky.), vol. 10, p. 
 223. 
 
 Trolley poles not an additional 
 servitude. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cow^'c?. 
 
 Snyder v. Ft. Madison St, 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, p. 
 
 S3. . 
 
 Whether elevated railroads 
 
 are. 
 
 Freiday v. Sioux City R. T. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 1, p. 408. 
 Potts V. Quaker City Ele- 
 vated R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, 
 p. 401. 
 Whether the conversion of 
 horse railway into electric 
 road is an additional servi- 
 tude. 
 
 Reid V. Norfolk City R. Co. 
 (Va.), vol. 6, p. 792. 
 Agreement of street railway 
 company in con sideration of 
 consent of an abutting owner 
 that it would not thereafter 
 lay a second track. 
 Blondel v. St. Paul City R. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 6, p. 272. 
 Doane v. Chicago City Ry. Co. 
 (111.), vol. 6, p. 792. 
 Application for mandamus to 
 compel operation, review of 
 findings. 
 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co. 
 (Wash.), vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Assault by motorman. 
 
 Rudgeair v. Reading Traction 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 112. 
 Assistance of passenger alight- 
 ing. 
 
 Baldwin v. Fair Haven & W. 
 R. Co. (Coun.),vol. 9, p. 853. 
 Authority to connect lines ac- 
 quired from other companies. 
 Brown v. Atlanta Ry. & Power 
 Co. (Ga. ) , vol. 22, p. 886. 
 Authority to construct double 
 tracks under general power. 
 Brown v. Atlanta Ry. & Power 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 886. 
 Bond to a city to assure comple- 
 tion of street railway within 
 specified time. 
 
 City of Aberdeen v. Honey 
 (Wash.), vol. 1, p. 163. 
 Charter from legislature, what 
 constitutes. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta 
 R. T. Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 
 425. 
 Children. 
 
 Care required of street rail- 
 ways to avoid injuring small 
 children. 
 
 Levin v. Second Ave. Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 23, p. 
 318. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 587 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Co«i!'rf. STREET KAILMV AYS— Cont'd. 
 
 Duty of motortnan to exercise 
 watchfulness as to children. 
 Bergen County Traction Co. 
 V. Heitmau (N. J.), vol. 
 11, p. 286. 
 Evidence as to negligence of 
 driver and defective brake 
 where child was injured. 
 Gannon v. New Orleans 
 City, etc., R. Co. (I^a.), 
 vol. 6, p. 792. 
 Evidence of motorman's 
 negligence insufficient. 
 Fleishman v. Never si nk 
 Mountain R. Co. (Pa. St.), 
 vol. 4, p. 261. 
 Imputable negligence, where 
 child is killed. 
 Pox V. Oakland Consol. St. 
 Ry. (Cal.), vol. 9, p. 825. 
 Injury to child on track, negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Berg-en County Traction Co. 
 V. Heitman (N. J.), vol. 11, 
 p. 286. 
 Liiability for killing child sud- 
 denly running on track. 
 Callery v. Easton Transit 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 11, p. 323. 
 City council not exclusive judge 
 of consent of abutters. 
 Beeson v. City of Chicago (U. 
 S.), vol. S, p. 715. 
 
 Collisions. 
 
 Collision at intersection. 
 Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Kennedy (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 509. 
 Taylor v. Grand Ave. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 9, p. 863. 
 Collision between street car 
 and team. 
 Consol. Tract. Co. v. Behr 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 8, p. 770. 
 Hall z/.Ogden City St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 77. 
 South Covington Consol. St. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Pelzer (Ky.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 833. 
 State, Consol. Traction Co. 
 
 V. Reeves (N. J.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 650. 
 Collision of street car with 
 vehicle, negligence. 
 Consol. Tract. Co. v. Behr 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 8, p. 770. 
 Concurring negligence in col- 
 lision between two street 
 cars belonging to different 
 
 O'Rourke v. Lmdell Ky. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 9, p. 675. 
 
 Duty of company. 
 
 Orr V. Cedar Rapids & M. 
 S. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 1, 
 p. 239. 
 Duty of railroad to avoid 
 collision. 
 
 Hicks V. Citizens' R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 255. 
 What constitute. 
 
 Cooke V. Baltimore Trac- 
 tion Co. (Md.), vol. 1, p. 
 255. 
 Czezewzka v. Benton-Belle- 
 fontaine R. Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 1, p. 256. 
 Hicks V. Citizens' R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 255. 
 Johnson v. Reading City 
 Pass. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 1, p. 255. 
 Rome St. R. Co. v. McGin- 
 nis (Ga.), vol. 1, p. 256. 
 Thatcher v. Central Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 
 255. 
 Trowbridge v. Danville 
 St. R. Co. (Va.), vol. 1, 
 p. 256. 
 Common Carriers. 
 
 East Omaha St. R. Co. v. 
 Godola (Neb.), vol. 7, 
 p. 300. 
 Street railway companies are, 
 in this state, common car- 
 riers, and as such are re- 
 quired to exercise more than 
 ordinary skill and precau- 
 tion in order to insure the 
 safety of passengers upon 
 their trains. 
 
 East Omaha St. R. Co. v. 
 Godola (Neb.), vol. 7, 
 p. 300. 
 Compelling construction of 
 line. 
 
 San Antonio St. R. Co. v. 
 State ex rel. Elmendorf 
 (Tex.), vol. 6, p. 6'S8. 
 Complaint for personal in- 
 juries. 
 
 Cunningham v. I<os Angeles 
 
 Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 7, p. 783. 
 
 Condemnation of track of one 
 
 company to the use of another 
 
 company. 
 
 Colonial City Traction Co. v. 
 Kingston City R. Co. (N. 
 Y.), vol. 10, p. 327. 
 Conflicting rights of rival com- 
 panies. 
 
 Tamaqua & h. St. R. Co. v. 
 Inter-County St. R. Co. 
 (Pa. St.), vol. 1, p. 198. 
 
588 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— CoMif'rf. STREET RAILWAYS— CowifW. 
 
 Consolidation, effect on powers. 
 Sxate Consolidated Traction 
 Co. V. City of Elizabeth 
 (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 614. 
 Constitutional law, railway in 
 park where there is a prohibi- 
 tion against construction of 
 railroads in streets. 
 Philadelphia v. McManes 
 (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 652. 
 Construction of contract be- 
 tween street railways for use 
 of track. 
 
 Prospect Park & Coney Is- 
 land R. Co. V. Coney Island 
 & Brooklyn R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 1, p. 222. 
 Construction of statute grant- 
 ing exclusive privilege to use 
 streets. 
 
 Detroit Citizens' Street Ry. 
 Co. V. City of Detroit 
 (Mich.), vol. S, p. IS. 
 Construction of statute grant- 
 ing rights in streets. 
 Louisville Trust Co. v. City 
 of Cincinnati (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 6, p. 114. 
 Contracts between street rail- 
 ways, trackage agreement, 
 effect of city ordinance. 
 Canal & C. R. Co. v. Crescent 
 City R. Co. (La.), vol. 1, 
 p. 229. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Attempt to cross in front of 
 moving street car. 
 O'Connell v. St. Paul City 
 
 R. Cq. (Minn.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 60. 
 Boy injured while trying to 
 cross track diagonally. 
 Funk V. Traction Co. (Pa. ) , 
 
 vol. S, p. 71S. 
 Care required of driver of 
 vehicle driving along street 
 railway track in covered 
 wagon. 
 Vincent v. Norton, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 543. 
 Care to be exercised by trav- 
 elers in street. 
 Flewelling v. Lewiston & 
 
 A. H. R. Co. (Me.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 501. 
 Hall V. Ogden City St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 
 
 77. 
 Care to be exercised in cross- 
 ing track. 
 Young V. Citizens' St. R. 
 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. S, p. 717. 
 
 Collision of horse and vehicle 
 with street car. 
 State, Consolidated Trac- 
 tion Co. V. Reeves (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 651. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 boy injured on street car 
 track and negligence of 
 motorman . 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Cooney (Md. ), vol. 
 
 11, p. 759. 
 Crossing in front of moving 
 train. 
 Watson V. Mound City 
 
 Street Railway Co. (Mo. ) , 
 
 vol. 3, p. 385. 
 Deaf and dumb persons. 
 Beam v. Tama & T. Elec- 
 tric Ry. . & Light Co. 
 
 (Iowa), vol. 10, p. 610. 
 Death on street railway 
 tracks. 
 Blaney v. Electric Traction 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 560. 
 Driving covered wagon along 
 tracks. 
 Vincent v. Norton, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mass.), vol. 23, 
 
 p. 543. 
 Duty of persons using tracks. 
 Brown v. Wilmington City 
 
 Ry. Co. (Del.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 439. 
 Duty of travelers to avoid 
 collisions. 
 Baltimore Traction Co. v. 
 
 Appel (Md.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 261. 
 Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Whitcomb (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 261. 
 Connelly v. Trenton Pass. 
 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 261. 
 Patterson v. Townsend 
 
 (Iowa), vol. 1, p. 262. 
 Failvire to look and listen at 
 street railway crossing con- 
 tributory negligence as a 
 matter of law. 
 Cawley v. La Crosse City 
 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 453. 
 Horse negligently tied stray- 
 ing off and being run over. 
 Johnson v. Stewart (Ark.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 651. 
 Indifference to approaching 
 car of party injured. 
 Bunyan v. Citizens' Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 246. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 589 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cowif'rf. 
 Injuries to children. 
 
 Nelson v. Crescent City R. 
 
 Co. (La.), vol. 7, p. 192. 
 
 Injury to boy while crossing 
 
 in front of moving street 
 
 car. 
 
 Henderson v. Detroit Citi- 
 zens' St. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 10, p. 812. 
 Injury to child at crossing. 
 Consolidated City & C. P. 
 Ry. Co. V. Carlson 
 (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 274. 
 Injury to child, contributory 
 negligence of parents. 
 Cunningham v. Los An- 
 geles Ry. Co. (Cal.), vol. 
 7, p. 783. 
 Injury to person driving. 
 Laufer v. Bridgeport Trac- 
 tion Co. (Conn.), vol. 7, 
 p. 788. 
 Injury to person on track. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 V. Lambertson (N. J.), 
 vol. 6, p. 793. 
 Instruction where wagon is 
 run over. 
 
 Highland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Sampson (Ala.), vol. S, 
 p. 717. 
 Knowledge of defect in track. 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. 
 Sutton (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 
 772. 
 Liability for injury to child 
 as affected by contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Sciortino v. Crescent City 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 526. 
 Liability where sudden act 
 of child by reason of which 
 it was injured. 
 Culbertson v. Crescent 
 City R. Co. (La.), vol. 
 6, p. 522. 
 No recovery where there was 
 contributory negligence. 
 Brown v. Wilmington City 
 Ry. Co. (Del.), vol. 12, p. 
 440. 
 Obstructions near track of 
 street railway and failure 
 to signal. 
 
 Perry v. Macon Consol. St. 
 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 819. 
 
 Obstruction near track of 
 
 street railway and failure 
 
 to signal. 
 
 Perry v. Macon Consol. 
 St. R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 
 10, p. 819. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cow/'flT. 
 Obstruction of track of street 
 railroad bj' carriage. 
 Camden, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Preston (N. J.), vol. 5, p. 
 
 616. 
 Of deaf and dumb persons. 
 Buttelli V. Jersey City, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, 
 
 p. 784. 
 
 Of infant killed by railroad. 
 
 West Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Scanlan (111.), vol. 9, p. 482. 
 
 Person using street railway 
 
 tracks must use ordinary 
 
 care to avoid collision. 
 
 Brown v. Wilmington City 
 
 Ry. Co. (Del.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 440. 
 Question for jury. 
 
 Highland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sampson (Ala.), vol. 5, 
 
 p. 719. 
 Riding on bumper of street 
 car. 
 Bard v. Pennsylvania, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 717. 
 Running in front of moving 
 street car. 
 Perry v. Macon Consol. 
 
 St. R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 819. 
 Special verdict, failing to 
 show that plaintiff was free 
 from contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 Young ». Citizens' St. R. 
 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 5, p. 717. 
 Stopping an electric street 
 car at a dangerous place. 
 Vasele V. Grant Street 
 
 Electric Ry. Co. (Wash.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 75. 
 Stopping vehicle in such 
 close proximity to track 
 that a passing car collided 
 with it. 
 Bedford v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 6, p. 795. 
 The court will not declare, 
 as a matter of law, that a 
 boy ten years old, who 
 crosses a street car track in 
 a crowd of school children, 
 just released from school, 
 is culpably negligent be- 
 cause he fails to see a 
 street car coming towards 
 him, at a high rate of 
 speed, without the ringing 
 of any bell or other warn- 
 ing. 
 Consolidated City & C. P. 
 
 Ry. Co. V. Carlson 
 
 (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 274. 
 
590 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREET B.AILWA'YS—Coni'cl. STREET KAILTWAYS—Conrd. 
 
 The fact that a child may not 
 be capable of contributory 
 negligence does not always 
 render the defendant liable 
 upon the mere proof of 
 the act causing injury. 
 Culbertson v. Crescent City 
 
 R. Co. (Iva.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 522. 
 What constitutes. 
 Boerth v. West Side R. Co. 
 
 (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 264. 
 Central Pass. R. Co. v. 
 
 Chatterson (Ky. ), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 262. 
 Cooke V. Baltimore Trac- 
 tion Co. (Md.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 263. 
 Cross V. California St. 
 
 Cable R. Co. (Cal.), vol. 
 ■ 1, p. 262. 
 Daly V. Detroit Citizens' 
 
 St. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 263. 
 Downey v. Pittsburg, A. & 
 
 M. Traction Co. (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 263. 
 Hickey v. St. Paul City R. 
 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. l[ p. 
 
 263. 
 Hicks V. Citizens' R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 262t 
 McGrath v. City & Subur- 
 ban R. Co. (Ga. ), vol. 
 
 1, p. 263. 
 Mitchell V. Tacoma R. & 
 
 M. Co. (Wash.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 262. 
 Trowbrige v. Danville St. 
 
 Car Co. (Va. ), vol. 1, p. 
 
 263. 
 Whether contributory negli- 
 gence to go to door of car 
 while it is in motion for 
 the purpose of being ready 
 to alight. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 
 V. Thalheiraer (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 858. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Care due from company and 
 from drivers of vehicles at 
 street crossings. 
 Wilson V. Minneapolis St. 
 . Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 12, 
 p. 425. 
 Care to be exercised by per- 
 sons at street crossings. 
 Macon & I. S. Elec. St. Ry. 
 Co. V, Holmes (Ga.), vol. 
 12, p. 385. 
 Contract between street rail- 
 ways not to cross, save at 
 
 certain points, made to»pre- 
 vent competition, is void. 
 South Chicago City Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Calumet Electric 
 
 St. Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 789. 
 Duty of conductor to keep 
 lookout before car. 
 Macon & I. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Holmes (Ga.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 385. 
 Duty to look and listen in- 
 applicable to street rail- 
 ways. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 759. 
 Evidence, custom of pedes- 
 trians crossing street. 
 Metropolitan St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Johnson (Ga.), vol. 1, 
 
 ■p. 267. 
 Failure to sound gong contin- 
 uously at crossing not neg- 
 ligence. 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 
 Elec. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 364. 
 Failure to stop and look be- 
 fore driving over street car 
 track where view is ob- 
 structed, contributory neg- 
 ligence. 
 Darwood v. Union Traction. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 12, p. 474. 
 Failure to stop, look, and lis- 
 ten before crossing street 
 railways constitutes negli- 
 gence as a matter of law. 
 Tacoma Ry. & Power Co. 
 
 V. Hays (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 58. 
 
 Fright, injuries arising from 
 
 fright caused by negli- 
 
 .gence of company, liability. 
 
 Mitchell V. Rochester Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 215. 
 Mere operation of street car 
 at crossing in such manner 
 as to render it dangerous 
 for person about to cross 
 not negligence. 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 
 Elec. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 364. 
 
 Mutual obligations of street 
 railways and travelers to 
 avoid collisions at cross- 
 higs. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 759. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 591 
 
 STREET nAIUWAYS— Cont'd. 
 Railroad in street not entitled 
 to compensation from street 
 railway company as a con- 
 dition to crossing- its track. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 Beatrice Rapid Transit, 
 
 etc., Co. (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 325. . 
 
 Respective rights of public 
 and street railway com- 
 panies at intersecting 
 streets. 
 Richmond R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Garthright (Va.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 263. 
 Respective rights of trolley 
 car and person driving. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 
 V. Haight (N. J.), vol. 8, 
 
 p. 90. 
 
 Right of priority at intersec- 
 tion of two street railroads. 
 Chicago City Ry. Co. v. 
 Taylor (111.), vol. 9, p. 
 513. 
 Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. 
 zi. Kennedy (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 9, p. 509. 
 Right of railroad to prevent 
 street railway from crossing 
 its tracks in streets at 
 grade. 
 
 Chester Traction Co. v. 
 
 Philadelphia, W. & B. 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 428. 
 
 Right of street railway to 
 
 build overhead bridge, over 
 
 right of way of a railroad 
 
 company. 
 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Harrisburg & M. Electric 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 6, 
 p. 151. 
 Right of street railway to 
 cross railroad. 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Harrisburg & M. Electric 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 6, 
 p. 151. 
 Right of way as between cars 
 and vehicles at street cross- 
 ings. 
 
 Smith V. Electric Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 12, 
 p. 422. 
 Right of way at street rail- 
 way crossings. 
 New Jersey Electric Ry. 
 Co. V. Miller (N. J.), 
 vol. 6, p. 519. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— ro«i!W. 
 Right to cross other rail- 
 ways. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. At- 
 lanta R. "T. Co. (Ga.), 
 vol. 18, p. 425. 
 Right to cross tracks of steam 
 railroads. 
 
 Chicago & Calumet Termi- 
 nal Railway Co. v. Whit- 
 ing, Hammond & East 
 Chicago Street Ry. Co. 
 (Ind.), vol. 1, p. 181. 
 Steam railroads. 
 Chicago & Calumet Termi- 
 nal Ry. Co. V. Whiting, 
 Hammond & East Chicago 
 Street Railway Co. 
 (Ind.), vol. 1, p. 181. 
 Citizens' Pass. R. Co. v. 
 East Harrisburg Pass. R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 189. 
 Stop, look and listen. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 V. Haight (N. J.), vol. 8, 
 p. 90. 
 Hoel2el V. Crescent City R. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 8, p. 40. 
 Stop, look and listen not 
 applicable to street railway. 
 Fairbanks v. Bangor, O. & 
 O. Ry. Co. (Me.), vol. 
 23, p. 756. 
 Traver v. Spokane St. Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 22, p. 
 759. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of 
 negligence in rate of speed 
 at crossing. 
 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 Elec. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 23, p. 364. 
 Test of negligence in rate of 
 speed of street car at cross- 
 ings. 
 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 Elee. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 23, p. 364. 
 Damages, for incidental fright 
 where party is injured. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 V. Lambertson (N. J.), vol. 
 6, p. 793. 
 Definition of "recklessly." 
 Highland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Sampson (Ala.), vol. 5, p. 
 715. 
 Derailment of passenger cars, 
 declaration of employee as 
 res gestae. 
 
 Electric Ry. Co. v. Carson 
 (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 770. 
 
592 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cb«^'rf. STREET RAILWAYS— Cow/' rf. 
 
 Due care as to foot passenger 
 on part of electric railway. 
 Thompson v. Salt Lake 
 Rapid-Transit Co. (Utah), 
 vol. 10, p. S63. 
 Duty of city engineer, under 
 contract with municipality 
 to furnish lines and levels. 
 State, Crescent City R. Co. 
 V. Bell, City Engineer 
 (La.), vol. 8, p. 210. 
 Duty of electric^ car to give 
 signals of approach. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 Chenowith (N. J.), vol. S, 
 p. S99. 
 Eminent domain, exercise of 
 right by street railway com- 
 pany. 
 
 Baltimore & Frederickstown 
 Turnpike R. Co. v. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co. (Md.), 
 vol. 3, p. 177. 
 Evidence. 
 As to speed of car. 
 Cook V. Los Angeles & P. 
 Electric Ry. Co. (Cal. ), 
 vol. 23, p. 69. 
 Admissibility of rebutting 
 testimony of emplovee. 
 McClellan v. Ft. Wayne & 
 B. I. R. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 1, p. 266. 
 Admissibility of evidence 
 showing that before the ca- 
 ble broke directors attention 
 had been called to its weak- 
 ened state. 
 
 Musser v. Lancaster City 
 St. Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, 
 p. 718. 
 As to causes diverting driv- 
 er's attention. 
 McCoy V. Milwaukee S. R. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 
 267. 
 As to cause of fright of 
 horse. 
 
 Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. 
 V. Beauchamp (Ga.), vol. 
 1, p. 266. 
 As to defects in appliance. 
 Mitchell V. Tacoma R. & 
 M. Co. (Wash.), vol. 1, 
 p. 266. 
 Expert testimony. 
 McCoy V. Milwaukee S. 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 
 267. 
 Extent of injuries. 
 Montgomery v. Lansing 
 City Electric R. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 268. 
 
 Of employees who have made 
 reports of accident. 
 Laufer v. Bridgeport Trac- 
 tion Co. (Conn.), vol. 7, 
 p. 787. 
 Variance. 
 Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. 
 Whitcomb (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 1, p. 268. 
 Examination by doctor, in 
 action for personal injuries. 
 Holman v. Union St. Ry. 
 Co. of Saginaw (Mich.), 
 vol. 9, p. 105. 
 Expert evidence, testimony 
 of medical experts as to 
 probable duration of dis- 
 ability. 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. v. 
 Lambertson (N. J.), vol. 6, 
 p. 793. 
 Fellow servants. 
 Brittain v. West End St. Ry. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 7, p. 773. 
 Freight, effect on their other 
 powers of illegally con- 
 ferring upon street car 
 companies authority to be- 
 come carriers of freight. 
 Brown v. Atlanta Ry. & 
 Power Co. (Ga.), vol. 22, 
 p. 886. 
 Frightening horses. 
 Flewelling v. Lewiston & 
 A. H. R. Co. (Me.), vol. 
 
 6, p. SOI.. 
 Frightening horses, care to 
 
 be exercised in running 
 cars so as not to frighten 
 horses. 
 
 McCann v. Consolid a t e d 
 Traction Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 7, p. 280. 
 
 Frightening horses, employ- 
 ees hanging their coats on 
 projection of the side of 
 a water sprinkler operated 
 by electripity and thereby 
 frightening horses. 
 McCann v. Consolidated 
 
 Traction Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 7,. p. 280. 
 
 In action against a street 
 railway company to recover 
 for personal injuries the 
 question as to whether the 
 presumption of negligence 
 arising from such injury is 
 successfully rebutted or not 
 is for the jury. 
 
 O'Conner v. Scranton Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 6, p. 
 650. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 593 
 
 STREET ■RAIL.'WA.YS— Cont'd. 
 In action to compel operation, 
 the fact that the line is held 
 under a lease is immaterial. 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 Spokane St. Ey. Co. 
 (Wash.), vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Inconsistency between general 
 verdict and special findings. 
 Ebsery v. Chicago City Ry. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 6, p. 794. 
 Indemnity to street railway 
 company on account of in- 
 jury resulting from accident, 
 construction of insurance pol- 
 icy. 
 
 PhtUipsburg Horse Car Co. 
 V. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 2, p. 41S. 
 Injunctions. 
 Injunction against intersect- 
 ing trolley lines. 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. 
 Co. V. Birmingham Ry. 
 & Elec. Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 9, p. 502. 
 Philadelphia, W. & B. R. 
 Co. V. Wilmington City 
 Ry. Co, (Del.), vol. 9, p. 
 493. 
 Injunction to restrain con- 
 struction. 
 
 Niemann v. Detroit Subur- 
 ban St. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 1, p. 172. 
 Power of abutting owners to 
 restrain use of streets. 
 Beeson v. City of Chicago 
 (U. S.), vol. S, p. 715. 
 Power of rival street railway 
 to enjoin illegal construc- 
 tion. 
 
 New England R. Co. v. 
 Central Ry. & Elec. Co. 
 (Conn.), vol. 8, p. 261. 
 Power of rival street railway 
 to enjoin ultra vires act. 
 New England R. Co. ». 
 Central Ry. & Elec. Co. 
 (Conn.), vol. 8, p. 261. , 
 Private citizen cannot enjoin 
 exercise of corporate powers 
 merely because property was 
 acquired in violation of law. 
 Brown v. Atlanta Ry. & 
 Power Co. (Ga.), vol. 22, 
 p. 886. 
 Right to enjoin construction 
 as likely to cause abandon- 
 ment of line in another 
 
 street. . , -r. ^ 
 
 Brown v. Atlanta Ry. & 
 
 Power Co. (Ga.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 886. 
 ID— 38 
 
 STREET RAIUW AYS— Cont'd. 
 Sufficiency of petition for 
 injunction to compel re- 
 moval of trolley pole. 
 Snyder v. Pt. Madison St. 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 11, 
 p. 53. 
 
 Unauthorized construction. 
 Canastota Knife Co. v. 
 Newington Tramway Co; 
 (Conn.), vol. 7, p. 787. 
 
 Injuries to passerby by electric 
 wires. 
 
 Manning v. West End St. 
 Ry. Co. (Mass.), vol. 6, 
 p. 793. 
 
 Injuries to pedestrian by de- 
 fective arrangement of wires. 
 Manning i>. West End St. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mass.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. 793. 
 Instructions, evidence in action 
 for injuries. 
 Atlanta St. R. Co. v. Walker 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 1, p. 273., 
 Instructions, in actions for in- 
 juries. 
 Central Pass. R. Co. v. Chat- 
 
 terson (Ky.), vol. 1, p. 272. 
 Central R. Co. v. Serfass 
 
 (111.), vol. 1, p. 269. 
 Cohen v. West Chicago St. R. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 1, pp. 
 
 268, 271. 
 Doyle V. West End St. R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), vol. 1, p. 273. 
 McCoy V. Milwaukee S. R. Co. 
 
 (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 273. 
 Mitchell V. Tacoma, R. & 
 
 M. Co. (Wash.), vol. 1, 
 
 pp. 269, 270. 
 Omaha St. R. Co. v. Duvall 
 
 (Neb.), vol. 1, p. 269. 
 Philadelphia Traction Co. v. 
 
 Lightcap (C. C. A.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 271. 
 Redford v. Spokane St. R. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 273. 
 Riley v. Salt Lake R. T. Co. 
 
 (Utah), vol. 1, p. 271. 
 Investigation of cause of derail- 
 ment, declarations of em- 
 ployee as res gestae. 
 Electric Ry. Co. v. Carson 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 770. 
 Joint action against city and 
 railroad company on account 
 of defective track. 
 City of Fort Forth v. Allen 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App. ), vol. 1, p. 
 
 282. 
 
594 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREET B,AIL,^WA^YS— Cont'd. 
 t 
 Judgment for personal in- 
 juries. 
 Fidelity Loan & Trust Co. 
 
 V. Douglas (Iowa), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 713. 
 Law of the road. 
 Flewelling v. Lewiston & A. 
 
 H. R. Co. (Me.), vol. 6, 
 
 p. SOI. 
 Liability for personal injury 
 from broken trolley wire, in 
 moving disabled car. 
 Schenkel v. Pittsburg & 
 
 B. Tract'ion Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 904. 
 Liability of lessor for injury 
 caused by defective track. 
 Schaefer v. City of Fond du 
 
 Lac (Wis.), vol. 11, p. 342. 
 Local assessments, power to 
 assess street railways for im- 
 provements. 
 Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 City of Chicago (111.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 815. 
 Location, former appeal not 
 cause for abatement of latter 
 appeal. 
 Appeal of Cherryfield & M. 
 
 Elec. R. Co. (Me.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 906. 
 Lookouts, motorman looking 
 in another direction. 
 Harkins v. Pittsburg, A. & 
 
 M. Traction Co. (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 430. 
 Master and servant, repeal 
 of act enlarging the liabil- 
 ity of domestic corporations 
 to their servants by consti- 
 tutional provisions declaring 
 that no foreign corporations 
 shall enjoy any greater rights 
 or privileges than those en- 
 joyed by domestic corpora- 
 tion. 
 Crisswell v. Montana Cent. 
 
 R. Co. (Mont.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 6S2. 
 Maximum speed. 
 
 Laufer v. Bridgeport Trac- 
 tion Co. (Conn.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 787. 
 Mortgage on chattel property 
 of street railroad. 
 Hinchman v. Point Befiance 
 
 R. Co. (Wash.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 264. 
 
 Municipal Corporations. 
 
 Corporate powers granted 
 without municipal consent. 
 Brown v. Atlanta Ry. & 
 
 Power Co. (Ga.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 886. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Co«2!V. 
 Delegation of municipal 
 power to open street. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 V. Ocala St. & S. R. Co. 
 (Fla.), vol. 7, p. 686. 
 Grant of exclusive privileges 
 by municipal corporation. 
 Detroit Citiaens' Street 
 Railway Co. v. City of 
 Detroit (Mich.), vol. 5, 
 p. IS. 
 May require increase in num- 
 ber of cars. 
 
 People V. Detroit Citizens' 
 St. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 11, p. 798. 
 Municipal consent to route. 
 State V. Mayor, etc., of 
 Newark (N. J.), vol. 1, 
 p. 176. 
 Municipal control of streets, 
 tearing up street railways. 
 Des Moines City Ry. Co. 
 V. City of Des Moines 
 (Iowa), vol. 1, p. 21S. 
 Municipality must determine 
 number of tracks. 
 State V. Mayor, etc., of 
 Newark (N. J.), vol. 1, p. 
 176. 
 Municipal officers vested 
 with discretionary powers 
 with respect to the loca- 
 tion of street railways. 
 Appeal of Cherryfield & M. 
 Elec. R. Co. (Me.), vol. 
 22, p. 906. 
 Ordinance impairing com- 
 pany's franchises. 
 State Consolidated Traction 
 Co. v. City of Elizabeth 
 (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 614. 
 Permission to construct street 
 railway must be strictly 
 followed. 
 
 State (Cape May, etc. , Pros- 
 ecutor), V. City of Cape 
 May (N. J.), vol. 3, p. S92. 
 Power of city to impose 
 penalty upon street railway 
 for violation of ordinance. 
 People V. Detroit Citizens' 
 St. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 11, p. 798. 
 Power of council to demand 
 additional sum for fran- 
 chise. 
 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 23. 
 
 Power of municipality to 
 
 grant franchise. 
 
 Sun Printing, etc., Ass'n 
 
 V. Mayor of New York (N. 
 
 Y.), vol. 8, p. 771. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 595 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Co»i!'rf. 
 Power of municipality to 
 require conductors on cars. 
 State ex rel. Columbia 
 Electric St. Ry., Light 
 & Power Co. v. Sloan, 
 Mayor (S. Car.), vol. 9, 
 p. 44. 
 Power to pass ordinance in 
 conflict with prior one. 
 Brown v. Atlanta Ry. & 
 Power Co. (Ga.), vol. 22, 
 p. 886. 
 Right of local authority to 
 limit duration of street 
 grant. 
 
 Louisville Trust Co. v. City 
 of Cincinnati (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 6, p. 114. 
 Right to construct railway 
 conferred by ordinance. 
 State (Cape May, etc.. 
 Prosecutor) v. City of 
 Cape May (N. J.), vol. 
 3, p. 592. 
 Mutual rights of company and 
 citizens. 
 
 North Jersey St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Schwartz (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 
 620. 
 Nature and duration of rights 
 granted them. 
 
 Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co. 
 V. City of Detroit (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 1, p. 71. 
 Necessity of consent to regula- 
 tions as to use of street and 
 construction, maintenance 
 and operation of road. 
 State V. Commissioners of 
 Streets (N. J.), vol. 10, p. 
 323. 
 Negligence, a question for jury 
 where child was injured by 
 street car. 
 
 Reilly v. Philadelphia Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. S, p. 
 399. 
 Negligence immaterial vari- 
 ance. 
 
 Cincinnati St. R. Co. tj. 
 Whitcomb (U. vS.), vol. 1, 
 p. 268. 
 Negligence of electric railways 
 with respect to wires. 
 Atlanta Consol. St. Ky. Co. 
 V. Owings (Ga.), vol. 5, 
 p. 1. 
 Negligence, sufficiency of 
 
 "facts 
 
 Flanagan v. People's Pass. 
 
 R Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 268. 
 
 STREET RAIL^VAYS— Cow/'rf. 
 Negligence, where one is in- 
 jured by the breaking of a 
 wire cable, question for 
 jury- 
 
 Musser v. Lancaster City St. 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 
 719. 
 
 New franchise not subject to 
 old conditions regulating 
 manner of operating cars. 
 Stafford v. Chippewa Val. 
 
 Elec. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 
 23, p. 364. 
 
 New York statute as to sale 
 of franchises. 
 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 23. 
 
 Occupancy of another's tracks. 
 
 Crescent City R. Co. v. New 
 
 Orleans & C. R. Co. (La.), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 402. 
 
 Occupancy of street as abut- 
 ter's licensee no defense to 
 action to compel operation 
 where possession has been 
 unrfisturbed. 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Wash.), vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Ordinance construed to permit 
 onlj' the operation of street 
 railways and not to authorize 
 the operation of an ordinary 
 railroad in the streets. 
 Tallou V. Mayor, etc., of 
 
 City of Hoboken (N. J.}, 
 
 vol. 7, p. S4S. 
 Ordinance in respect to speed 
 of street car. 
 Hall V. Ogden City St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 77. 
 State V. City of Cape May 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 6, p. S07. 
 Overhead crossing, where 
 street railway intersects 
 with railroad. 
 Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. 
 
 Scran ton & P. Traction Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 7, p. 537. 
 Ownership by city. 
 
 Sun Printing, etc., Ass'n v. 
 
 Mayor of New York (N. 
 
 Y.), vol. 8, p. 771. 
 Parallel lines, necessity of. 
 In re Shelton St. Ry. Co. 
 
 (Conn.), vol. 9, p. 186. 
 Paramount right of street 
 railway company to use of 
 street. 
 Potter V. Scranton Traction 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 4, p. 307. 
 
596 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cowif'rf. 
 Passengers. 
 Alighting from moving car. 
 Boikens v. New Orleans, 
 etc., R. Co. (La. Ann.), 
 vol. 4, p. 260. 
 Brown v. Seattle City Ry. 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 9, p. 
 859. 
 Attempting to board moving 
 train. 
 
 Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Martin (Neb.), vol. 4, 
 p. 1. 
 Boarding car in motion. 
 Cicero & Proviso St. R. 
 Co. V. Meixner (111.), vol. 
 4, p. 246. 
 North Chicago St. Ry. Co. 
 V. Wiswell (111.), vol. 9, 
 p. 377. 
 Schepers v. Union Depot 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 9. 
 Burden of proof where pas- 
 senger is injured. 
 Chicago City Ry. Co. v. 
 Rood (111.), vol. 7, p. 
 784. 
 By-law requiring that each 
 passenger shall either de- 
 liver up his ticket or pay 
 the fare legally demandable 
 not unreasonable. 
 Hanks v. Bridgman 
 (Eng. ), vol. 3, p. 6S6. 
 Care required in regard to 
 safety of passengers. 
 Nichols V. Lynn & B. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 
 844. 
 Car starting before passenger 
 has' gotten upon it, throw- 
 ing and injuring him. 
 Miller v. St. Paul, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. S, 
 p. 718. 
 Carrying passenger past des- 
 tination, injuries while 
 walking back. 
 Young V. Camden, etc., R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 8, p. 
 768. 
 Construction of franchise as 
 to fares. 
 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 8, 
 p. 23. 
 
 Contributory negligence in 
 boarding moving car. 
 Schepers v. Union Depot 
 
 Railroad Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 2, p. 9. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— CoM/'flT. 
 
 Degree of care required of 
 passenger. 
 
 West Chicago St. Ry. Co. 
 V. Manning (111.), vol.. 9, 
 p. 364. 
 Derailment of cars, presump- 
 tion of neglig'ence. 
 Electric Ry. Co. v. Carson 
 (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 769. 
 Duty of company, accummn- 
 latiou of mud on steps of 
 street car. 
 
 Louisville R. Co. v. Park 
 (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 212. 
 Duty to continue operation of 
 line. 
 
 State ex' rel. Grinsfelder 
 V. Spokane St. Ry. Co. 
 (Wash.), vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Duty to passenger. 
 Cronan v. Crescent City 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 
 225. 
 Loviisville R. Co. v. Park 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 212. 
 Sullivan v. Jefferson Ave. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, p. 
 431. 
 Duty to stop at crossing. 
 Jackson Elec. Ry., Light & 
 Power Co. v. Lowry 
 (Miss.), vol. 23, p. 103. 
 Evidence of appearance of 
 injured passenger before 
 and after accident. 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. 
 V. Kennedy-Cahill (III.), 
 vol. 6, p. 794. 
 Evidence of custom as to 
 number of employees operat- 
 ing street car inadmissible. 
 Redfield v. Oakland Consol- 
 idated St. R. Co. (Cal.), 
 vol. 3, p. 430. 
 Expulsion of drunken passen- 
 ger. 
 
 Edgerly v. Union St. R. Co. 
 (N. H.), vol. 6, p. 795. 
 Expulsion of passengers, lia- 
 bility where conductor re- 
 fused to receive Isgal coin. 
 Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. 
 V. Keeny (Ga.), vol. 6, 
 p. 305. 
 
 Failure to place signal at 
 switch as affecting liability 
 for injury to passenger. 
 Bailey v. Tacoma Trac- 
 tion Co. (Wash.), vol. 6, 
 p. 795. 
 
 How relationship established. 
 
 Schepers v. Union Depot 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 9. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 597 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cowif'rf. 
 Injuries to passengers, evi- 
 dence. 
 
 West Chicago St. Ry. Co. 
 V. Keunelly (111.), vol. 
 9, p. 3S9. 
 Injury by appliance on street 
 car. 
 
 Bowdle V. Detroit St. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 2, p. 
 223. 
 Injury to car passenger at 
 railroad crossing where 
 concurring negligence. 
 Washington & G. R. Co. v. 
 Hickey (D. C), vol. 9, 
 p. 865. 
 Injury to passenger alighting 
 at unsafe place in street. 
 Conway v. lyewiston & Au- 
 burn Horse R. Co. (Me.), 
 vol. 2, p. 339. 
 Injury to passenger alighting 
 from moving street car. 
 New Jersey Traction Co. 
 V. Gardner (N. J.), vol. 
 9, p. 843. 
 Injury to passenger alighting 
 on rolling stone. 
 Conway v. Lewiston, etc., 
 R. Co. (Me.), vol. 8, p. 
 769. 
 Injury to passenger through 
 failure to stop. 
 White V. West End St. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 
 636. 
 Injury to passenger through 
 negligence. 
 
 Cronan v. Crescent City R. 
 Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 225. 
 Instructions as to care of 
 passengers. 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 McNulty (111.), vol. 9, 
 p. 255. 
 Instruction not submitting 
 defendant's negligence, in 
 action for injury to alight- 
 ing passenger. 
 Foley V. Brunswick Trac- 
 tion Co. (N. J.), vol. 23, 
 p. 621. 
 Inviting passenger to alight 
 at night at dangerous place 
 is negligence. 
 S o w a s h z-. Consolidated 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 12, p. 124. 
 Jerks and jars. 
 
 Chicago City Ry. Co. v. 
 Densmore (111.), vol. 6, p. 
 794. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cowfrf. 
 Jumping from moving car, 
 contributory negligence. 
 Jagger v. People's St. Rv. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 771. 
 Liability for injuries suffered 
 by passenger in collision. 
 Goorin v. Allegheny Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 9, p. 
 864. 
 Lurch or jerk of street car as 
 negligence. 
 
 Consolidation Traction Co. 
 V. Thalheimer (N. J.), 
 vol. 9, p. 858. 
 Negligence in boarding elec- 
 tric car is question of fact. 
 Cicero & Proviso St. R. 
 Co. V. Meixner (111.), vol. 
 4, p. 246. 
 Negligence in construction of 
 line. 
 
 Erslew V. New Orleans & 
 N. E. R. Co. (La.), vol. 
 6, p. 436. 
 Negligence in operation. 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. 
 V. Annis (111.), vol. 6, 
 p. 793. 
 Negligence of company ques- 
 tion for jury where passen- 
 ger riding on platform is 
 injured by sudden jerk of 
 car. 
 
 Bradley v. Second Ave. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 184. 
 
 Negligence of company when 
 
 passenger is attempting to 
 
 alight. 
 
 Nichols V. Lynn & B. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 844. 
 Negligence resulting in in- 
 jury to passenger, question 
 for jury. 
 
 Chicago City Ry. Co. v. 
 Densmore (111.), vol.6, p. 
 794. 
 Overcrowding street cars is 
 negligence. 
 
 Richmond R., etc., Co. v. 
 Garthright (Va.), vol. 4, 
 p. 257. 
 Passenger alighting from 
 wrong side of car. 
 West Chicago St. Ry. Co. 
 V. Manning (111.), vol. 9, 
 p. 364. 
 Passenger becomes a traveler 
 when he steps upon the 
 highway, from the car. 
 Smith V. City & Suburban 
 Ry. Co. (Ore.), vol. 5, p. 
 163. 
 
598 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— CoBif'rf. STREET "RAItrWAYS— Cont'd^ 
 
 Passenger burnt in street 
 car. 
 Sullivan v. Jefferson Ave. 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.),vol. 3, p. 431. 
 Passenger injured by sudden 
 movement of the car. 
 Dixey v. Philadelphia Trac- 
 tion Co. (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 294. 
 Passenger thrown from car 
 by sudden jerk. 
 EJtson V. Ft. Wayne, etc., 
 
 Ey. Co. (Mich.), vol. 5, 
 
 p. 718. 
 Payment ,of fare, action for 
 injury. 
 West Chicago St. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Manning (111.), vol. 
 
 9, p. 364. 
 Person alighting from street 
 car, passing behind it, and 
 starting across parallel . 
 track without looking to 
 see if another car was ap- 
 proaching. 
 Baltimore Traction Co. v. 
 
 Helms (Md.),vol. 6, p. 651. 
 Platforms, allowing boys to 
 ride on. 
 Cronan v. Crescent City 
 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 225. 
 Power of municipality to 
 require conductors on cars. 
 State ex rel. Columbia 
 
 Electric St. Ry., Light & 
 
 Power Co. v. Sloan, 
 
 Mayor (S. Car.), vol. 9, 
 
 p. 44. 
 Presumption of negligence. 
 Whalen v. Consolidated 
 
 Traction Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 207. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 where passenger was injured 
 in collision between street 
 car and wagon. 
 Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 809. 
 Presumption where deceased 
 stepped from one street car 
 in ample time to have 
 crossed parallel track and 
 to have avoided another car 
 coming in opposite direc- 
 tion. 
 Evansville St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gentry (Ind.), vol. S, p. 
 
 500. 
 Profanity. 
 Robinson v. Rockland, T. 
 
 & C. St. R. Co. (Me.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 160. 
 
 Proximate cause, death fol- 
 lowing from accident, and 
 premature birth of child. 
 Brashear v. Philadelphia. 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 6, p. 795. 
 
 Punitive damages for mali- 
 cious assault by conductor 
 on passenger. 
 Lexington Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Cozine (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 624. 
 Reasonableness of by-law 
 requiring passenger to show 
 ticket. 
 Hanks z/. Bridgman (Eng. ), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 656. 
 Riding on front platform of 
 street car not conclusive 
 evidence of contributory 
 negligence. 
 Bradley v. Second Ave. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 184. 
 Riding on platform. 
 
 Watson V. Portland & G. 
 
 E. Ry. Co. (Me.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 194. 
 Riding on platform or step- 
 of street car. 
 Bailey v. Tacoma Traction 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. 6, pp. 
 
 794, 795. 
 Mann v. Philadelphia 
 
 Traction Co. (Pa. St.), 
 
 vol. 4, p. 260. 
 Riding on platform or step of 
 street car, whether con- 
 tributory negligence per se. 
 East Omaha St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Godola (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 300. 
 Riding on running board,, 
 contributory negligence. 
 Hassen v. Nassau Elec. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 1. 
 Riding on step. 
 Whalen v. Consolidated 
 
 Traction Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 207. 
 Running car at high rate of 
 speed past its usual stop- 
 . ping place. 
 Denver & B. P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Dwyer (Colo.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 185. 
 Running car with platform 
 crowded with passengers at 
 high rate of speed around 
 a curve. 
 Reber v. Pittsburg & B. 
 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 7, p. 786. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 599 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Co«/f'£f. 
 Speed of train, injury to 
 passenger alighting. 
 Hardy v. Milwaukee St. R. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 2, p. 223. 
 Street railway may be re- 
 quired by city to increase 
 number of cars, where its 
 motive power has been 
 changed, although ordi- 
 nance granting its fran- 
 chises fixes another number. 
 People V. Detroit Citizens' 
 St. Ey. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 11, p. 798. 
 Sudden jerk. 
 
 Sirk V. Marion St. R. Co. 
 (Ind.), vol. 2, p. 223. 
 Sudden jerk of car injuring 
 passenger riding on run- 
 ning board, negligence. 
 Hassen v. Nassau Elec. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 12, p. 1. 
 Tender of $S by passenger as 
 fare. 
 
 Barker v. Central Park, N. 
 & E. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 6, p. 686. 
 Transfer, changing method 
 of transfer without notice 
 to passengers. 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 V. Taborn (N. J.), vol. 2, 
 p. 124. 
 Transfer, conditions. 
 
 Dennis v. Pittsburgh & C. 
 S. R. Co. (Pa. St.), 
 vol. 2, p. 110. 
 Transfer, decision of con- 
 ductor on validity of trans- 
 fer ticket. 
 
 Dennis v. Pittsburgh & C. 
 S. R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 
 2, p. 108. 
 Unreasonable rule against 
 backing cars to receive pas- 
 sengers at crossing. 
 Jackson Electric Ry., Light 
 & Power Co. v. Lowry 
 (Miss.), vol. 23, p. 103. 
 What will constitute wrongful 
 ejection. 
 
 Consolidated Traction Co. 
 V. Taborn (N. J.), vol. 
 2, p. 124. 
 Where question whether ordi- 
 nance requiring increased 
 number of cars is oppressive 
 is undecided, it must be 
 tested before relief will be 
 afforded. 
 
 People V. Detroit Citizens' 
 St. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 11, p. 798. 
 
 STREET RAIL'WAYS— Co«/'ar. 
 Whether a railroad can be 
 compelled to construct and 
 operate its lines on all of 
 the streets of which it was 
 granted that privilege. 
 San Antonio St. R. Co. v. 
 State ex rel. Elmendorf 
 (Tex.), vol. 6, p. 658. 
 Who are passengers. 
 
 Schepers v. Union Depot 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 9. 
 West Chicago St. Ry. Co. 
 V. Manning (111.), vol. 
 9, p. 364. 
 Power of state authorities to 
 grant the right to use the 
 streets to a street railroad. 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 23. 
 Powers governed by amend- 
 ment of act granting fran- 
 chises. 
 
 Ruckert v. Grand Ave. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 641. 
 
 Presumption of reasonableness 
 
 of ordinance regulating street 
 
 railway. 
 
 State Consolidated Traction 
 Co. V. City of Elizabeth (N. 
 J.), vol. 3, p. 614. 
 Ratification of charter granted 
 in violation of law, statute. 
 Brown v. Atlanta Ry. & 
 Power Co. (Ga.), vol. 22, 
 p. 886. 
 Reasonableness of ordinance 
 regulating. 
 
 State Consolidated Traction 
 Co. V. City of Elizabeth 
 (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 614. 
 Rebutting denial of employee on 
 cross-examination . 
 McClellan v. Ft. Wayne & B. 
 I. R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 1, 
 p. 266. 
 Right of abutter to damages 
 from construction and opera- 
 tion not increased by Mo. 
 Rev. St. 1889, I 1616. 
 Ruckert v. Grand Ave. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 641. 
 Right of abutting owners to 
 enjoin the location of a street 
 railway within the limits of 
 a public way. 
 
 Taylor v. Portsmouth K. & 
 Y. St. Ry. (Me.), vol. 10, 
 p. 215. 
 Right to use tracks of another 
 company. 
 
 Toledo Consolidated Ry. Co. 
 V. Toledo Elec. St. Ry. Co. 
 (Ohio), vol. 1, p. 230. 
 
600 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREET BAIL"W AYS— Cow^W. STREET -RAILTWAT^S— Cont'd. 
 
 Right under agreement to tem- 
 porarily use track at cross- 
 ing. 
 
 Port Richmond & P. P. El. 
 R. Co. V. Staten Island R. 
 T. Co. (N. Y. ), vol. 1, p. 229. 
 Specific performance of con- 
 tract to suppl3' electric power 
 to street railroad. 
 Electric Lighting Co. v. 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. (Ala.), 
 vol. 4, p. 265. 
 Speed of train, nonexpert tes- 
 timony. 
 
 Highland, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Sampson (Ala.), vol. S, p. 
 720. 
 Speed of train, violation of city 
 ordinance. 
 
 Highland, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Sampson (Ala.), vol. S, p. 
 720. 
 Stations, duty to provide. 
 Wilson V. Duluth Street R. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 4, p. S3. 
 Streets and Highways. 
 Authority to grant use of 
 public streets of a city 
 primarily resides in the 
 city. 
 
 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. 
 
 Co. {N. Y.), vol. 8, p. 23. 
 
 Capacity of street railroads 
 
 to accept limited street 
 
 grant. 
 
 Louisville Trust Co. v. City 
 of Cincinnati (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 6, p. 114. 
 Company liable for damages 
 caused by change of grade. 
 Stritesky v. City of Cedar 
 Rapids (Iowa), vol. 4, p. 
 535. 
 Conditions subsequent with 
 respect to time of construc- 
 tion of road unfulfilled, for- 
 feiture of municipal grant. 
 State ex rel. Baltimore, C. 
 & P. B. R. Co. V. Latrobe 
 (Md.), vol. 1, p. 118. 
 Discretion of court to grant 
 interlocutory i n j u n ction 
 which would interfere with 
 public improvement, where 
 no part of property of ap- 
 plicant is actually talien. 
 Brown v. Atlanta Ry. & 
 Power Co. (Ga.), vol. 
 22, p. 886. 
 Duty to pave streets. 
 City of Philadelphia v. 
 Hestonville, etc., R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. S, p. 659. 
 Duty to repair streets be-' 
 
 tween rails. 
 
 Bangs V. Lewiston, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Me.), vol. 7, p. 786. 
 
 Evidence of failure to cross 
 
 track to avoid obstruction. 
 
 Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Whitcomb (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 267. 
 
 Expense of change of motive 
 
 power, city not estopped to 
 
 deny rightful occupation of 
 
 street. 
 
 Louisville Trust Co. v. City 
 of Cincinnati (C. C. A.), 
 vol. .6, p. 114. 
 Extension of road beyond city 
 limits, how right acquired. 
 Citizens' Elec, etc., Co. v. 
 County Com'rs (Ohio), 
 vol. 8, p. 769. 
 Failure to repair tracks. 
 Bangs V. Lewiston, etc., R. 
 Co. (Me.), vol. 7, p. 785. 
 Implied condition as to use of 
 street. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. At- 
 lanta R. T. Co. (Ga.), 
 vol. 18, p. 425. 
 Laying tracks in center of 
 street. 
 
 Kennedy v. Detroit R. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 3, p. 430. 
 Mandamus to compel street 
 railways to pave. 
 City of Lansing v. Lan- 
 sing, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 5, p. 719. 
 Obligation of railroad to keep 
 track and street adjoining 
 in repair. 
 
 City of Fort Worth v. Allen 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 1, 
 p. 282. 
 Recovery by city over against 
 street railway for damages 
 arising from defective track. 
 City of. Fort Worth z>. Allen 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 1, 
 p. 282. 
 Repaving streets. 
 City of Lansing ». Lansing, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 5, p. 719. 
 Right in highways. 
 
 White V. Worcester Conaol. 
 St. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 
 6, p. 110. 
 
 Right of abutting owners to 
 sue jointly where unlawful 
 construction of street rail- 
 way. 
 
 Younkin v. Milwaukee, L. 
 H. & T. Co. (Wis.), vol. 
 23, p. 500. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 601 
 
 STBEBT RAILWAYS— Cow^'rf. 
 Eight of street railway com- 
 pany in public street. 
 Hall V. Ogden City St. Ry. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 4, p. 77. 
 Rights of rival street railway 
 companies in public high- 
 way. 
 
 West Jersey Traction Co. v. 
 Camden Horse R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 1, p. 133. 
 To what kinds Act March 26, 
 1887, I 2, of Mo., relating to 
 the granting of street rail- 
 way franchises and provid- 
 ing that city authorities 
 shall by ordinance desig- 
 nate the route, is appli- 
 cable. 
 
 Ruckert v. Grand Ave. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 641. 
 Track raised above pavement. 
 Taylor v. Bay City St.' Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 1, p. 166. 
 Use of bridge by railway com- 
 pany, consent of proper au- 
 thorities. 
 
 Berks Co. v. Reading City 
 Pass. R. Co. (Pa. St.), 
 vol. 1, p. 213. 
 State V. Freeholders of 
 Cumberland Co. (N. J.), 
 vol. 1, p. 213. 
 Use of turnpike by street 
 railway. 
 
 Green v. City & Suburban 
 
 Ry. Co. (Md.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 198. 
 
 Street railway company entitled 
 
 to hearing before enactment 
 
 of ordinance providing for 
 
 summary removal of its 
 
 tracks. 
 
 State (Cape May, etc., Pros- 
 ecutor), V. City of Cape 
 May (N. J.), vol. 3, p. S92. 
 Street railway company not 
 liable for negligence of in- 
 dependent contractor. 
 Sanford v. Pawtucket Street 
 Ry. Co. (R. I.), vol. 4, p. 
 318. 
 Street railways, ordinance reg- 
 ulating right of way at street 
 railway crossing. 
 Connor v. Electric Traction 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 4, p. 262. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of negli- 
 gence where a person was in - 
 jured by fallen trolley wires. 
 Baraford v. Pittsburgh & B. 
 Traction Co. (Pa.), vol. 22, 
 p. 798. 
 
 STREET RAILWAYS— Cowif'rf. 
 Taxation. 
 
 Construction of 111. Rev. St. 
 1893, ch. 120, I IS, providing 
 that street railway tracks 
 shall be treated as personal 
 property for purposes of 
 taxation. 
 Cicero, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 City of Chicago (111.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 815. 
 
 Franchise as part of roadbed, 
 and therefore to be treated 
 as personal property under 
 Mich. Tax Law, I 8, subd. 
 16. 
 
 City of Detroit v. Donovan 
 (Mich.), vol. 23, p. S20. 
 Proper remedy to restrain 
 collection of personal tax 
 against street railway com- 
 pany by seizure of its cars 
 under Michigan statute, pre- 
 venting interference with 
 valuable franchise. 
 City of Detroit v. Donovan 
 (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 520. 
 Rolling stock as personal 
 property under Michigan 
 tax law. 
 
 City of Detroit v. Donovan 
 (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 520. 
 Use of toll bridge by street 
 railway does not constitute 
 an exercise of the right of 
 eminent domain. 
 Pittsburgh & West End Pass. 
 Ry. Co. V. Point Bridge 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 209. 
 Use of tracks of another com- 
 pany. 
 
 Colonial City Traction Co. 
 V. Kingston City R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), vol. 9, p. 506. 
 Validity of city ordinance 
 granting franchise. 
 Santa Rosa City Ry. Co. 
 V. Central St. Ry. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 1, p. 105. 
 Validity of ordinance amend- 
 ing a former ordinance 
 permitting the use of double 
 tracks through the streets 
 and limiting the rights of 
 the company to one track 
 for a short distance in a 
 certain very crowded and 
 narrow street. 
 
 Mayor, etc., of City of Bal- 
 timore V. Baltimore Trust 
 & Guarantee Co. (U. S.), 
 vol. 7, p. 624. 
 
603 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREET RAllj-WAYS— Cont'd. 
 Validity of purchase of con- 
 sent of abutting- owners to 
 construction. 
 
 Doane v. Chicago City Ry. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 6, p. 792. 
 Where one is injured by the 
 braking of a wire cable, ques- 
 tion for jury. 
 
 Musser v. lyancaster City St. 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 
 719. 
 Whether "railroad" includes 
 street railway. 
 
 Massachusetts L. & T. Co. 
 V. Hamilton (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 11, p. 771. 
 Whether street railways are 
 commercial railroads. 
 Fidelity Loan & Trust Co. 
 V. Douglas (Iowa), vol. 9, 
 p. 713. 
 Whether street railways are 
 railroads, construction of 
 Const. Cal., art. 12, i 22. 
 Board of Railroad Com'rs v. 
 Market St. Ry. Co. (Cal.), 
 vol. 23, p. 21. 
 
 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS. 
 See Bridges. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Elevated Railroads. 
 Highways. 
 Railroads. 
 Railroads in Streets. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 Street Railways. 
 
 Abandonment by street rail- 
 way. 
 
 Taylor v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 1, p. 
 170. 
 Abatement of railroad as a nui- 
 sance. 
 
 Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Bloom 
 
 (Miss.), vol. 1, p; 28. 
 
 Abutter's right to compensation 
 
 where tracks are laid in streets. 
 
 I/ewis V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 413. 
 
 Additional Servitude. 
 
 Willamette Iron Works v. 
 Oregon Railway & Navi- 
 gation Co. (Ore.), vol. 1, 
 p. 36. 
 Distinction between misuse 
 and appropriation. 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Foley 
 (Colo.), vol. 1, p. 62. 
 Private steam railway in street. 
 Gustafson v. Hamm (Minn.), 
 vol. 1, p. 45. 
 
 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 
 
 — Continued, 
 
 Rights of abutting owner 
 where railroad is in street. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Davidson (Kan.), vol. 1, 
 p. 61. 
 Temporary obstructions. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Arnold (Kan.), vol. 1, p. 
 61. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Kobs (Ky.), vol. 1, p. 61. 
 Evans V. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 & O. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 1, 
 p. 61. 
 Test of. 
 
 Gustafson v. Hamm (Minn.), 
 vol. 1, p. 43. 
 What is an additional servi- 
 tude. 
 
 Willamette Iron Works v. 
 Oregon Railway & Navi- 
 gation Co. (Ore.), vol. 1, p. 
 36. 
 Whether carrying of freight by 
 railroad and street railroads 
 is an additional servitude. 
 Montgom^ery v. Santa Ana 
 & W. R. Co. (Cal.), vol. 1, 
 p. 44. 
 Alteration of streets by railroad 
 company under municipal au- 
 thority as a taking of land. 
 State V. Mayor of New Bruns- 
 wick (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 170. 
 Authority of municipality to 
 authorize railroad company to 
 alter streets. 
 
 State V. Mayor of New Bruns- 
 wick (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 170. 
 Authority of municipality to 
 condemn railroad land for 
 street purposes. 
 Illinois Central R. Co. v. City 
 of Chicago (111.), vol. 3, p. 
 181. 
 Authority to lay track in street, 
 extent of grant. 
 Evans V. Chicago, St. P., M. 
 & O. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 1, 
 p. 27. 
 Authority to use streets, duly 
 given, is a binding contract 
 upon city, if acted upon. 
 City of Belleville v. Citizens' 
 Horse Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 1. 
 p. 26. 
 
 Bona fide purchaser entitled to 
 order enjoining laying of ad- 
 ditional track. 
 Varwigz/. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 
 St. L. R. Co. (Ohio), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 265. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 603 
 
 STREETS AND HIGH-WAYS 
 — Continued. 
 Closing- streets. 
 
 CuUen V. New York, N. H. & 
 H. R. Co. (Conn.), vol. 3, p. 
 453. 
 Condemnation of land of rail- 
 road not used for train service. 
 Chicago & Northwestern R. 
 Co. V. City of Chicag-o (111.), 
 vol. 3, p. 199. 
 Condemnation of raUroad lands 
 for street purposes. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 Cicero (111.), vol. 3, p. 187. 
 Conditional dedication. 
 State ex rel. Grinsfelder v. 
 Spokane St. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 
 vol. 11, p. 62. 
 Consent of municipality to rail- 
 roads in streets. 
 Pennsylvania Schuylkill Val. 
 R. Co. V. Philadelphia & R. 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 26. 
 Construction of bridge across 
 intersecting streets. 
 Jones V. Erie & Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 18. 
 Construction of grant. 
 
 Com. ex. rel. Hensel, Atty. 
 
 Gen., V. Union Pass. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 99. 
 
 Construction of statute granting 
 
 exclusive privilege of the use 
 
 of streets. 
 
 Detroit Citizens' Street Rail- 
 way Co. V. City of Detroit 
 (Mich.), vol. S, p. IS. 
 Control of streets. 
 Bobira v. New Orleans & C. 
 
 R. Co. (L,a.), vol. 1, p. 220. 
 Newark Pass. Ry. Co. v. In- 
 habitants of East Orange 
 (N. X), vol. 1, p. 219. 
 Crossings. 
 Action to compel construction 
 of, pleading. 
 
 Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. 
 State ex rel. Town of Et. 
 Branch (Ind.), vol. 11, p. 
 278. 
 Burden of proof as to exist- 
 ence. 
 
 Evansville &. T. H. R. Co. 
 
 V. State ex rel. Town of 
 
 Ft. Branch (Ind.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 278. 
 
 Duty of railroad company to 
 
 construct as dependent ou 
 
 fixing- of street grade by city. 
 
 Evansville, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 
 State ex rel. Town of Et. 
 
 Branch (Ind.), vol. 11, p. 
 
 278. 
 
 STREETS AND HIGH^WAYS 
 
 — Continued. 
 
 Implied dedication. 
 
 Evansville & T. H. R. Co. 
 V. State ex rel. Town of 
 Ft. Branch (Ind.), vol. 11, 
 p. 278. 
 Damages. 
 Additional servitude. 
 
 Willamette Iron Works v. 
 Oregon Railway & Navi- 
 gation Co. (Ore.), vol. 1, 
 p. 36. 
 Additional servitude, measure 
 of damages in action by abut- 
 ter. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Kobs (R. I.), vol. 1, p. 64. 
 Grif&n v. Jacksonville, T. & 
 K. W. R. Co. (Fla.), vol. 1, 
 p. 64. 
 Johnsen v. Old Colony R. 
 
 Co. (R. I.), vol. 1, p. 63. 
 Maysville & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 Ingram (Ky.), vol. 1, p. 63. 
 Maysville & B. F. R. Co. v. 
 Conner (Ky.), vol. 1, p. 63. 
 Wolff V. Georgia & F. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 1, p. 64. 
 Extension of street across 
 right of way. 
 
 City of Terre Haute v. 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co. 
 (Ind.), vol. 8, p. 759. 
 Paterson, N. & N. Y. R. Co. 
 V. Mayor, etc. , of City of 
 Newark (N. J.), vol. 10, p. 
 182. 
 Measure of damages where 
 land is condemned for street 
 purposes. 
 
 Chicago & Northwestern R. 
 Co. V. Town of Cicero 
 (111.), vol. 3, p. 206. 
 Duty of street railways to pave 
 streets. 
 
 City of Philadelphia v. Hes- 
 tonville, etc., R. Co. (Pa.),, 
 vol. 5, p. 659. 
 Exclusive right to use of streets. 
 Goodrich v. Burlington, C. R. 
 & N. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 10, 
 p. 719. 
 Extension of street across rail- 
 road. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. City of Milwaukee (Wis.), 
 vol. 9, p. 537. 
 City of Detroit v. Detroit, G. 
 H. & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 
 vol. 8, p. 117. 
 City of Terre Haute v. Evans- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. (Ind.), vol. 
 8, p. 759. 
 
604 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREETS AND HIGH'WAyS 
 — Continued. 
 
 l^xtensiou of street over depot 
 grounds. 
 Chicag-o, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 
 City of Naperville (111.), 
 
 vol. 8, p. 702. 
 Extension of streets over rail- 
 road yards. 
 
 Cincinnati, Wabash & Mich- 
 igan R. Co. V. City of 
 
 Anderson (Ind.), vol. 3, p. 
 
 194. 
 Grant by municipality of right 
 to use streets. 
 Sun Printing, etc., Ass'n v. 
 
 Mayor of New York (N. Y.) , 
 
 vol. 8, p. 771. 
 Grant of exclusive right by 
 municipal corporation to street 
 railway companies. 
 Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. City of Detroit (Mich.), 
 
 vol. S, p. 15. 
 Grant of right of way on public 
 streets or highways subject to 
 the rights therein of the pub- 
 lic. 
 Jones V. Erie & Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 18. 
 Impairment of franchise of 
 street railway by municipal- 
 ity. 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. City St. 
 
 R. Co. (C. C. Ind.), vol. 1, p. 
 , 99. 
 Injury to boy on track through 
 defective construction. 
 Goodrich v, Burlington, C. R. 
 
 & N. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 719. 
 X/iability of railroad where road- 
 way is used by the public. 
 Burton v. Western, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. S, p. 708. 
 limitation of right to occupy 
 street. 
 West Jersey Traction Co. v. 
 
 Camden Horse R. Co. (N. J.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 132. 
 
 Mandamus to compel mayor to 
 approve permit to construct 
 tracks when company's right 
 is uncertain. 
 
 State ex rel. Baltimore, C. & 
 P. B. R. Co. V. Latrobe 
 (Md.), vol. 1, p. 99. 
 Mandamus to compel street rail- 
 ways to pave. 
 
 City of L«ansiug v. L,ansing, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. S, 
 p. 719. 
 Municipal confiscation of rail- 
 
 STREBTS AND HIGH'WAYS 
 
 — Continued. 
 
 road property. 
 
 City of Belleville v. Citizens' 
 
 Horse Ry. Co. (111.), vol. 1, 
 
 p. 28. 
 Municipal consent to railroads 
 in streets, ratification. 
 City of Owensboro v. Owens- 
 
 boro & N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 155. 
 Municipality cannot authorize 
 destruction of public passage. 
 Lockwood V. Wabash Railroad 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 16. 
 Municipal power to limit use of 
 street having a perpetual fran- 
 chise. 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. City St. 
 
 R. Co. (Ind.), vol. 1, p. 99. 
 Municipal power to remove 
 tracks, conflict of authority 
 between city and adjoining 
 county. 
 
 Delaware County & P. Elec- 
 tric R. Co. V. City of Phila- 
 delphia (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 28. 
 Notice required to be given to 
 land owner of meeting of 
 viewers in proceedings for lay- 
 ing out under Kansas statute. 
 State V. Bogardus (Kan.), vol. 
 
 22, p. 142. 
 Obligation of railroad to keep 
 track and street adjoining in 
 repair. 
 City of Fort Worth v. Allen 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 282. 
 Obligation upon street railway 
 to pave and repair streets. 
 Baumgartner v. City of Man- 
 
 kato (Minn.), vol. 1, p. 287. 
 Borough of McKeesport v. 
 
 McKeesport R. Co. (Pa.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 286. 
 City of Duluth v. Duluth St. 
 
 R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 1, p. 288. 
 City of Philadelphia v. Spring 
 
 Garden Farmers' M. Co. 
 
 (Pa. St.), vol. 1, pp. 286, 289. 
 Lehigh Coal & N. Co. v. Inter 
 
 County St. R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 286. 
 Obligation upon street railway 
 to pave and repair streets, 
 action for injury resulting 
 from defective track and road- 
 bed. 
 Gilton V. Hestonville, N. & F. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 
 
 292. 
 Kraut V. Frankfort S. P. City 
 
 Pass. Ry. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 292. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 605 
 
 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 
 — Continued. 
 
 Oblig-ation upon street railway- 
 to pave and repair streets, 
 instructions. 
 
 Houston City St. Ry. Co. v. 
 Richart (Tex.), vol. 1, p. 290. 
 Obligation upon street railway- 
 to pave and repair streets, 
 liability of abutters for paving- 
 streets cannot be enforced 
 until remedy against company 
 is exhausted. 
 
 City of Philadelphia v, Spring- 
 Garden Farmers' M. Co. 
 (Pa. St.), vol. 1, p. 289. 
 Obligation upon street railway 
 to pave and repair streets, 
 violation of law of the road. 
 Atlanta St. R. Co. v. Walker 
 (Ga.), vol. 1, p. 290. 
 Obstructions by trolley poles. 
 Cleveland v. Bangor Street 
 Railway Co. (Me.), vol. 1, p. 
 336. 
 Obstructions in streets. 
 City of Owensboro v. Owens- 
 boro & N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 8, p. ISS. 
 Occupation by a railway of land 
 in street upon its right of way 
 is notice to subsequent pur- 
 chaser of abutting land of its 
 right to use such track. 
 Varwig v. Cleveland, C. , C. & 
 St. Iv. R. Co. (Ohio), vol. 4, 
 p. 265. 
 Option conferred upon street 
 railway to avail itself or not 
 of an exclusive privilege as a 
 grant of an exclusive privilege. 
 Detroit Citizens' Street Rail- 
 way Co. V. City of Detroit 
 (Mich.), vol. 5, p. IS. 
 Ordinance permitting alteration 
 of streets, necessity of publi- 
 cation. 
 
 State V. Mayor of New Bruns- 
 wick (N. J. ) , vol. 3, p. 170. 
 Parties in mandamus proceed- 
 ings to compel railroad to re- 
 move obstruction. 
 People V. Northern Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 21, p. 192. 
 Paving streets by street rail- 
 ways. 
 
 City of Lansing v. Lansing, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. S, 
 p. 719. 
 Possession of street under a 
 grant sufficient evidence of 
 ownership of a franchise there- 
 for. 
 Santa Rosa City Railroad Co. 
 
 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 
 
 — Continued. 
 
 V. Central Street Railway 
 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 1, p. 106. 
 Power of municipality to grant 
 use of streets. 
 
 Homestead St. R. Co. v. Pitts- 
 burg & H. Electric St. R. Co. 
 
 (Pa.), vol. 1, p. 97. 
 Lockwood V. Wabash R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 1, p. 16. 
 Ivong V. Freeman (N. Car.)', 
 
 vol. 1, p. 97. 
 State V. Mayor, etc., of Jersey 
 
 City (N. J.), vol. 1, p. 98. 
 Tibbetts V. West & South 
 
 Towns St. R. Co. (111.), vol. 
 
 1, p. 98. 
 Power of municipality to take 
 depot grounds for street pur- 
 poses. 
 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul 
 
 R. Co. V. Starkweather 
 
 (Iowa), vol. 3, p. 189. 
 Power to authorize private rail- 
 way in street. 
 Gustafson v. Hamm (Minn.), 
 
 vol. 1, p. 45. 
 Presumption of negligence 
 raised by falling of object from 
 street structure. 
 Hogan V. Manhattan R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), vol. 3, p. 571. 
 Presumption under general 
 railroad laws as to extent of 
 appropriation under eminent 
 domain. 
 Jones V. Erie & Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 18. 
 Railroads in streets not en- 
 titled to compensation from 
 street railway company as a 
 condition to crossing of its 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Beatrice Rapid Transit & 
 Power Co. (Neb.), vol. 4, p. 
 325. 
 Restoration of highway by rail- 
 road company, question for 
 jury. 
 
 Allen V. Buffalo, R. &. P. Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 9, p. 265. 
 Revocation by city of authority 
 to lay tracks. 
 
 Asheville St. Ry. Co. v. City 
 of Asheville (N. Car.), vol. 
 1, p. 27. 
 Right of abutting owners to en- 
 join railroads in streets. 
 Mobile & M. Ry. Co. v. Ala- 
 bama M. Ry. Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 10, p. 128. 
 
606 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 
 — Continued. 
 Rig-ht of abutting owner to en- 
 join the operation of a steam 
 railroad in city streets. 
 Bond V. Pennsylvania Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 10, p. 118. 
 Right of city to extend street 
 across railroad right of way. 
 Chicago & Northwestern R. 
 
 Co. V. City of Chicago (111. ) , 
 
 vol. 3, p. 199. 
 Right of city to grant exclusive 
 and permanent use of street 
 to ordinary railroad. 
 Willamette Iron Works v. 
 
 Oregon Railway & Naviga- 
 tion Co. (Ore.), vol. 1, p. 36. 
 Right of owner of unauthorized 
 track in street to compensa- 
 tion for interference there- 
 with. 
 Union Elevator Co. v. Kansas 
 
 City S. B. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 130. 
 Right of way secured by exer- 
 cise of right of eminent do- 
 main on streets of cities, 
 extent of appropriation. 
 Jones V. Erie & Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 18. 
 Right to use railroad track in 
 highway. 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Anderson (C. C. A.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 497. 
 Selecting the more dangerous 
 of two avenues of travel. 
 Settoou V. Texas & Pac. R. 
 
 Co. (La. Ann.), vol. 4, p. 219. 
 Tearing up street railways. 
 Des Moines City Railway 
 
 Company v. City of Des 
 
 Moines (Iowa) , vol. 1, p. 215. 
 The fact that both plaintiff and 
 defendant own lands abutting 
 on a street by titles derived 
 through mesne conveyances 
 from the same source does not 
 estop defendant from occupy- 
 ing such street for railroad 
 purposes, such fact not estab- 
 lishing contractual relations 
 between plaintiff and defend- 
 ant. 
 Bond V. Pennsylvania Co. 
 
 (111.), vol. 10, p. 118. 
 Validity of assessment on rail- 
 road for street improvement. 
 City of New Whatcom v. Bell- 
 
 ingham Bay & B. C. R. Co. 
 
 (Wash.), vol. 6, p. 419. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City of 
 
 Kankakee (111.), vol. 6, p. 417. 
 
 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 
 
 — Continued. 
 Validity of ordinance requiring 
 a change of grade which would 
 render the track useless. 
 City of Owensboro v. Owens- 
 boro & N. R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 
 8, p. ISS. 
 Violation of terms of grant of 
 right to use streets. 
 Haus V. Jefferson, M. & I. R. 
 Co. (Ind.), vol. 1, p. 27. 
 What constitutes contract be- 
 tween municipality and rail- 
 road company as to alteration 
 of streets. 
 
 State V. Mayor of New Bruns- 
 wick (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 170. 
 Wrongful use of street, right of 
 adjacent lot owners. 
 Hoffman v. Flint & P. M. R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 9, p. 447. 
 
 STRUCTURES NEAR TRACK 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Railroad not liable on account 
 of necessary proximity of 
 crane placed near track by 
 government. 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Milliken (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 742. 
 
 SUBROGATION. 
 
 See Fires Set by Locomotives. 
 Insurance. 
 
 SUBSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 See Stock and Stockholders. 
 
 SUCCESSORS. 
 
 See Railroads. 
 Sales. 
 Lriability of purchaser of rail- 
 road for life passes issued by 
 predecessor. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hen- 
 rie (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 790. 
 Liability of purchaser of rail- 
 road for unpaid condemnation 
 money. 
 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Henrie (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 790. 
 
 Liability of purchasing railroad 
 
 for tort committed prior to 
 
 transfer by purchased railroad. 
 
 Pennison v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 573. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 607 
 
 SUCCESSORS— Continued. 
 lyiability of successor for res- 
 toration of highway. 
 Allen V. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. 9, p. 265. 
 Rights of purchaser of railroad. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hen- 
 rie (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 790. 
 
 SUMMONS. 
 See Parties. 
 
 SUNDAY. 
 
 See Interstate Commerce. 
 Action for personal injuries. 
 Jordan v. New York, N. H. & 
 H. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 3, p. 
 43S. 
 Running of freight trains on 
 Sunday. 
 
 Hennington v. Georgia (U. Si), 
 vol. 4, p. 448. 
 Violation of Sunday laws by 
 deceased. 
 
 Boyden v. iPitchburg R. Co. 
 
 (Vt.), vol. 10, p. 523. 
 
 Whether carriers are exempt 
 
 from liability for negligence. 
 
 Hortou V. Norwalk Tramway 
 
 Co. (Conn.), vol. 3, p. 299. 
 
 SUPERINTENDENTS. 
 See Agents. 
 
 SUPPLIES. 
 
 See Receivers. 
 
 SUPREME COURT. 
 
 See United States Courts. 
 
 SURETYSHIP. 
 Discharge of sureties to secure 
 damages to landowner by dis- 
 solution of corporation prior 
 to condemnation proceedings. 
 Keller v. Harrisburg & P. R. 
 Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 3, p. 130. 
 
 SURFACE "WATER. 
 
 See Water and Watercourses, 
 
 SURPRISE. 
 See Trials. 
 
 SURVIVAL, OF ACTIONS. 
 See Actions. 
 Whether an action for personal 
 injuries, not resulting in death 
 survives to the personal repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 Martin v. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 7, p. 576. 
 
 SWITCHES. . 
 
 See Railroad Commissions. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Accident from catching foot 
 in switch. 
 
 International &G. U. R. Co. 
 
 V. I,ee (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 434. 
 
 Verbal contract by railroad to 
 
 maintain switch for benefit of 
 
 shipper. 
 
 Warner v. Texas & P. R. Co. 
 (D. S.), vol. 6, p. 696. 
 
 SWITCHING CARS. 
 See Negligence. 
 
 SWITCH YARDS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Absence of butt post on stub 
 track is negligence. 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. 
 DriscoU (111.), vol. 12, p. 644. 
 Ashes on track. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Vestal (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 633. 
 Custom of other companies in 
 equipping switch-yards, not 
 admissible. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Dris- 
 coU (111.), vol. 12, p. 644. 
 Duty to ballast. 
 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 
 Morrissey (111.), vol. 12, p. 
 624. 
 
 Removal of snow. 
 Fay V. Chicago, St. P., M. & 
 O. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 12, 
 p. 641. 
 
 TAXATION. 
 
 See Consolidation. 
 
 Constitutional Law, 
 Estoppel. 
 
 Exemption from Taxa- 
 tion. 
 Injunctions, 
 Interest. 
 
 Local Assessments, 
 Street Railways. 
 Fisher v. West Virginia & P. 
 R. Co. (W. Va.), vol.4, p. 
 86. 
 Assessment. 
 Arbitrary and fraudulent as- 
 sessment and equalization of 
 railroad land under laws of 
 Oregon. 
 
 Oregon & C. R. Co. v. Jack- 
 son County (Ore.), vol. 22, 
 p. 98. 
 
608 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TAXATION— Continued. 
 
 Evidence of rental value of 
 roadbed. 
 
 Oregon & C. R. Co. v. Jack- 
 son County (Ore.), vol. 22, 
 p. 98. 
 How to estimate true "cash 
 value" of railroad under 
 Sess. L,aws 1893 of Oregon, 
 p. 6. 
 
 Oregon & C. R, Co. v. Jack- 
 son County (Ore. ) , vol. 22, 
 p. 98. 
 L,and leased to railroad com- 
 pany and used for railroad 
 purposes, is subject to as- 
 sessment by state and not 
 by the municipality, under 
 New Jersey laws. 
 In re Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol.22, p. 178. 
 Market value of roadbed. 
 Oregon & C. R. Co. v. Jack- 
 son County (Ore.), vol. 22, 
 p. 98. 
 Power of board of equalization 
 to validate an assessment. 
 Oregon & C. R. Co. z/.- Jack- 
 son County (Ore.), vol.22, 
 p. 98. 
 Province of supreme court of 
 Oregon. 
 
 Oregon & C. R. Co. v. Jack- 
 son County (Ore.), vol. 22, 
 p. 98. 
 Time for assessment under 
 Maryland statute. 
 Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. 
 V. Commissioners of Wi- 
 comico County (Md.),vol. 
 21, p. 284. 
 Commissioners of Wicomico 
 County V. Baltimore, C. & 
 A. Ry. Co. (Md.), vol. 21, 
 p. 284. 
 
 Capital Stock. 
 
 Deduction of indebtedness. 
 Com. V. New York, P. & O. 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 14, p. 
 14S. 
 
 Presumption as to correctness 
 of finding as to value. 
 Com. V. New York, P. & O. 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 14, p. 145. 
 Valuation. 
 Com. V. New York, P. & O. 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 14, p. 
 145. 
 What included. 
 Commonwealth v . New 
 York, P. & O. R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 14, p. 145. 
 
 TAXATION— Continued. 
 Coal yards of railroad com- 
 panies. 
 . Phila. V. Phila., etc., R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 720. 
 
 Consolidation. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. City 
 
 Council of Greenville (S. 
 
 Car.), vol. 3, p. 450. 
 Effect of consolidation of rail- 
 roads on railroad aid tax. 
 Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 Scott, Sheriff (La.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 745. 
 
 Constitutional Law. 
 
 Constitutionality of city li- 
 cense tax where railroad is 
 engaged, in interstate com- 
 merce. 
 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 City of Bessemer (Ala.), 
 vol. 6, p. 410. 
 Constitutionality of statute 
 providing for distribution of 
 rolling stock among coun- 
 ties. 
 
 Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. 
 V. Commissioners of Wi- 
 comico County (Md.), vol. 
 21, P./284. 
 Commissioners of Wicomico 
 County V. Baltimore, C. & 
 A. Ry. Co. (Md.), vol. 21, 
 p. 284. 
 Del. Rev. Code, p. 115, not un- 
 constitutional for taxing 
 buildings on right of way 
 although the land is exempt. 
 Sayers, Assessor, v. Wil- 
 mington & N. R. Co. (Del.), 
 vol. 22, p. 530. 
 Distribution of rolling stock 
 among counties, statute. 
 Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. v. 
 Commissioners of Wicomico 
 County (Md.), vol. 21, p. 284. 
 Commissioners of Wicomico 
 County V. Baltimore, C. & 
 A. Ry. Co. (Md.), vol. 21, p. 
 284. 
 
 Earnings. 
 Carrier not liable to assess- 
 ment on gross earnings de- 
 rived from carrying mail 
 where such earnings in- 
 cluded money received from 
 carrying interstate and for- 
 eign mail. 
 
 People V. Morgan IN. Y.), 
 vol. 22, p. 527. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 609 
 
 TAXATION— Continued. 
 
 Construction of provision that 
 the railroad should not be 
 subjected to a higher tax 
 than one half per cent, upon 
 its annual net income, and 
 that no municipal or other 
 corporation should have the 
 power to tax the stock of 
 said company, but might 
 tax any property, real or 
 personal, within the juris- 
 diction, in the ratio of taxa- 
 tion of like property. 
 Central Ry. & Banking- Co. 
 V. Wright, Comptroller 
 Gen. (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 181. 
 Determination -of net earnings. 
 State ex rel. St. Charles St. 
 R. Co. V. Board of Asses- 
 sors (La.), vol. 4, p. 386. 
 Interest on loans and deposits 
 included in. 
 
 Detroit, G. R. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Commissioner of Rail- 
 roads (Mich.),vol. 14, p. 174. 
 Switching receipts included in. 
 Detroit, G. R. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Commissioner of Rail- 
 roads (Mich.), vol. 14, p. 
 174. 
 Track and terminal rentals are 
 included in. 
 
 Detroit, G. R. & W. R. Co. 
 V. Commissioner of Rail- 
 roads (Mich.), vol. 14, p. 
 174. 
 Effect of payment of taxes by 
 owners of paramount title. 
 St. l/ouis, etc., R. Co. v. War- 
 fel (111.), vol. 6, p. 795. 
 Estoppel to deny legality of rail- 
 road aid tax. 
 
 Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Scott, Sheriff (La.), vol. 17, 
 p. 745. 
 Estoppel to object to time of as- 
 sessment. 
 
 Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. v. 
 Commissioners of Wicomico 
 County (Md.), vol. 21, p. 284. 
 
 Exemptions. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute. 
 St. Ivouis County v. Duluth 
 & I. R. R. Co. (Minn.), vol. 
 19, p. 273. 
 Construction of Maryland stat- 
 ute. 
 
 Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Mayor, etc., of Ocean 
 
 City (Md.), vol. 14, p. 195. 
 
 Construction of statute. 
 
 Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co. 
 
 I D— 39 
 
 TAX ATION— Co«iti»«erf. 
 
 V. Douglas County (Wis.), 
 vol. 14, p. 178. 
 Effect of consolidation of rail- 
 roads. 
 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 Adams (U. S.), vol. 20, pp. 
 350, 428. 
 Effect of reserved power to 
 amend or repeal. , 
 St. Ivouis County v. Duluth 
 & I. R. R. Co. (Minn.), 
 vol. 19, p. 273. 
 Exemption clause subject to 
 repeal, construction of Miss. 
 Act Feb. 23, 1882, § 18. 
 Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. 
 V. Hewes (U. S.), vol. 23, 
 p. 510. 
 Exemption does not extend to 
 property not necessary to 
 railroad's business. 
 Pord V. Delta & Pine Land 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 396. 
 Exemption from special as- 
 sessments. 
 
 Ford V. Delta & Pine Land 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 395. 
 Implied appeal of statutory 
 provision. 
 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 Adams (Miss.), vol. 20, p. 
 428. 
 Landlord's lien upon rolling 
 stock of leased railroad. 
 Trust Co. of North America 
 V. Manhattan Trust Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 220. 
 Property not used for railroad 
 purposes. 
 
 In re Erie R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 21, p. 695. 
 Railroad lands. 
 New Jersey Junction R. Co. 
 V. Mayor, etc., of Jersey 
 City (N. J,), vol. 14, p. 192. 
 Repeal of exemption in rail- 
 road charters by Mississippi 
 Code of 1892. 
 
 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. 
 Adams (Miss.), vol. 20, p. 
 428. 
 Right of, does not pass to pur- 
 chaser. 
 . Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. 
 V. Mayor, etc., of Ocean 
 City (Md.), vol. 14, p. 195. 
 Subrogation of one corpora- 
 tion to privileges of prede- 
 cessor does not include im- 
 munity from taxation. 
 Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. 
 V. Hewes (U. S.), vol. 23, 
 p. 510. 
 
61Q 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TAX.A'TION— Continued. 
 
 What included in "right of 
 way." 
 
 Territory of New Mexico v. 
 
 United States Trust Co. 
 
 of New York (U. S.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 811. 
 
 iForm of assessment of franchise 
 
 under Tex. Rev. St. 1895, art. 
 
 5082, subd. 3. 
 
 State V. Austin & N. W. R. 
 Co. (Tex.), vol. 22, p. SS6. 
 Franchise of street railway as 
 part of roadbed, and therefore 
 personal property. 
 City of Detroit v. Donovan 
 (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 520. 
 Interest on amount of judgment. 
 Cumberland & P. R. Co. v. 
 State (Md.), vol. 20, p. 755. 
 Interference with int e r s t a t e 
 commerce. 
 
 Cumberland' & P. R. Co. v. 
 State (Md..), vol. 20, p. 754. 
 Judgment against railroad prop- 
 erty. 
 
 Phila. V. Phila., etc., R. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 5, p. 720. 
 Jurisdiction to assess railroad 
 property. 
 
 Nashville & D. R. Co. v. State 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 202. 
 I^and grants. 
 
 Wells County v. McHenry (N. 
 Dak.), vol. 10, p. 190. 
 Liability of former receivers for 
 taxes. 
 
 Comer v. Polk County (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 8, p. 288. 
 License tax on railroad, inter- 
 state commerce. 
 City of Anniston v. Southern 
 Ry. Co. (Ala.), vol. 9, p. 36. 
 
 Local Improvements. 
 Kansas statutes. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Peterson (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 
 772. 
 Legislative authority. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Peterson (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 
 772. 
 
 Liability of real estate. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Peterson (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 
 772. 
 
 Personal charge. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Peterson (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 772. 
 Roadbed of railroad exempt 
 
 1A.'X.A'S:iOTfi— Continued. 
 
 from special assessments for 
 public improvements. 
 City of Boston v. Boston & 
 A. R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 11, 
 p. 807. 
 Validity of assessment on rail- 
 road for street improvement. 
 City of New Whatcom v. 
 Bellingham Bay & B. C. 
 R. Co. (Wash.), vol. 6, p. 
 419. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City 
 of Kankakee (111.), vol. 6,. 
 p. 417. 
 Whether railroad land subject 
 to local assessment. 
 In re Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 178. 
 Mileage does not include road 
 operated in conjunction with 
 another company. 
 Detroit, G. R. & W. R. Co. v. 
 Com'rs of Railroads (Mich.), 
 vol. 14, p. 174. 
 Municipal taxation of railroad 
 property. 
 
 Philadelphia v. Phila., etc., 
 R. Co. (Pa.)„vol. 5, p. 720. 
 Occupation Tax. 
 
 Constitutional provisions. 
 City of York v. Chicago, B. 
 & Q. R. Co. (Neb.), vol. 14, 
 p. 200. 
 Ordinances imposing. 
 City of York v. Chicago, B. 
 & Q. R. Co. (Neb.), vol. 14, 
 p. 200. 
 Road engaged in interstate 
 commerce. 
 
 City of York v. Chicago, B. 
 
 &Q. R. Co. (Neb.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 200. 
 
 Power house and plant of street 
 
 railway company on leased 
 
 land. 
 
 New York Guar. •& Indem. Co. 
 V. Tacoma Rv. & Motor Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 249. 
 Power house held by street rail- 
 way underlease for twenty-five 
 years cannot be properly taxed 
 as part of right of way of an 
 ordinary railway company. 
 New York Guar. & Indem. Co. 
 V. Tacoma Ry. & Motor Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 249. 
 Power to review assessment. 
 City of Detroit v. Donovan 
 (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 520. 
 Power to tax corporate privi- 
 leges. 
 
 Gulf& Ship Inland R. Co. v. 
 Hewes (U. S.), vol. 23, p. 510. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 611 
 
 •J:a:K.A.'T10'N— Continued. 
 Presumption as to power. 
 
 Union Ref. Transit Co. v. 
 Lynch, Treasurer (U. S.), 
 vol. 17, p. 588. 
 Prior taxation act exempting 
 property not repealed by Del. 
 Const., art. 8, § 1. 
 Sayers, Assessor, v. Wilming- 
 ton & N. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 
 22, p. 530. 
 Proper remedy to restrain col- 
 ' lection of personal tax against 
 street railway company by 
 seizure of its cars under stat- 
 ute of Michigan preventing 
 interference with valuable 
 franchises. 
 
 City of Detroit v. Donovan 
 (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 520. 
 Property subject to. 
 
 In re Erie R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 
 21, p. 695. 
 Public lands granted to railroad 
 are taxable by state. 
 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Myers, Treas. of Jefferson 
 Co., Mont. (U.S.), vol. IS, 
 p. 391. 
 Question as to repeal of exemp- 
 tion a federal question. 
 Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. v. 
 Hewes (U. S.), vol. 23, p. 510. 
 Railroad's repair shop. 
 
 Western New York & Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co. V. Venango 
 County (Pa.), vol. 10, p. 185. 
 Right of way of street railroad 
 taxable as real estate under 
 New Jersey laws. 
 Mayor, etc. , of City of Newark 
 V. State Bd. of Taxation 
 (N. J.), vol. 23, p. 308. 
 Right of way subject to assess- 
 ment by state board, not by 
 local assessors. 
 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Grant (111.), vol. 11, p. 823. 
 Schools, taxation of railroads 
 for school purposes. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Board of Supervisors (Va.), 
 vol. 4, p. 265. 
 School taxes, erroneous listing. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cass 
 County (Neb.), vol. 8, p. 772. 
 Separate tax on lines operated 
 by one company. 
 City of Anniston V. Southern 
 Ry. Co. (Ala.), vol. 9, p. 36. 
 Situs for taxation of cars of 
 foreign company. 
 Union Refrig. Trans. Co. v. 
 Lynch, County Treasurer 
 (Utah) , vol. 13, p. 868. 
 
 TAXATION— Co«ii««erf. 
 
 State cannot regulate war reve- 
 nue tax. 
 
 Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 13, p. '314. 
 State taxation of lands granted 
 by congress to railroads. 
 Central Pac. R. Co. v. Nevada 
 (U. S.), vol. 4, p. 264. 
 Steel rails. 
 
 Toronto, etc., R. Co. v. Reg 
 (Eng.), vol. 5, p. 720. 
 Street railway rolling stock as 
 personal property under Mich- 
 igan tax law. 
 
 City of Detroit v. Donovan 
 (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 520. 
 Sufficiency of allegation that 
 majority of board of equaliza- 
 tion were acting fraudulently, 
 in bill by railroad to restrain 
 collection. 
 
 Oregon & C. R. Co. v. Jackson 
 County (Ore.), vol. 22, p. 98. 
 Sufficiency of bill by railroad 
 for injunction to restrain col- 
 lection. 
 
 Oregon & C. R. Co. v. Jackson 
 County (Ore.), vol. 22, p. 98. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to show 
 that railroad company was 
 owner of property assessed. 
 New York Guar. & Idem. Co. 
 V. Tacoma Ry. & Motor Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 249. 
 Taxation of cars of foreign com- 
 pany not interference with in- 
 terstate commerce.. 
 Union Refrig. Trans. Co. v. 
 Lynch, County Treasurer 
 (Utah), vol. 13, p. 868. 
 Taxation of foreign car used in 
 interstate commerce. 
 Union Ref. Transit Co. v. 
 Lynch, Treasurer (U. S.), 
 vol. 17, p. 588. 
 Trolley line not a railroad use. 
 In re Jersey City & B. Ry. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 23, p. 281. 
 Validity of second election for 
 railroad aid tax. 
 Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Scott, Sheriff (La.), vol. 17, 
 p. 745. 
 Validity of seizure of railroad 
 property for taxes. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Forest County (Wis.), vol. 6, 
 p. 796. 
 Validity of special election to 
 vote railroad aid tax. 
 Bras V. McConnell (Iowa), vol. 
 23, p. 127. 
 
612 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TAXATION— C(?«<z««rfrf. 
 
 Valuation of iatang-ible prop- 
 erty. 
 
 Weir V. Norman (U. S.), vol. 
 13, p. 861. 
 Valuation of intangible property 
 of railroad on basis of mile- 
 age of lines within and with- 
 out the state, not unconstitu- 
 tional. 
 
 Weir V. Norman (U. S.),vol. 
 13, p. 861. 
 Valuation of railway property 
 for taxation. 
 
 People ex rel. Delaware, L. & 
 W. R. Co. V. Clapp (N. Y.), 
 vol. 8, p. 95. 
 What included in right of way. 
 Nashville & D. E. Co. v. State 
 (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 202. 
 What is subject to taxation un- 
 der term "roadway." 
 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Cass County (N. Dak.)', 
 vol. 11, p. 813. 
 Where railroad bridge over nav- 
 igable river is assessable. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Richardson County (Neb.), 
 vol. 21, p. 702. 
 Whether charter was a revival 
 of rights and privileges which 
 had belonged to predecessor. 
 Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. v. 
 Hewes (U. S.), vol. 23, p. SIO. 
 Whether franchises are real es- 
 tate and, therefore, not subject 
 to separate tax under Tex. 
 Rev. St. 189S, art. S073. 
 State V. Austin & N. W. R. 
 Co. (Tex.), vol. 22, p. SS6. 
 Whether Mississippi statute pro- 
 viding for tax on sleeping cars 
 was unconstitutional as an in- 
 terference with interstate 
 commerce. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 Adams (Miss.), vol. '23, p. 
 583. 
 Whether repeal of exemption 
 impaired obligation of con- 
 tract, federal question. 
 Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. v. 
 Hewes (U. S), vol. 23, p. 
 510. 
 
 TAX SALE. 
 Railroad tracks do not pass with 
 land sold where such sale was 
 not on account of taxes due 
 from railroad. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. L,e- 
 Blanc (Miss.), vol. 12, p. 
 877. 
 
 TELEGRAPH COMPANIES. 
 \See Eminent Domain. 
 Contract of, with mortgagor 
 company for right of way not 
 binding on mortgagee. 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 Ann Arbor R. Co. (C. C. A.) ^ 
 vol. 13, p. 395. 
 Eminent Domain. 
 Public improvement. 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Ala.), vol. 
 13, p. 423. 
 Right of company to refuse 
 carriage facilities to com- 
 peting telegraph line. 
 Mercantile T. Co. v. Atlan- 
 tic & P. R. Co. (Cal.), 
 vol. 1, p. 910. 
 Telegraph line along railroad 
 right of way. 
 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Postal 
 Tel. Cable Co. (Tenn.),- 
 vol. 10, p. 867. 
 Telephone a telegraph. 
 Northwestern Tel. Exch. 
 Co. V. Chicago M. & St.. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol.. 
 13, p. 449. 
 
 TELEGRAPHIC ORDERS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 TELEGRAPH POLES. 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Telegraph pole placed so near 
 track as to injure employee. 
 Crandall v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 5, p. 543. 
 Whipple V. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (R. I.), vol. 5. p. 517. 
 
 TELEGRAPHS AND TELE- 
 PHONES. 
 
 See Eminent Domain. 
 Duty to guard wires from possi- 
 ble contact with crossing 
 telephone wires. 
 Block V. Milwaukee Street 
 Railway Co. (Wis.), vol. 1,. 
 p. 329. 
 
 TENANTS. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 TENDER. 
 
 See Release. 
 
 Damages received upon can- 
 cellation of release. 
 Lumley v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 6, p. 82. 
 Terminals. 
 Sherwood v. Atlantic & D. 
 R. Co. (Va.), vol. 6, p. 670. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 613 
 
 "TERMIN'AL COMPANIES. 
 See Connecting Carriers. 
 
 THEFT. 
 
 See Baggage. 
 
 Sleeping Car Companies. 
 
 THOUSAND-MILE TICKETS. 
 See Interstate Commerce. 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 
 THROUGH TRAINS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 TICKET AGENTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 
 TICKET BROKERS. 
 A ticket broker purchased of the 
 defendant railway company 
 tickets good over the defend- 
 ant's road to a certain point, 
 and with coupons good from 
 there over the line of a con- 
 necting carrier. The tickets 
 having been used by the de- 
 fendant under an agreement 
 with, and by the authority of 
 the connecting carriers, the 
 •coupons were accepted for 
 passage by the connecting 
 carriers for a number of years 
 until it came into the hands of 
 a receiver, who, by order of 
 the federal court, refused to 
 accept them : held, that the 
 defendant in the sale of such 
 coupons acted merely as the 
 agent of the connecting car- 
 rier, and was not liable for the 
 refusal of the receiver to ac- 
 cept them for passage. 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Mulford 
 (111.), vol. S, p. 229. 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 Free Passes. 
 Passes. 
 
 Railroad Commissions. 
 Rates. 
 Stations. 
 Street Railways. 
 Ticket Brokers. 
 Acceptance of conditions con- 
 tained in mileage book. 
 Rahilly v. St. Paul, etc., R. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. S, p. 690. 
 Acceptance of printed condi- 
 tions. 
 
 Hanlon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 101. 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 
 A conductor has a right to 
 eject a person from his car 
 whose sole claim to be consid- 
 ered a passenger is by virtue 
 of a ticket void on its face. 
 McGhee v. Reynolds (Ala,), 
 vol. 10, p. 49. 
 Action to enjoin prosecution 
 under California statute, 
 granting stop-over privileges, 
 to prevent multiplicity of 
 suits. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Robinson 
 (Cal.), vol. 21, p. 160. 
 Agent's refusal to sign ticket a 
 good cause of action in tort. 
 McGhee v. Reynolds (Ala.) 
 vol. 10, p. 49. 
 Alternative tickets, rights of 
 passenger. 
 
 Robinson v. Southern Pacific 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 2, p. 44. 
 "Anti-scalpers' act," unconsti- 
 tutional. 
 
 People ex rel. Tyroler v. War- 
 den of City Prison of City of 
 New York (N. Y.), vol.14, 
 p. 474. 
 Authority of ticket agent. 
 
 Hanlon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 101. 
 Authority of ticket agent to 
 waive limitations on ticket. 
 Coyle V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 20, p. S29. 
 Binding effect on company of 
 statements by ticket agents. 
 Atchison, L. & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Cameron (C. C. A.), vol. 2, 
 p. 108. 
 Burden of proving condition on 
 ticket. 
 
 Daniels v. Florida Cent. & P. 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 107. 
 Cancellation of ticket, question 
 for jury. 
 
 Dixon V. New England R. 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 10. 
 Carrier chargeable with notice 
 that person is acting as ticket 
 agent. 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. w. 
 Moorman (Tex.), vol. 11, p. 
 1S7. 
 Carrier estopped to deny author- 
 ity of clerk assuming to be 
 general passenger agent. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Marshall 
 (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 82. 
 
614 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 Children. 
 Duty of passenger to pay fare 
 for his minor child. 
 Braun v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 17, p. 
 139. 
 Warfield v. Louisville & N. 
 E. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 17, p. 
 135. 
 Commutation tickets, general 
 custom between carrier and 
 passenger, as evidence of em- 
 ployee's authority to waive 
 conditions. 
 
 Thompson v. Truesdale 
 (Minn.), vol. 2, p. 105. 
 Commut^itiou tickets, obligation 
 to surrender part of contract. 
 Rogers v. Atlantic City R. Co. 
 (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 283. 
 Commutation tickets, right of 
 carrier to revoke waiver of 
 conditions. 
 
 Thompson v. Truesdale 
 (Minn.), vol. 2, p. 105. 
 Commutation tickets, surrender 
 of. 
 
 Rogers v. Atlantic City R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 283. 
 Commutation tickets, waiver of 
 condition against detachment 
 of coupons by passenger. 
 Thompson v. Truesdale 
 (Minn.), vol. 2, p. lOS. 
 Conditions applicable to another 
 station. 
 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. 
 Palmer (Eng.), vol. 2, p. 99. 
 Conditions, authority of carrier 
 under Georgia statute. 
 Phillips V. Georgia Railroad 
 & Banking Co. (Ga.), vol. 2, 
 p. 110. 
 Conductor of subsequent train 
 was not bound to accept ticket 
 where failure to secure stop- 
 over check. 
 
 Dixon V. New England R. R. 
 (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 10. 
 
 Connecting Carriers. 
 
 Carrier selling tickets liable 
 for injury to passenger while 
 being carried by another 
 carrier. 
 
 Barkman v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. 12, p. 
 250. 
 
 I/iability for statements made 
 by ticket agent of connect- 
 ing line. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 
 V. Cameron (C. C. A.), voK 
 2, p. 109. 
 Liability of company for fail- 
 ure to transport passenger 
 on ticket issued by connect- 
 ing line. 
 
 Matthews v. Charleston & S. 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 2, p. 
 109. 
 Mileage tickets issued by one 
 company over another's line, 
 by the latter's authority,, 
 cannot be repudiated by such 
 latter company. 
 Winters v. Cowen (Ohio).,^ 
 vol. 12, p. 40. 
 Sale of ticket to station on 
 connecting line. 
 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 
 V. Cameron (C. C. A.), vol. 
 2, p. 109. 
 Ticket sold by carrier under 
 through traffic agreement 
 does not render it liable for 
 injury to passenger on line 
 of another carrier. 
 Mathews v. Atchison, T. & 
 S. F. R. Co. (Kan.), vol. 
 12, p. 255. 
 When carrier is liable as for- 
 warder. 
 
 Taylor v. Maine Central 
 Railroad Co. (Me.), vol. 2, 
 p. 614. 
 Whether express contract is 
 essential to establish a lia- 
 bility for damages inflicted 
 by connecting lines. 
 Taylor v. Maine Central 
 Railroad Co. (Me.), vol. 2, 
 p. 614. 
 Whether through tickets create 
 a partnership. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Mul- 
 ford (111.), vol. 5, p. 229. ' 
 Wrongful delivery by connect- 
 ing carrier. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Car- 
 ter (111.), vol. 8, p. 485. 
 Consolidation, on mileage or trip 
 tickets. 
 
 Tompkins v. Augusta South- 
 ern R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 11, p. 
 587. 
 Constitutionality of statute re- 
 quiring railroad companies to 
 sell mileage books. 
 Beardsley v. New York, L., E. 
 & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 17, 
 p. 149. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 615 
 
 TICKETS AND FARB3S— Co»- 
 tinued. 
 
 Constructioij of contract. 
 
 Georgia Railroad & Banking- 
 Co. V. Clarke (Ga.), vol. S, p. 
 219. 
 Count setting forth good cause 
 of action for negligence of 
 ticket agent in failing to ren- 
 der return ticket available by 
 stamping. 
 
 McGhee v. Reynolds (Ala.), 
 vol. 22, p. 17. 
 Duty of conductor who takes up 
 ticket to see that passenger is 
 provided with means of con- 
 tinuing his journey. 
 Sloane v. Southern California 
 Railway Co. (Cal.), vol. 4, p. 
 182. 
 Ejection of passenger holding 
 unstamped ticket who entered 
 car on conductor's invitation. 
 Lfouisville & N. R. Co. v. Blair 
 (Tenn.), vol. 17, p. 1S9. 
 Ejection of passenger present- 
 ing void ticket. 
 Mitchell V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Miss.), vol. 18, p. 126. 
 Ejection of passenger riding on 
 expired ticket. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Howard 
 (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 758. 
 Ejection of passenger where 
 ticket is defective. 
 Western Maryland R. Co. v. 
 Stocksdale (Md.), vol. 4, p. 
 510. 
 Evidence as to conduct of acting 
 ticket agent, in action for 
 ejection. 
 
 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Moorman (Tex.), vol. 11, p. 
 157. 
 Excessive damages for expul- 
 sion. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Breckinridge (Ky.), vol. 3, 
 p. 428. 
 Excursion Tickets. 
 Compliance with condition of 
 requiring identification. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Cannon (Ga.), vol. 14, 
 p. 405. 
 Duty of holder to prove his 
 identity in compliance with 
 conditions in ticket. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Cannon (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 
 405. 
 Secondary evidence as to 
 terms of excursion tickets. 
 Daniels v. Florida Cent. & 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES— Cb«- 
 tinued, 
 
 P. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, 
 p. 107. 
 Validity of printed conditions. 
 Dangerfield v. Atchison, T. 
 & S. P. Ry. Co. (Kan.), 
 vol. 17, p. 650. 
 Validity of printed conditions 
 in excursion tickets. 
 Watson V. L,ouisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 18, p. 
 lis. 
 Waiver of estoppel. 
 
 Dangferfield v. Atchison, T. 
 & S. P. Ry. Co. (Kan.), 
 vol. 17, p. 650. 
 Expiration of limit of .ticket 
 without its being used does 
 not entitle holder to recover 
 purchase price. 
 Trezona v. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 12, p. 104. 
 
 Extra Fares. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 rule of state railroad com- 
 mission fixing train rates of 
 fare, where increased rate 
 was charged for interstate 
 transportation for failure to 
 procure ticket. 
 Coyle V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 529. 
 
 Arrest for failure to pay. 
 Strieker v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 7, p. 758. 
 
 By-law requiring that each 
 passenger shall either de- 
 liver up his ticket or pay the 
 fare legally demandable, 
 reasonableness. 
 Hanks z/. Bridgman (Eng.), 
 vol. 3, p. 656. 
 
 Damages where agent refuses 
 to sell tickets and extra fare 
 is demanded. 
 
 Courts V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 223. 
 
 Right of passenger where 
 train does not stop at his 
 destination to board a train 
 for his objective point with- 
 out paying the difference in 
 fare. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bill- 
 ington (Ky.), vol. 2, p. 109. 
 
 Right to charge extra fare for 
 failure to procure ticket, 
 when ticket office was law- 
 fully closed before train 
 started. 
 
 Coyle V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 529. 
 
616 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TICKETS AND FABES— Cb»- 
 
 Right to reduced rate on train 
 
 where ticket office was closed 
 
 on day on which such rate 
 
 was customarily given. 
 
 Johnson v. Georgia R. & B. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 89. 
 Failure of passenger to pay fare 
 for last part of his journey 
 does not prevent him from 
 recovering for injuries received 
 while going over such part. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 hee (C. C. A.), vol. 14, p. 
 
 264. 
 Forfeiture of nontransferable 
 mileage ticket. 
 Mueller v. Chicago, B. & N. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 12, p. 
 
 137. 
 Forfeiture of tickets. 
 Great Northern Railway Co. v. 
 
 Palmer (Eng.), vol. 2, p. 99. 
 Good cause of action for failure 
 to stamp return ticket, plead- 
 ing. 
 McGhee v. Reynolds (Ala.), 
 
 vol. 22, p. 17. 
 Improper repudiation of ticket, 
 implied malice. 
 Winters v. Coweu (Ohio) , vol. 
 
 12, p. 40. 
 Instruction as to existence of 
 indorsed condition not war- 
 ranted by evidence. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Biz- 
 
 zell (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 615. 
 Issuance of thousand mile tick- 
 ets. 
 Smith V. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 8, p. 496. 
 Liability for overcharge by con- 
 ductor. 
 Hall V. Norfolk & Western 
 
 Railroad Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 
 8, p. 632. 
 Liability for trunk lost in bag- 
 gage room at destination where 
 owner purchased ticket for sole 
 purpose of checking trunk. 
 Marshall v. Pontiac, O. & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 341. 
 Liability of railway company on 
 ticket sold by agent. 
 Cowen V, Winters (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 16, p. 107. 
 
 Limiting Liability. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Lippmau (Ga.), vol. 18, 
 p. 640. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 
 TICKETS AND PARES— Co»- 
 iifiued. 
 
 V. Posten (Kan.), vol. 11, 
 p. 138. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Watson 
 (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 209. 
 Baggage, a provision limiting 
 responsibility of no effect in 
 the absence of evidence that 
 plaintiff's attention was 
 specially called to it. 
 Wiegand v. Central R. Co. 
 of New Jersey (Pa.), vol. 
 S, p. 61. 
 Carrier must show passenger's 
 assent to conditions in ticket. 
 Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co. 
 (Vt.), vol. 14, p. 416. 
 Employee's ticket limiting car- 
 rier's liability. 
 Doyle V. Fitchburg R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 5, p. 257. 
 Estopped by acceptance' and 
 use to take advantage of fail- 
 ure to sign ticket limiting 
 liability. 
 
 St. Clair v. Kansas City, M. 
 & B. R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 
 20, p. 426. 
 Freight train. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Lippman (Ga.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 640. 
 
 Limiting liability to own line 
 
 by selling ticket containing 
 
 stipulation. 
 
 St. Clair v. Kansas City, M. 
 & B. R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 20, 
 p. 426. 
 Limiting purchaser's right 
 against the company, con- 
 struction of contract. 
 Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Clarke 
 (Ga.), vol. 5, p. 219. 
 Passenger on stock car. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe 
 (111.), vol. 11, p. 163. 
 Passenger on stock car, Iowa 
 rule. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe 
 (111.), vol. 11, p. 163. 
 Validity of time limit where 
 thousand mile tickets are 
 issued. 
 
 Smith V. Lake Shore & M. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 8, 
 p. 497. 
 Whether passenger's assent to 
 limitations of carriers liabil- 
 ity for baggage is conclu- 
 sively presumed from his 
 acceptance of receipt. 
 Merrill v. Pacific Transfer 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 21, p. 143. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 617 
 
 TIOKRTS AND FARES— Cow- TICKETS AND FAB.E3— Con- 
 tinued, tinued. 
 
 L,ost ticket, excuse where ticket 
 is lost. 
 
 Rogers v. Atlantic City R. 
 Co. (N. J.), vol. 3, p. 283. 
 Mileag-e books, right of con- 
 ductor to determine from what 
 part of book coupons should 
 be taken. 
 
 Eaton V. Mclntire (Me.) , vol. 
 4, p. 205. 
 IVIistakes of Agents. 
 
 Scott w. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. ti. R. Co. (Ind.), vol. 3, 
 p. 428. 
 Ejection of passenger, mistake 
 of agent. 
 
 Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. 
 Holmes (Miss.), vol. 10, p. 
 270. 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Breckinridge (Ky.), vol. 
 3, p. 428. 
 I'orcible ejection from train 
 where agent has made a mis- 
 take in ticket sold to passen- 
 ger. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co v. 
 Gaines (Ky.), vol. S, p. 226. 
 Liability of carrier for ejection 
 of passenger given wrong 
 ticket by agent . 
 Spink V. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 16, p. 86. 
 Mistake of station agent. 
 Ellsworth V. Chicago, Bur- 
 lington, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 
 vol. 2, p. 80. 
 Necessity of right to stop-over 
 privileges in securing stop- 
 over check. 
 
 Dixon V. New England R. 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 22, p. 10. 
 Nonpayment for ticket when 
 received, effect upon passen- 
 ger's rights. 
 
 Ellsworth V. Chicago, Bur- 
 lington, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 
 vol. 2, p. 80. 
 Overcharge, voluntary pay- 
 ment of as effecting recovery 
 of statutory penalty. 
 Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ark.), vol. 2, p. 89. 
 Parol evidence not admissible 
 to vary printed condition as 
 to time limit in round trip 
 tickets. 
 
 Walker v. Price (Kan.), vol. 
 20, p. 432. 
 Passenger who had not paid 
 the fare due for the last part 
 
 of the journey was injured 
 
 in going over such last part, 
 
 held, that he is not thereby 
 
 prevented from recovering. 
 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Lee (C. C. A.), vol. 14, 
 
 p. 264. 
 
 Passes. 
 
 Curry v. Kansas, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 8, p. 7SS. 
 Exemption from liability in 
 pass-validity. 
 
 Williams v. Oregon Short 
 Line R. Co. (Utah), vol. 
 12, p. 61. 
 Kansas statute requiring, free 
 passage for shippers of live 
 stock not applicable to inter- 
 state shipments. 
 State V. Otis (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 p. 850. 
 Liability of purchaser of rail- 
 road for life passes issued 
 by predecessor. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Henrie (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 
 790. 
 Limiting of liability. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 
 V. Posten (Kan.), vol. 11, 
 p. 138. 
 Power of legislature to fix maxi- 
 mum rates. 
 
 Smith V. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 8, p. 
 497. 
 Presumptions. 
 
 Daniels v. Florida Cent. & P. 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 107. 
 Purchase of ticket not prerequi- 
 site to relation of passenger 
 under Arkansas statute. 
 St. Louis & S. &. R. Co. V. 
 Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol. 17, p. 
 212. 
 Rate of army transportation 
 fixed by congress. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. United 
 States (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 776. 
 Rate of redemption of-excursion 
 
 Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Cushman (Tex,), vol. 14, p. 
 
 259. 
 Rates, presumption as to reason- 
 ableness of. 
 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Smith (U. S.), vol. 14, p. 511. 
 
618 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES -Cb«- 
 tinued. 
 
 Rates, state may not discrimi- 
 nate in favor of certain classes 
 of passengers. 
 
 L,ake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Smith (U. S.), vol. 14, p. 
 511. 
 Rates, statute requiring mileage 
 tickets 
 
 L,ake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. 
 Smith (U. S.), vol. 14, p. Sll. 
 Reasonableness of by-law re- 
 quiring passenger to show 
 ticket. 
 
 Hanks v. Bridgman (Eng. ), 
 vol. 3, p. 6S6. 
 Regulation of rates by legis- 
 lature. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill 
 (U. S.), vol. 2, p. 63. 
 Right to charge increased fare 
 for failure to procure ticket. 
 Coyle V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 529. 
 Right to ride on train without 
 payment of fare, constitu- 
 tional declarations that rail- 
 roads are public highways. 
 Farber v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 2, p. 166. 
 
 Rules and Regulations of Car- 
 riers. 
 
 Church V. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 1. 
 Ejectment of passenger where 
 
 passenger should have 
 
 changed cars. 
 
 Church V. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 2. 
 Failure of company to notify 
 
 passenger of regulation re- 
 quiring passage upon most 
 
 direct route. 
 
 Church V. Chicago, Mil- 
 waukee, etc., R. Co. (S. 
 Dak.), vol. 2, p. 1. 
 Failure to notify passenger of 
 
 change of cars at distant 
 
 junction. 
 
 Church V. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 1. 
 Reasonableness. 
 
 Church V. Chicago, Milwau- 
 kee, etc., R. Co. (S. Dak.), 
 vol. 2, p. 1. 
 
 Season Tickets. 
 
 How far acceptance of season 
 ticket on a certain trip is 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES— Co»- 
 tinued. 
 
 waiver of right to fare for 
 subsequent like trip. 
 New 'York & New England 
 Railroad Co. v. Peely 
 (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 103. 
 Statute requiring carrier to 
 furnish tickets repealed by 
 implication. 
 
 Robinson v. Southern Pa- 
 cific Co. (Cal.), vol. 2, p. 44. 
 Ticket holder taking wrong 
 train by mistake. 
 New York & New England 
 Railroad Co. v. Feely 
 (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 103. 
 Train not stopping at ticket 
 destination. 
 
 New York & New England 
 Railroad Co. v. Peely 
 (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 103. 
 
 Stop-Over Privileges. 
 
 Robinson v. Southern Pa- 
 cific Co. (Cal.) , vol. 2, p. 44. 
 Authority of conductor to 
 grant stop-over privileges. 
 International & G. N. R. Co. 
 V. Best (Tex.), vol. 17, p. 
 153. 
 Conflict between date on actual 
 date of sale. 
 
 Ellsworth V. Chicago, Burl- 
 ington, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 
 vol. 2, p. 80. 
 Who may recover penalty for 
 refusal to sell tickets con- 
 ferring stop-over privileges 
 provided for by California 
 statute. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Robin- 
 son (Cal,), vol. 21, p. 160. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of right 
 to return passage. 
 Daniels v. Florida Cent. & P. 
 R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 107. 
 Tender of fare after expulsion. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Breckinridge (Ky.), vol. 3, 
 p. 428. 
 Tender of large amount. 
 Barker v. Central Park, N. & 
 E. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 6, p. 
 686. 
 
 Tender of $5 to street railway 
 conductor, reasonableness. 
 Barker v. Central Park, N. & 
 
 E. R. Co. (N. Y.), vol. 6, p. 
 
 686. 
 
 Thousand-mile tickets. 
 
 Smith V. Lake Shore & M. S. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 8, p. 496. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 619 
 
 TICKETS AND FARES— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 
 Ticket conclusive evidfence of 
 passeng-er's rig-hts. 
 Trezona v. Chicago G. W. Ey. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 12, p. 104. 
 Ticket void on its face confers 
 no right on holder. 
 Trezona v. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 12, p. 104. 
 Time Limit. 
 
 Boyd V. Spencer (Ga.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 247. 
 Coburn v. Morgan's Louis- 
 iana & T. R. Co. (L,a.), vol. 
 21, p. 402. 
 Ejection of passenger where 
 ticket was limited to a par- 
 ticular time stamped upon. 
 McGhee v. Drisdale (Ala.), 
 vol. 6, p. 774. 
 Notice to passenger of time 
 limit of ticket. 
 Boyd V. Spencer (Ga.), vol. 
 11, p. 247. 
 Parol evidence not admissible 
 to vary printed condition as 
 to time limit in round-trip 
 tickets. 
 
 Walker v. Price (Kan), vol. 
 20, p. 432. 
 Regulation limiting period of 
 ticket is reasonable where it 
 provides for refunding the 
 price of the ticket, or any 
 unused part, if not used 
 within the limited period. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Watson 
 (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 209. 
 Rig'ht to eject passenger where 
 the time limit of his ticket 
 has expired. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Watson 
 (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 209. 
 Validity of time limit where 
 thousand-mile tickets are 
 issued. 
 
 Smith V. Lake Shore & M. 
 S. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 8, p. 497. 
 Waiver of time limitation. 
 Hanlon v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 101. 
 Transfer of mileage book. 
 
 Rahilly v. St. Paul, etc., R. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 5, p. 690. 
 Use of ticket at station beyond 
 which it is available. 
 Great Northern Railway Co. v. 
 Palmer (Eng.), vol. 2, p. 99. 
 Validity of condition as to for- 
 feiture of mileage books. 
 Eastman v. Maine Cent. R. R. 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 17, p. 203. 
 
 TICKETS AND PARES— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 Validity of conditions in round- 
 trip tickets. 
 
 Mitchell V. Southern R. Co. 
 (Miss.), vol. 18, p. 126. 
 Validity of stipulation in return 
 ticket requiring identification. 
 Wenz V. Savannah, F. & W. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 15, p. 844. 
 Who may recover penalty for 
 refusal to sell tickets confer- 
 ring stop-over privileges pro- 
 vided for by California statute. 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Robin- 
 son (Cal.), vol. 21, p. 160. 
 
 TIMBER. 
 
 See Public Lands. 
 Cutting timber for railroad from 
 public lands adjacent to right 
 of way. 
 
 Bacheldor v. United States 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 9, p. 878. 
 
 TOLLS. 
 
 See Bridges. 
 
 TOOLS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 TORTS. 
 
 See Actions. 
 Assaults. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Fellow Servants. 
 Leases. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Action in tort or contract for 
 injury to passenger. 
 Atlantic & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Laird (U. S.), vol. 8, p. 365. 
 Assignment of right of action 
 for. 
 
 Atchison, T. & S. E. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kansas Farmer's Ins. Co. 
 
 (Kan. App.), vol. 11, p. 847. 
 
 Injury to passenger by insane 
 
 person. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Greenthal (C. C. A.), vol. 6, 
 p. 261. 
 Liability of purchasing railroad 
 for tort committed prior to 
 transfer of purchased railroad. 
 Pennison v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 4, p. 
 573. 
 Priority between railroad mort- 
 gage and judgment for tort 
 committed after execution of 
 mortgage. 
 Green v. Coast Line R. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 4, p. ISO. 
 
620 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TOWNSHIPS. 
 
 Consent to use of highways by- 
 railroad. 
 
 Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. 
 Montgomery County Pas- 
 senger Railway Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 1, p. 190. 
 
 TRACK RENTALS. 
 See Receivers. 
 
 TRACKS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Street Railways. 
 Trespassers. 
 Duty of engineer to keep careful 
 lookout on track. 
 Gunn V. Ohio River R. Co. 
 (W. Va-.), vol. 6, p. 275. 
 Expert testimony as to what 
 constitutes a safe condition of 
 tracks, in action for injury to 
 brakeman caused by grave] 
 piled in station yard. 
 Hurst V. Kansas City, P. & G. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 899. 
 Inspection of. 
 
 Cox V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 604. 
 Joint use of tracks. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. (U. S.), 
 vol. 6, p. 2. 
 Inability of master for injury to 
 servant caused by defect in 
 track of another.company. 
 Story V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 91. 
 Xiiability to other company for 
 negligence, where track is 
 used in common. 
 Central Trust Co. of New 
 York, V. Denver, etc., R. Co. 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 19, p. 513. 
 Prima facie evidence of owner- 
 ship of track. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Wood (Ala.), vol. 20, p. 906. 
 Right of trespasser to complain 
 of defect. 
 
 Cleveland T. & V. R. Co. v. 
 Marsh (Ohio), vol. 20, p. S4. 
 Right to cross track of another 
 company. 
 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Har- 
 risburg & M. Electric R. Co. 
 (Pa. St.), vol. 6, p. 151. 
 Right to enjoin use of tracks by 
 another company. 
 Alabama M. R. Co. v. South- 
 ern Ry. Co. (Ala.), vol. 10, 
 p. 112. 
 
 TRAFFIC AGREEMENTS. 
 See Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 
 TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION. 
 
 See Interstate Commerce. 
 
 TRAIN DISPATCHER. 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 TRANSFER SERVICE. 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 TRANS-MISSOURI DECI- 
 SIONS. 
 
 United States v. Trans-Mis- 
 souri Freight Association 
 (U. S.), vol. 7, p. 388. 
 
 TRANSPORTATION SERV- 
 ICE. 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 TREES. 
 
 See Highways. 
 Action by a railroad company to 
 compel the removal of trees 
 near its right of way. 
 Ivouisville & N. R. Co. v. John- 
 son (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 729. 
 Injuries to trees by fires caused 
 by locomotives. 
 Missouri, * etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Lycan (Kan.), vol. 6, p. 781. 
 
 TRESPASS. 
 See Children. 
 Damages. 
 Stock. 
 Water and Watercourses. 
 
 Error in admitting evidence as 
 to what was offered for strip 
 across land for railroad, where 
 there was no evidence of au- 
 thority on the part of the one 
 making offer. 
 Sweeney v. Montana Cent. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mont.), vol. 22, p. 541. 
 Injunction against trespass by 
 railroad modified after con- 
 demnation of right of way. 
 Southern California R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. (Cal.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 446. 
 Injury to tresipasser on track. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wade 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 5, p. 371. 
 It was not error on the ground 
 that jury did not understand 
 the situation to admit evi- 
 dence of value of adjoining 
 land. 
 Sweeney v. Montana Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mont.), vol. 22, 
 
 p. 540. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 621 
 
 TRlEiaPASS—Coniinued. 
 
 Municipal ordinance no justifi- 
 cation for prior trespass. 
 Southern California R. Co. v. 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. 
 (Cal.), vol. 3, p. 450. 
 Occupation of land by railroad 
 track. 
 
 Hanlon v. Union Pacific 
 Railroad Co. (Neb.), vol. 
 1, p. 701. 
 Opinion evidence as to market 
 value. 
 
 Sweeney v. Montana Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Mont.), vol. 22, p. 541. 
 
 TRESPASSERS. 
 
 See Accidents on Track. 
 Assaults. 
 
 Carriers of Passengers. 
 Children. 
 Drunkenness. 
 Licensees. 
 Tracks. 
 
 . Accident from catching foot in 
 switch. 
 
 International & G. N. R. Co. 
 V. Lee (Tex. Civ. App. ), 
 vol. 3, p. 434. 
 Assumption of risk in going 
 upon premises of another. 
 Settoon V. Texas & Pac. R. 
 Co. (La. Ann.), vol. 4, p. 219. 
 Authority of brakeman to eject, 
 effect of secret instructions. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. West 
 (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 239. 
 Authority of brakeman to eject 
 trespassers. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 Anderson (Va.), vol. 9, p. 
 136. 
 Authority of engineer to eject. 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. ' 
 Co. V. Zantzinger (Tex.), 
 vol. 16, p. 679. 
 Care due from company to tres- 
 passer. 
 
 Baltimore & O.. R. Co. v. 
 Hellenthal (C. C. A.), vol. 
 13, p. 774. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bush- 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 46. 
 Care due in ejecting cripple. 
 Young V. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 14, p. 831. 
 Care required in ejecting tres- 
 passer from train. 
 Cook V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 591. 
 Care to be observed by com- 
 pany and by trespasser. 
 Bias V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 616. 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Co«i;j"««^rf. 
 Children. 
 
 Child sixteen months of age 
 may be trespasser on track, 
 but cannot be guilty of con- 
 tributory negligence. 
 Mason v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 84. 
 
 Duty of company to child 
 
 trespassing on track near 
 
 crossing. 
 
 Brague v. Northern Cent. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Pa.), vol. 15, p. 
 
 594. 
 
 Not bound to keep lookout 
 for trespassers. 
 Alabama Great Southern 
 R. Co. V. Moorer (Ala.), 
 vol. 9, p. 742. 
 Company liable for negligent 
 ejection of trespasser at peril- 
 ous place. 
 
 Young V. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 
 (La.), vol. 14, p. 831. 
 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Reidel v. Philadelphia, W. 
 
 & B. R. Co. (Md.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 91. 
 A person walking at night 
 on a railway track at a 
 place customarily used by 
 the public as a walking 
 way is not required to be 
 on the lookout for cars hav- 
 ing no light or other proper 
 • signal given to warn him 
 of their approach. 
 Stanley v. Durham & N. R. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 208. 
 Care required of while cross- 
 ing railroad trestle. 
 Provost V. Yazoo & M. V. 
 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 764. 
 Contributory negligence of 
 trespasser on track. 
 Pharr v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 6, p. 726. 
 Failure of deceased to leave 
 track after signal given. 
 Sinclair v. Chicago, B. & 
 
 K. C. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 
 
 vol. 3, p. 269. 
 Gross negligence towards 
 trespasser gives right of 
 recovery notwithstanding 
 contributory negligence. 
 Bolin V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 735. 
 
622 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Cowit/wwerf. 
 Intoxication no excuse for 
 contributory negligence of 
 trespasser on track. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Jordan (Ark.), 
 vol. 13, p. 681. 
 Nonsuit in action for killing 
 trespasser sitting on end of 
 cross-tie. 
 
 Upton V. S. Car. & G. E. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 21, p. 242. 
 Riding in dangerous place on 
 freight train without invi- 
 tation. 
 
 Menaugh v. Bedford Belt 
 Ry. Co. (Ind. ), vol. 22, 
 p. 1. 
 Risks assumed by trespasser 
 on railroad bridge. 
 Provost V. Yazoo & M. V. 
 R. Co. (La.), vol. 18, p. 
 764. 
 Sitting down on track. 
 Smith V. Ga. R. & Banking 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 20. 
 Trespasser forced by pain 
 and fear to jump from train 
 not guilty of contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 
 Co. V. Zantzinger (Tex.), 
 vol. 13, p. 840. 
 Walking on track will not 
 necessarily prevent recov- 
 ery although plaintiff when 
 injured was a trespasser 
 under Mo. Rev. St. 1889, 
 sec. 2611. 
 
 Morgan v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 372. 
 Crossing signals not intended 
 for protection of person on* 
 track elsewhere than at cross- 
 ing, for his own convenience. 
 Huff V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 17, p. 762. 
 Deceased killed on track where 
 employees could have seen 
 him for two thousand feet. 
 Chamberlain v. Missouri 
 Pacific Railway Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 3, p. 401. 
 Degree of care to be exercised 
 in stopping train to prevent 
 injury to. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Harby 
 (C. C. A.), vol. IS, p. 737. 
 Direction of verdict for defend- 
 ant where injury to tres- 
 passer. 
 
 Sheehan v. St. Paul & D. 
 Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 8, 
 p. 128. 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Co«^j««erf. 
 Distinction between care due 
 in running a train towards a 
 trespasser and a passenger. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Beecher (Ark.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 557. 
 Due care in running trains. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Beecher (Ark.), vol. 10, 
 
 p. 557. 
 Duty of engineer. 
 
 Nelling v. Chicago, St. P. 
 
 & K. C. R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 4, p. 539. 
 Duty of engineer when he sees 
 person on track. 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (Fla.), vol. 5, p. 709. 
 Duty of person on track to 
 avoid danger. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Taafe (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 693. 
 Duty of railroad company to 
 trespasser on bridge. 
 Pierce v. Walters (111.), voir 
 
 8, p. 672. 
 Duty of railroad to person rid- 
 ing on freight train by suffer- 
 ance of trainmen. 
 Daltou V. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 768. 
 Duty of railroad to trespasser 
 on track. 
 Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., 
 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 
 
 99. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Roberts 
 
 (Tex.), vol. 10, p. 727. 
 Duty of trainmen to person 
 seen on track. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Taafe (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 693. 
 Duty of trainmen to persons 
 upon track in populous neigh- 
 borhood. 
 Chamberlain v. Missouri 
 
 Pacific Railway Co. (Mo.), 
 
 vol. 3.^ p. 401. 
 Duty of trainmen to trespasser 
 asleep on track. 
 New York, N. H. & H. R. 
 
 Co. V. Kelly (C. C. A.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 816. 
 Duty of trainmen to trespasser 
 on track. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Tinkham (Ky.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 800. 
 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Prewitt (Kan.), vol. 13, 
 
 p. 807. 
 Sheehan v. St. Paul & D. Ry. 
 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 8, p. 
 
 128. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 623 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Cb«««w^rf. 
 Duty owing to a trespasser who 
 is in a perilous place. 
 Thomas v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 
 854. 
 Duty to look out for trespassers 
 on track. 
 
 Thomas v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 21, p. 586. 
 
 Duty to maintain lookout 
 
 where track has been used 
 
 as foot path for twenty-five 
 
 years. 
 
 Morgan v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 372. 
 Duty to stop train when person 
 on track is apparently uncon- 
 scious of danger. 
 McCall V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 760. 
 Duty to trespassers. 
 
 TuUy V. Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), vol. 23, p. 209. 
 Duty to trespassers in switch 
 yard. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hocker (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 522. 
 Duty to trespassers on right of 
 way. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. Ry. 
 Co. V. Tartt (C. C. A.), vol. 
 18, p. 226. 
 Duty of trespassers on track. 
 Grady v. Georgia R. R. & 
 Banking Co. (Ga.), vol. 20, 
 p. 400. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Vittitoe (K:y.),vol. 8, p. 666. 
 Thomas v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, 
 p. 586. 
 Ward V. Illinois C. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 18, p. 689. 
 Duty to trespasser on train. 
 Leonard v. Boston & A. R. 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 13, p. 825. 
 Duty to trespasser seen on rail- 
 road bridge. 
 
 Becker v. Louisville & N. R. 
 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 803. 
 
 Duty to trespasser seen on 
 
 Thomas v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 21, p. 586. 
 Effect of abandonment of theory 
 of case in action for injury 
 to trespasser claiming to be 
 passenger. 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Continued. 
 Ejection. 
 
 Parber v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 7, p. 
 700. 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. 
 V. Huffman (Tex. Civ. 
 App. ) , vol. 2, p. 157. 
 St. Louis & S. P. R. Co. 
 V. Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol. 
 17, p. 212. 
 Thurmau v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.),vol. 3, p. 651. 
 Assault on ejected trespasser. 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 
 Co. V. Zantzinger (Tex. ), 
 vol. 13, p. 840. 
 Authority of brakeman to 
 eject. 
 
 Welsh V. West Jersey & S. 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. IS, 
 p. 674. 
 Authority , of conductor to 
 eject trespassers. 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. 
 V. Robinson (Ala.), vol. 
 19, p. 357. 
 Contributory negligence as a 
 defense where injury was 
 caused b3' wilful negli- 
 gence. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 King (111.), vol. 13, p. 829. 
 Ejection from moving train. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 Anderson (Va.), vol. 9, 
 p. 136. 
 Ejection of trespasser by 
 servant in wrongful manner 
 renders master liable. 
 Pierce v. North Carolina R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 13, 
 p. 666. 
 Lessor's liability for wrong- 
 ful manner of ejection by 
 lessee's servant. 
 Pierce v. North Carolina R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 13, 
 p. 666. 
 Liability for ejecting tres- 
 passer from moving train. 
 Cook V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 591. 
 Liability for ejection of 
 drunken trespasser at peril- 
 ous place. 
 
 Pagg V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 171. 
 Liability for ejection of tres- 
 passer from moving train 
 by brakeman acting with- 
 out authority. 
 Cook V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 591. 
 
624 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Continued. 
 
 Xfiability for injury to boy 
 
 trespasser in railroad yard. 
 
 Bledsoe v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 927. 
 Liability for injury to infant 
 trespasser ejected from mov- 
 ing train. 
 
 Enright v, Pittsburg Junc- 
 tion R. Co. (Penn.), vol. 
 
 p. 20, 564. 
 Liability for injury to tres- 
 passer forcibly ejected from 
 train. 
 Jackson v. St. Louis S. W. 
 
 Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 18, p. 
 
 444. 
 Liability for injury to tres- 
 passer ordered from moving 
 car. 
 Mugford V. Boston & M. R. 
 
 R. (Mass.), vol. 16, p. 684. 
 Liability for violent ejection 
 from moving train of tres- 
 passer who has been repeat- 
 edly ordered off. 
 Johnson v. Chicago, St. P., 
 
 M. & O. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 
 
 vol. IS, p. 683. 
 Liability of company for as- 
 sault upon trespasser after 
 ejection. 
 Elliot V. Louisville & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 805. 
 Liability of company for 
 injuries. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Kingsley 
 
 (111.), vol. 13, p. 835. 
 Liability of company for use 
 by servant of excessive 
 force. 
 Welsh V. West Jersey & S. 
 
 R. Co. (N. J.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. 674. 
 Liability of master for man- 
 ner in which servant 
 ejected person from car. 
 Rowell V. Boston & M. R. 
 
 Co. (N. H.), vol. 16, p. 
 
 571. 
 No recovery for injuries 
 caused by mere negligence 
 in ejecting, where com- 
 plaint is based upon wan- 
 ton negligence. 
 Wabash R. Co. v. Kingsley 
 
 (111.), vol. 13, p. 835. 
 Of trespassers no ground for 
 recovery. 
 Trezona v. Chicago G. 
 
 W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 
 
 12, p. 104. 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Continued. 
 Ordering from moving train 
 does not tend to show intent 
 to wilfully injure. 
 Bolin V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 19, p. 735. 
 
 Question for jury whether 
 
 trespasser was injured by 
 
 jumping from moving train. 
 
 Cook V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 21, p. 591. 
 Scope of brakeman's duty. 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Anderson (Va.), vol. 9, p. 
 
 136. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 King (111.), vol. 13, p. 829. 
 Scope of brakeman's employ- 
 ment, exclusion of tres- 
 passer. 
 Farber v. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 7, p. 700. 
 Sufficiency of demurrer fail- 
 ing to negative waiver of 
 condition on ticket requir- 
 ing continuous passage. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bizzell (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 615. 
 Sufficiency of evidence of, 
 where men were found un- 
 conscious near track. 
 Morris' z". Louisville & N. 
 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 368. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to war- 
 rant inference of intent to 
 wilfully injure trespasser 
 on train. 
 Bolin V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 19, p. 735. 
 That rules of company for- 
 bidding brakemen to eject 
 trespassers were mere pre- 
 texts. 
 Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Rutherford (Tex.), vol. 
 
 21, p. 710. 
 
 Tiespasser on train forced by 
 pain and fear to jump,' not 
 guilty of contributory 
 negligence. 
 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Zantzinger (Tex.), 
 
 vol. 13, p. 840. 
 Unnecessary force. 
 Farber v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 7, p. 
 
 700. 
 Higgins V. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. S, p. 694. 
 St. Louis S. W. R. Co. 
 
 V. Huffman (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), vol. 2, p. 157. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 625 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Co«<j««erf. 
 While train is in motion. 
 Farber v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 7, p. 
 700. 
 Willful negligence of train- 
 men. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 King (111.), vol. 13, p. 
 829. 
 Employment of trespasser at 
 time of accident. 
 Liouisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Vittitoe (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 
 666. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Evidence as to apparent help- 
 lessness of trespasser sit- 
 ting on end of cross-tie. 
 Upton V. S. Car. & G. E. 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 21, 
 p. 242. 
 Eividence that track was used 
 as footpath. 
 
 Hord V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 756. 
 McCall V. Southern Ry. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 
 760. 
 SuflBciency of evidence of 
 failure to use due care after 
 discovering his peril to 
 support verdict for plaintiff 
 in action for injuries sus- 
 tained by him while riding 
 on freight train. 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Wantonness on part of train- 
 men may be shown by cir- 
 cumstantial evidence. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bush 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 46. 
 Failure to check speed after 
 trespassers were seen on 
 bridge, question for jury. 
 Becker v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 
 803. 
 Failure to exercise ordinary 
 care to avoid injuring tres- 
 passer on track in position 
 of peril is wanton negligence. 
 Sloniker v. Great Northern 
 Ry. Co. (Minn.), vol. 13, 
 p. 819. 
 Failure to give signals at cross- 
 ings. „ 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Vittitoe (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 
 666. ,. 
 Failure to use due care alter 
 
 ID— 40 
 
 TRESPASSERS- Comifiwa^rf. 
 discovering peril of tres- 
 passer on train as negligence. 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Failure to use due care after 
 discovering trespasser's 
 peril. 
 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co. 
 (Mo.), vol. 22, p. 158. 
 Following path by railroad and 
 finding . obstruction by com- 
 pany on the path, injury by 
 approaching train. 
 Grimmer v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 3, p. 609. 
 Harmless error in instruction as 
 to duty to person on track. 
 McCall V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 (N. Car.), vol. 23, p. 760. 
 Injury caused after defendant 
 had notice of plaintiff's 
 danger. 
 
 Tucker v. Norfolk & W. R. 
 Co. (Va.), vol. 3, p. 651. 
 Injury received when ejected 
 in a proper manner while 
 attempting to board a mov- 
 ing freight car. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bernard (Ky.), vol. 6, p. 
 55. 
 Injury to trespasser rescuing 
 child on bridge. 
 Pierce v. Walters (111.), vol. 
 8, p. 672. 
 Injury while walking along 
 track. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Dingman (Ark.), vol. 4, 
 
 p. 261. 
 
 Instruction as to burden of 
 
 proving exercise of due care 
 
 by plaintiff. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Murowski' (111.), vol. 15, 
 p. 697. 
 Intoxication. 
 Intoxicated trespasser struck 
 by train while sitting on 
 railway track, liability. 
 Price V. Philadelphia, W. 
 & B. R. Co. (Md.), vol. 
 7, p. 115. 
 Intoxication, duty of railroad 
 upon discovering condition 
 of trespasser on track. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. 
 Co. V. Jordan (Ark.), 
 vol. 13, p. 681. 
 Killing persons sleeping on 
 track, nonsuit. 
 
 Parish v. Western & A. R. 
 Co. (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 574. 
 
626 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Continued. 
 Liability for injury to tres- 
 passer induced to pass 
 through obstructing train 
 by statements of brakeman. 
 Davis V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 19, p. 68. 
 Liability for injury to tres- 
 passer injured under car 
 while attempting to avoid 
 missiles thrown by brake- 
 man. 
 
 Dorsey v. Kansas City, P. 
 & G. Ry. Co. (La.), vol. 
 20, p. 67. 
 Liability for injury to tres- 
 passer on track. 
 Dyche v. Vicksburg, S. & 
 P. R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 23, 
 p. S26. 
 Liability for injury to tres- 
 passer on track as affected by 
 delay in obtaining medical 
 attendance. 
 
 Dyche v. Vicksburg, S. & P. 
 R. Co. (Miss.), vol. 23, p. 
 S26. 
 Liability for injury to tres- 
 passer on train. 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jackson (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 
 216. 
 Liability of railroad company 
 for injury to trespasser steal- 
 ing a ride. 
 
 Handley v. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Kan.), vol. 16, p. 674. 
 Liability of railroad for killing 
 trespasser on track. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Staggs 
 (Tex.), vol. 8, p. 197. 
 Lookouts, no duty to look out 
 for trespassers on track. 
 Egan V. Montana Cent. Ry. 
 Co. (Mont.), vol. 20, p. 72. 
 May eject from moving train. 
 Bolin V. Chicago, etc., Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 19, p. 735. 
 Negligence and contributory 
 negligence. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Hocker (Ky. ), vol. 23, p. 
 522. 
 Notice to superintendent of 
 peril of helpless trespasser 
 on track as notice to company. 
 Fagg V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 171. 
 Pleading justification in action 
 for ejection of. 
 Wright V. Union R. Co. (R. 
 L), vol. 18, p. 234. 
 Pleading wantonness and reck- 
 lessness in action for ejec- 
 
 TRBSP ASSBRS— Continued. 
 tion of trespasser from train. 
 Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. 
 Robinson (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 
 357. 
 Pleading wilful negligence in 
 action for injury to. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Tartt (C. C. A.), 
 vol. 18, p. 226. 
 Presumptions. 
 Presumption as to leaving 
 track to escape train. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bush 
 (Ala.), vol. 19, p. 46. 
 Presumption as to negligence 
 of company where tres- 
 passer was found dead near 
 
 Louisville, St. L. & T. Ry. 
 Co. V. Terry (Ky. ), vol. 
 13, p. 770. 
 Presumption of negligence. 
 McVey v. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 
 13, p. 788. 
 Presumption that person seen 
 on track has ordinary fac- 
 ulties. 
 
 Smith V. Ga. R. <& Bank- 
 ing Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 20. 
 Right to presume that person 
 seen on track has ordinary 
 faculties. 
 
 Hebert v. Louisiana W. R. 
 R. (La.), vol. 20, p. 87. 
 Right to presume that person 
 seen on track will avoid 
 train. 
 
 Hebert v. Louisiana W. R. 
 R. (La.), vol. 20, p. 87. 
 Putting on air brakes and 
 stopping train. 
 Sinclair v. Chicago, B. & 
 K. C. Railway Co. (Mo.), 
 vol. 3, p. 269. 
 Railroad assuming risk of in- 
 juring. 
 
 Bias V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 13, p. 616. 
 Railroad not liable where there 
 is not wanton or gross neg- 
 ligence for injury to one 
 using track as footpath. 
 Huff V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 17, p. 
 762. 
 Railroad only liable for in- 
 juries to trespassers on right 
 of way when guilty of gross 
 negligence. 
 
 Trudell v. Grand Trunk Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 316. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 627 
 
 TRESPASSERS— CoM/i««sflr. 
 
 Right to complain of defect in 
 
 track. 
 
 Cleveland, T. & V. R. Co. v. 
 Marsh (Ohio), vol. 20, p. 54. 
 Speed. 
 
 Speed in excess of ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 Reidel v. Philadelphia, W. 
 & B. R. Co. (Md.), vol. 
 10, p. 91. 
 Speed in violation of ordi- 
 nances cannot be com- 
 plained of by trespasser. 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L,. 
 Ry. Co. V. Tartt (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 226. 
 Trespasser on track cannot 
 complain that train was 
 violating ordinance regulat- 
 ing speed. 
 
 Ward V. Illinois C. R. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 18, p. 689. 
 Trespasser on track in city 
 limits injured by train run- 
 ning at excessive speed. 
 Schug V. Chicago, M. & 
 St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 
 vol. 15, p. 70S. 
 Sufficiency of precautions taken 
 to avoid injuring trespasser 
 on track is question for jury. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Harby 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 15, p. 737. 
 Sufficiency of signal. 
 
 Sinclair v. Chicago, B. & K. 
 C. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 3, 
 p. 269. 
 Time for giving signals to 
 warn trespasser on track. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Tiukham (Ky.), vol. 13, 
 p. 800. 
 Trespasser's action for personal 
 injuries. 
 
 Grunst v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. S, p. 373. 
 Waiver of rule forbidding 
 brakeman to eject, instruc- 
 tions. 
 
 Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Rutherford (Tex.), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 710. 
 
 Wanton negligence resulting 
 
 in injury to trespasser on 
 
 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. 
 
 Burgess (Ala.), vol. 10, p. 
 
 835. 
 Whistle blown within four hun- 
 dred feet of deceased who was 
 working on track. 
 Sinclair v. Chicago, B. & K. 
 
 C. Railway Co. (Mo.), vol. 
 
 3, p. 269. 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Continued. 
 Who Are. 
 Boy of a little over seven years 
 of age playing on railroad 
 right of way is a trespasser 
 as a matter of law. 
 Trudell v. Grand Trunk 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 316. 
 Ejected passenger is not a 
 trespasser while necessar- 
 ily crossing trestle. 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Lynn 
 
 (Ala.), vol. 21, p. 570. 
 Employee riding free by per- 
 mission, but in violation 
 of rules, is not a trespasser. 
 Chattanooga Rapid Transit 
 
 Co. V. Venable (Tenn.), 
 
 vol. 19, p. 768. 
 Mere failure to object to the 
 crossing of right of way 
 does not prevent persons 
 crossing from being tres- 
 passers. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 O'Connor (111.), vol. 20, 
 
 p. 816. 
 No implied license to cross 
 tracks in railroad yard 
 through spaces casually left 
 between cars. 
 Grady v. Georgia R. R. 
 
 & Banking Co. (Ga.), 
 
 vol. 20, p. 400. 
 One assisting departing pas- 
 senger a licensee not a tres- 
 passer. 
 Whitley v. Southern Ry. 
 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 12, 
 
 p. 210. 
 Passenger crossing tracks to 
 depot is not a trespasser. 
 Girton v. Lehigh Valley 
 
 R. Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 157. 
 Pedestrian killed on track. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Breadow (Tex.), vol. 5, 
 
 p. 483. 
 Person crossing track of 
 railroad in street at other 
 place than crossing is not a 
 trespasser. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. 
 
 V. Eoxworth (Fla. ), vol. 
 
 13, p. 469. 
 Person presenting ticket 
 void on its face and refus- 
 ing to pay fare is a tres- 
 passer. 
 Trezona v. Chicago G. W. 
 
 Rv. Co. (Iowa), vol. 12, 
 
 p." 104. 
 
628 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TRESPASSERS— Co«i!j««s(f. 
 Person who obtrudes himself 
 upon a train may be a 
 trespasser, though the 
 company is aware of his 
 presence and maftes no 
 objection, even though he 
 does no damage to its prop- 
 erty. 
 Littlejohn v. Richmond & 
 
 D. R. Co. (S. Car.), 
 
 vol. 9, p. 873. 
 Whether passenger on train 
 not stopping at his station 
 is a trespasser. 
 Baldwin v. Grand Trunk 
 
 Ry. Co. of Canada 
 
 (Mich.), vol. 23, p. 117. 
 
 TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE. 
 Receiver. 
 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
 State (Tex.), vol. 3, p. 449. 
 
 TRESTLE. 
 Contributory negligence. 
 
 Little V. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 7, p. 
 769. 
 Evidence. 
 Little V. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 7, p. 
 772. 
 Negligence. 
 Little V. Carolina Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 7, p. 779. 
 
 TRIAL. 
 
 See Death by Wrongful Act. 
 Jurors. 
 New Trial. 
 Practice. 
 Verdicts. 
 Witnesses. 
 
 Amendment to pleadings, sur- 
 prise as ground for contin- 
 uance. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Power (Ark.), vol. 16, 
 
 p. 1. 
 Arguments of counsel. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Mochell (111.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 927. 
 Georgia & A. R. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Pound (Ga.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 398. 
 Hathaway v. Detroit, etc., 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 714. 
 Robertson v. Wabash R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 16. 
 Shaw V. Chicago & G. T. Ry. 
 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 18, p. 131. 
 
 TlB.iej^— Continued. 
 
 Arguments of counsel, right 
 to open and close. 
 Willingham v. Macon & B. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 340. 
 Arguments of counsel with 
 respect to failure to put wit- 
 ness under rule. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 York (Ala.), vol. 23, p. 470. 
 Continuance. 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol. 17, 
 p. 212. 
 Costs. 
 Illinois C. R. Co. v. Southern 
 S. & C. Co. (Tenn.), voU 
 18, p. 276. 
 Courts' comments on evidence. 
 Simmons v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 466. 
 Cross-examination of witness. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. 
 Bohan (Tex.), vol. 12, p. 491. 
 Directing verdict. 
 Chicago G. W. R. Co. v. 
 Price (C. C. A.), vol. 16, 
 p. 324. 
 Neininger v. Cowan (C. C. 
 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 492. 
 Quirouet v. Alabama G. S. 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 
 SSI. 
 Discretion of court as to argu- 
 ments and instructions. 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol. 17, 
 p. 212. 
 Discretion of court in dispers- 
 ing jury. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Hall (Ga.), vol. 18, p. 26. 
 Discretion of court to grant 
 separate trials in action for 
 injury to employee caused by 
 defect in track of another 
 company. 
 
 Story V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 90. 
 Effect of failure to produce wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
 V. Bernstein (Ga.), vol. '20, 
 p. 9S2. 
 
 Effect of motion to direct ver- 
 dict. 
 
 Neininger v. Cowan (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 18, p. 492. 
 Effect of unsound reason "for 
 correct ruling. 
 
 Stuckey v. Atlantic Coast 
 Line R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 20, p. 771. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 629 
 
 TRIAL — Continued, 
 
 Experiments in presence of 
 jury at scene of accident. 
 Bias V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.),vol. 13, p. 616. 
 Failure to object to juror be- 
 ing excused. 
 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. 
 Bradshaw (Ga. ), vol. 22, 
 p. 572. 
 T'ailure to object to statement 
 made in arguments of counsel. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Rad- 
 ford (Ky.), vol. 23, p. 124. 
 Harmless error. 
 
 Bodie V. Charleston, etc., 
 Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 22, 
 p. 818. 
 Harmless error in admission of 
 evidence on rebuttal. 
 Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 22, 
 p. 61. 
 Harmless error in conduct of 
 juror in watching construc- 
 tion of car, in action for in- 
 jury to passenger caused by 
 defect in car. 
 
 Siemsen v. Oakland, etc., 
 Electric Ry. (Cat.), vol. 
 23, p. 564. 
 Harmless error in rejecting 
 plea. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilcox 
 (Va.), vol. 22, p. 260. 
 Impeachment of verdict for 
 misconduct of jury. 
 Siemsen v. Oakland, etc.. 
 Electric Ry. {Cal.),vol. 23, 
 p. 564. 
 Improper remarks of counsel 
 as ground for new trial. 
 Perry v. Western North Car- 
 olina R. Co. (N. Car.), 
 vol. 21, p. 659. 
 Improper remarks of judge. 
 Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. 
 Lucas (Ga.), vol. 16, p. 818. 
 Instruction as to management 
 of jury in case of disagree- 
 ment. 
 
 Knapp V. Chicago & W. M. 
 Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 13, 
 p. 857. 
 Introduction of evidence. 
 
 Thomas v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, 
 p. 587. 
 
 Beardsley v. New York, L. 
 
 E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 vol. 17, p. 149. 
 Bradley v. Ohio River & C. 
 
 Ry. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 18, 
 
 p. 340. 
 
 TRIAL — Continued, 
 
 Issues in foreclosure suit. 
 Sioux City, O. & W. Ry. Co. 
 V, Manhattan Trust Co. (C. 
 C. A.), vol. 15, p. 430. 
 Judge of city court who acts as 
 financial agent of his county 
 not disqualified from presid- 
 ing at the trial of an action 
 against a railroad from the 
 fact that the county is a stock- 
 holder in the company. 
 Augusta Southern R. Co. v. 
 McDade (Ga.), vol. 12, p. 
 548. 
 Judicial discretion! 
 
 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 
 Smith (Ky.), vol. 15, p. 641. 
 Judicial discretion as to con- 
 tinuance. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Hum- 
 ble (C. C. A.), vol. 17, p. 
 83. 
 Jury not entitled to possession 
 of pleadings on retirement. 
 Blackmore v. Mo. Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 360. 
 Misconduct of counsel causing 
 reduction of damages for 
 injury to employee. 
 MacCarthy v, Whitcomb 
 (Wis.), vol. 20, p. 860. 
 Misconduct of counsel in argu- 
 ment, whether ground for re- 
 versal. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. West 
 (Ky.), vol. 21, p. 239. 
 Misconduct of jurors in visiting 
 scene of accident without per- 
 mission. 
 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Oyster (Neb.), vol. 12, p. 
 656. 
 Misconduct of parties, hyster- 
 ical weeping. 
 
 Chicago & E. R. Co. v, Meech 
 (111.), vol. 7, p. 667. 
 Opening and closing argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Brunswick & W. R. Co. v, 
 Wiggins (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 
 588. 
 Order of proof. 
 
 Malmstrom v. Northern Pac. 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol, 12, 
 p. 329. 
 Presence of wife and children 
 at trial in action for death 
 by wrongful act. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v, 
 Kelly (Ky.), vol. 7, p. 165. 
 Province of jury. 
 Baltimore & O. S. W. Ey. 
 Co. V, Hausman (Ky. ),vol. 
 17, p. 237. 
 
630 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 TBIAL — Continued. 
 Reading- of statutes by counsel 
 to jury. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Smith (Ky.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 613. 
 Reception of evidence. 
 Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. 
 
 Churchill (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 17. 
 Reformation of issues where 
 plaintiff has mistaken rem- 
 edy, f. 
 Moseley v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (Neb.), vol. IS, p. 
 
 426. 
 Remarks of counsel. 
 
 Anderson v. Union Term. R. 
 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 834. 
 Chamberlain v. Lake Shore, 
 
 etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 17, p. 241. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Josey 
 
 (Ky.), vol. 20, p. 869. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 McEwan (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 
 
 208. 
 Mackrall v. Omaha & St. L. 
 
 R. Co. (Iowa), vol. 19, p. 
 
 S9. 
 Mott V. Detroit, G. H. & 
 
 M. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 
 
 15, p. 113. 
 Schaidler v. Chicago & N. 
 
 W. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. IS, 
 
 p. lOS. 
 Story V. Concord & M. R. R. 
 
 (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 91. 
 Remarks of judge in referring 
 to former verdict. 
 Nohrden v. Northeastern R. 
 
 Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 241. 
 Right of counsel to exhibit 
 diagram of engine to jury in 
 action for fires set by loco- 
 motives. 
 Clisby V. Mobile & O. R. 
 
 Co. (Miss.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 179. 
 Right to argue interest of wit- 
 ness, as an employee, to con- 
 ceal his own negligence, in 
 action for injury to another 
 employee. 
 
 Wimber v. Iowa Cent. Ry. 
 • Co. (Iowa), vol. 23, p. 476. 
 
 Right to complain of failure 
 to file abstracts and motions 
 in time. 
 Trott V. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, 
 
 p. 391. 
 
 TRIAL — Continued. 
 
 Rulings of trial court not such 
 as imputed to it in defend- 
 ant's exceptions. 
 Crawford v. Southern Ry. Co., 
 (S. Car.), vol. 19, p. 17. 
 Setting aside verdict. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Blair (Tenn.), vol. 17, p. 
 1S9. 
 Special findings. 
 Schweinfurth v. Cleveland^ 
 C, C. & St. L. Ry. Cov 
 (Ohio), vol. IS, p. 73. 
 Special interrogatories. 
 
 Chicago North Shore St. Ry. 
 Co. V. Payne (111.), vol.> 23,. 
 , p. 706. 
 Special verdicts. 
 Baxter v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 16, 
 p. 476. 
 Submitting general verdict 
 with specific questions. 
 Schaidler v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. IS, p. 
 IDS. 
 Surprise as ground for new 
 trial. 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. 
 Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol.17, 
 p. 212. 
 Waiver of objection to remarks, 
 of counsel. 
 
 Story V. Concord & M. R'. R. 
 (N. H.), vol. 20, p. 91. 
 Waiver of submission of ques- 
 tion to jury. 
 
 Trimble v. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 vol. 17, p. 176. 
 When exceptions to instructions, 
 are immaterial. 
 Pool V. Southern Pac. Co.. 
 (Utah), vol. 16, p. SSI. 
 
 TROLLEY OARS. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 Street Railways. 
 Are not set apart for legal treat- 
 ment in class by themselves 
 with respect to liability for 
 negligence. 
 
 McGrath v. North Jersey St. 
 Ry. Co. (N. J.), vol. 22, p. 
 790. 
 
 TROLLEY POLES. 
 See Abutters. 
 
 TROLLEY WIRES. 
 See Wires. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 631 
 
 TROVER AND CONVER- 
 SION. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 Carriers of goods. 
 
 Baker v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Iowa), vol. 6, p. 772. 
 Carriers of live stock, liability 
 for conversion by connecting 
 carrier. 
 
 Ivittle Rock, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Odom (Ark.), vol. 6, p. 773. 
 
 TRUSTS. 
 
 See Interstate Commerce. 
 
 TUNNEL. 
 See Fences. 
 Liability for falling of tunnel 
 where employee is injured. 
 1/OUisville & N. R. Co. v. Mat- 
 tingly (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 319. 
 
 TURNPIKE COMPANIES. 
 See Bridges. 
 
 Lebanon & P. Turnpike Road 
 Co. V. Purdy (Ky.), vol. 7, p. 
 777. 
 Use of turnpike by street rail- 
 way. 
 
 Green v. City & Suburban Rail- 
 way Co. (Md.), vol. 1, p. 198. 
 
 TURNTABLES. 
 See Children. 
 Leaving turntables unsecured 
 and accessible to children as 
 negligence. 
 
 East Tennessee & W. N. C. 
 R. Co. V. Cargille (Tenn.), 
 vol. 19, p. 282. 
 
 ULTRA VIRES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Leases. 
 Railroads. 
 
 Stock and Stockholders. 
 Street Railways. 
 Carrier estopped to plead that 
 contract for carriage of freight 
 was ultra vires, in action to 
 recover for its failure to carry 
 out such contract. 
 Bigelow V. Chicago, B. & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.), vol. 17, p. 
 341. 
 Carrier liable for servant's neg- 
 ligence though he was per- 
 forming an ultra vires agree- 
 ment of the carrier. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Howard (U. S.), vol. 17, p. 
 660. 
 
 ULTRA -^XK&^— Continued. 
 Contract to furnish foreign cars. 
 Nichols V. Oregon Short Line 
 R. Co. (Utah), vol. 23, p. 
 654. 
 Conveyance in fee to railroad 
 authorized to acquire easement 
 only is valid until directly 
 assailed by government. 
 Hicks, Atty. Gen., ex rel. As- 
 kew V. Smith (Wis.), vol. 20, 
 p. 694. 
 Effect of ultra vires acts of 
 plaintiff upon bill in equity. 
 City of Chicago v. Union Stock 
 Yard and Transit Co. (111.), 
 vol. 7, p. 491. 
 General rule as to ultra vires 
 contracts. 
 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), vol. 6, 
 p. 1. 
 Power of railroad corporation to 
 allow joint use of its tracks. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), vol. 6, p. 
 2. 
 Power of rival street railway to 
 enjoin ultra vires act. 
 New England R. Co. v. Central 
 Railway & Electric Co. 
 (Conn.), vol. 8, p. 261. 
 Ratification of corporate con- 
 tract by board of directors. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 
 etc., Ry. Co. (U. S.), vol. 6, 
 p. 3. 
 Ratification of ultra vires lease 
 for remainder of term by sub- 
 sequent legislation. 
 Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Cox 
 (C. C. A.), vol. 19, p. 327. 
 Relief associations. 
 Eckman v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. 9, p. 308. 
 Maine v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 9, p. 299. 
 
 UNAUTHORIZED ACTS OP 
 EMPLOYEES. 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 UNAVOIDABLE. 
 See Negligence. 
 
 UNION DEPOTS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Stations. 
 Mixed trains, made up in part of 
 a passenger equipment and in 
 part of freight cars, used for 
 the transportation of passen- 
 gers, are "passenger trains," 
 
632 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 UNION Tt'EFOT^— Continued. 
 within the meaning' of defend- 
 ant's articles of association and 
 of its "lease contract" with 
 the plaintiff ; and the defend- 
 ant is required to furnish such 
 trains reasonable passenger 
 depot facilities and service. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. v. St. 
 
 Paul Union Depot Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 679. 
 Power of union depot company 
 to regulate use of depot. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. v. St. 
 
 Paul Union Depot Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. 7, p. 679. 
 Eight to rely upon information 
 received from agent at a union 
 depot. 
 Turner v. Great Northern R. 
 
 Co. (Wash.), vol. S, p. 238. 
 Validity of by-law excluding' 
 mixed trains from union deoot. 
 Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. z/.'st. 
 
 Paul Union Depot Co. 
 
 (Minn.), vol. 7, p, 679. 
 
 URINE. 
 
 Examination of urine. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. V. Huddleston (Ind.), 
 vol. 7, p. 553. 
 
 USAGES AND CUSTOMS. 
 Bills of lading, custom at place 
 of delivery as affecting rights 
 under the original bill of lad- 
 ing. 
 
 Midland National Bank v. 
 Missouri Pacific Railway ' 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 2, p, 586. 
 Carriers of goods, effect of 
 usages and customs upon car- 
 riers' liability. 
 
 Meloche v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Mich.), vol. 10, 
 p. 82. 
 Evidence as to custom of other 
 roads in discharging passen- 
 gers. 
 
 Klein v. Jewett (N. J. Eq.), 
 vol. 2, p. 283. 
 Evidence of usage of a railroad 
 company that one train should 
 not enter station while another 
 train is delivering passengers. 
 Ploytrup V. Boston & Maine 
 R. Co. (Mass.), vol. 2, p. 273. 
 In an action to recover for inju- 
 ries received by an employee 
 through the collision of a 
 hand car and a train, where 
 no question was raised as to 
 the right of precedence of the 
 train, there was no prejudice 
 
 USAGES AND CUSTOMS— 
 Continued. 
 
 to the defendant from the ex- 
 clusion of evidence as to the 
 rules and customs on other 
 railroads as to such prece- 
 dence. 
 
 Woodward Iron Co. v. Hern- 
 don (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 124. 
 Throwing article fronj moving 
 train, injuries to passer-by. 
 Fletcher v. Baltimore & P. R. 
 Co. (U. S.), vol. 9, p. 229. 
 Usage in switchyard, in action 
 for personal injuries. 
 Pier V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 (Wis.), vol. 5, p. 407. 
 
 USURY. 
 
 Effect of Ohio statute exempting 
 
 railroads from operation of 
 
 general usury lease. 
 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Rail- 
 road Equipment Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 22, p. 144. 
 
 Railroad Equipment Co. v. 
 Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C. 
 A.), vol. 22, p. 144. 
 
 VARIANCE. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 Personal Injuries. 
 Pleading. 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Shockman (Kan.), vol. 12, 
 p. 880. 
 In action for negligence there 
 can be no recovery where the 
 negligence proven is of a dif- 
 ferent character from that 
 pleaded. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Dris- 
 coU (111.), vol. 12, p. 644. 
 Objection on ground of must 
 point it out. 
 
 Alabama Mid. Ry. Co. v. 
 Darby (Ala.), vol. 13, p. 105. 
 Plaintiff's pleading and proof 
 in action on contract of em- 
 ployment. 
 
 Sax V. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Mich.), vol. 20, p. 653. 
 Pleading and proof as to defect 
 in coupling appliances. 
 Youngblood v. South Carolina 
 & G. R. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 20, 
 p. 622. 
 Power to raise point of on ap- 
 peal. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Glenny 
 (111.), vol. 12, p. 839. 
 
 VEHICLES. 
 
 See Crossings. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 633 
 
 VENDOR AND PURCHASER. 
 See Railroads. 
 Bona fide purchaser entitled to 
 order enjoining laying- of 
 additional track. 
 Varwig- v. Cleveland, C, C. i& 
 
 St. Iv. R. Co. (Ohio), vol. 4, p. 
 
 265. 
 
 Donation' of land by county to 
 
 railroad, subsequent purchaser 
 
 from county with knowledge. 
 
 Roberts v. Northern Pacific 
 
 Railroad Co. (U. S.), vol. 3, 
 
 p. 105. 
 
 Liability of purchasing railroad 
 
 for tort committed prior to 
 
 transfer by purchased railroad. 
 
 Pennison v. Chicago, M. & St. 
 
 P. R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 4, p. 
 
 573. 
 
 VENUE. 
 
 See Actions. 
 Appeal. 
 Railroads. 
 A court has jurisdiction to set 
 aside vacation order of the 
 judge refusing change of 
 venue. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Har- 
 rington (111.), vol. 23, p. 429. 
 Actions for injuries where acci- 
 dent occurred in foreign state. 
 South Carolina & G. R. Co. v. 
 Deitzen (Ga.), vol. 10, p. 232. 
 Goods injured in transit. 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Horn- 
 beck (Tex.), vol. 9, p. 238. 
 In an action for death by wrong- 
 ful act, suit may be brought in 
 circuit court of county where 
 deceased resided, although the 
 accident occurred in another 
 county. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Cooley (Ky.), vol. 12, p. 553. 
 
 VERDICTS. 
 
 See Damages. 
 
 Excessive Verdict. 
 Answers to interrogations not 
 overbearing general verdict 
 declaring plaintiff free from 
 fault, in action for injuring 
 telegraph operator crossing 
 track. 
 Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Houlihan (Ind.), vol. 21, p. 
 
 915. 
 Conclusiveness. 
 Dennis v. Pittsburgh & C. S. 
 
 R. Co. (Pa. St.), vol. 2, p. 
 
 389. 
 
 VERDICTS— Continued. 
 
 Hardy v. Milwaukee St. R. Co. 
 
 (Wis.), vol. 2, p. 389. 
 Louisville R. Co. v. Park (Ky.), 
 
 vol. 2, p. 389. 
 McKillop V. Duluth St. Ry. 
 Co. (Minn.), vol. 1, p. 278. 
 Directing verdict. 
 
 Central Pass. R. Co. v. Chat- 
 
 terson (Ky.), vol. 1, p. 278. 
 Creswell v. Wilmington & N. 
 R. Co. (Eel.), vol. 14, p. 625. 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 Hall (Ga.), vol. 14, p. 229. 
 Disagreement of a jury on a cer- 
 tain point stated. 
 Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. Whit- 
 comb (U. S.), vol. 1, p. 279. 
 Effect of statement as to offers 
 to compromise. 
 Jackson & S. St. R. R. v. Sim- 
 mons (Tenn.), vol. 23, p. 236. 
 Excessive verdict. 
 
 Louisville & Southern R. Co. 
 V. Hooe (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 808. 
 Findings conflicting with. 
 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
 Williams (Kan.), vol. 12, p. 
 336. 
 General and special. 
 
 Schulte V. Chicago, M. & St. 
 P. Ry. Co. (Iowa), vol. 21, p. 
 356. 
 Grounds for interfering with 
 verdict as excessive. 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. 
 Dixon (Ky.), vol. 14, p. 827. 
 Inconsistency between general 
 and special findings. 
 Ebsery v. Chicago City Ry. 
 Co. (111.), vol. 6, p. 794. 
 Opinion of trial court as to 
 whether verdict was excessive. 
 Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. 
 Bohan (Tex.) , vol. 12, p. 491. 
 Special verdicts. 
 Ward V. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, p. 322. 
 Special verdict in case of death 
 at crossing. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 Co. f. Miller (Ind.), vol. 9, 
 p. 684. 
 Submitting general verdict with 
 special verdict is error. 
 Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 14, p. 780. 
 Sufficiency of special verdict. 
 Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Ry. Co. (Wis.,), vol. 14, p. 
 78Q. 
 
634 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 VICE PRINCIPALS. 
 
 See Fellow Servants. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Liability. 
 Negligence of. 
 Chattanooga Elec. Ry. Co. 
 V. Ivawson (Teun.), vol. 12, 
 p. 669. 
 Notice of vice principal of dan- 
 ger. 
 
 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Dris- 
 coll (111.), vol. 12, p. 644. 
 Servant given charge of dyna- 
 mite as vice principal. 
 Rush V. Spokane Falls & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 20, p. 
 285. 
 Test as to vice principal. 
 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Doyle 
 (Neb.), vol. 7, p. 773. 
 
 Who Are. 
 
 Bussey v. Charleston & W. 
 
 C. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 
 11, p. 474. 
 Walker v. Gillett (Kan.), 
 
 vol. 10, p. 140. 
 Wright V. Northampton & 
 
 H. R. Co. (N. Car.), vol. 
 
 10, p. 151. 
 Division superintendents are. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Heck (Ind.), vol. 11, 
 
 382. 
 Train dispatcher who controls 
 and directs the movements 
 of trains the vice principal 
 of trainmen. 
 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. 
 
 Co. V. Heck (Ind.), vol. 11, 
 
 p. 382. 
 
 VIEW. 
 Eminent domain. 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.), 
 vol. 7, p. 771. 
 Evidence. 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.), 
 vol. 7, p. 771. 
 
 VOLUNTEERS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 Ward V. Louisville & N. R. Co. 
 (Tenn.), vol. 7, p. 776. 
 Care due person invited by serv- 
 ant to assist. 
 
 Cleveland, T. & V. R. Co. v. 
 Marsh (Ohio) , vol. 20, p. 54. 
 Employment of boy to assist in 
 revolving turntables, suffi- 
 ciency of evidence. 
 Stacker v. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Tenn.), vol. 20, p. 704. 
 
 'VOLM'SS'S'EERB— Continued. 
 Whether person requested by 
 engineer to assist in man- 
 agement of train was a mere 
 volunteer or an employee. 
 Mickelson v. New East Tintic 
 Ry. Co. (Utah), vol. 20, p. 
 855. 
 
 ■WAGES. 
 
 See Damages. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 ■WAITING ROOM. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Stations and Depots. 
 
 ■WAIVER. 
 
 See Jurisdiction. 
 Notice. 
 
 Tickets and Fares. 
 Trial. 
 Waiver by servant of master's 
 negligence. 
 
 Keist V. Chicago G. W. Ry. 
 Co. (Iowa), vol. 16, p. 297. 
 Waiver of rules by master. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Bowcock (Ky.), vol. 17, p. 
 421. 
 
 ■WANTONNESS. 
 
 See Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Negligence. 
 
 AVANTONNBSS AND ■WIL- 
 FULNESS. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Negligence. 
 
 ■WARDS. 
 
 See Guardian and Ward. 
 
 WAREHOUSEMEN. 
 See Baggage. 
 
 Carriers of Freight. 
 Carriers of Goods. 
 Cox V. Vermont Cent. R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol. 9, p. 591. 
 Independent contractor's negli- 
 gence causing loss of goods by 
 fire does not render railroad 
 company, as warehouseman, 
 liable. 
 
 Brunswick' Grocery Co. v. 
 
 Brunswick & W. R. Co. 
 
 (Ga.), vol. 13, p. 85. . 
 
 Liability for baggage. 
 
 Blackmore v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 Ry. Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 361. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 635 
 
 ■WAREHOUSEMEN— Cowi'rf. 
 Ivoss of g-oods by fire. 
 Backhaus v. Chicago & N. W. 
 . R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 3, p. 426. 
 Walker v. Eikleberry (Okla.), 
 vol. 13, p. 253. 
 New Jersey statute limiting lia- 
 bility of common carriers was 
 not intended to relieve ware- 
 house keepers. 
 
 Weigand v. Central R. Co. of 
 New Jersey (Pa.), vol. S, p. 
 61. 
 
 WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS. 
 Pledge of rolling stock. 
 
 Mechanics' Trust Co. v. Dan- 
 dridge (Ky.), vol. 8, p. 348. 
 
 WAR REVENUE. 
 See Injunctions. 
 
 WATCHMEN. 
 
 Validity of ordinance compel- 
 ling railway to keep watchmen 
 and gates. 
 
 Pittsburg, C, C. & St. I/. R. 
 Co. V. Town of Crown Point 
 (Ind.), vol. 6, p. 324. 
 
 WATER AND WATER- 
 COURSES. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Floods. 
 
 Navigable Waters. 
 Breach of contract to supply 
 water. 
 
 New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. 
 Meridian Waterworks (U. 
 S.), vol. 3, p. 451. 
 Damages. 
 Damages may be recovered 
 for overflow caused by in- 
 sufficient culvert, although 
 damages had been recovered 
 by plaintiff for location of 
 road. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Andreesen (Neb.), vol. 22, 
 p. 536. 
 Evidence as to expenses in- 
 curred in preventing recur- 
 rences of injury from 
 overflow of land. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528. 
 Evidence as to whether damage 
 could have been prevented in 
 action for overflowing land. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528. 
 Riparian rights. 
 Bigelow V. Draper (N. Dak.) 
 vol. 7, p. 771. 
 
 WATER AND WATER- 
 COURSES— Co«/ira«erf. 
 Speculative damages based on 
 alleged inability to grow 
 crops because of overflow. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528. 
 Enjoining obstruction of stream 
 which has been brought about 
 by natural causes. 
 Harrelson v. Kansas City & A. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 848. 
 Extraordinary flood a question 
 for the jury. 
 
 Georgia, etc., Co. v. Bohler 
 (Ga.), vol. 8, p. 766. 
 Injuries to Property. 
 Accumulation of surface water 
 as a nuisance. 
 
 Baltzeger v. Carolina Mid- 
 land Ry. Co. (S. Car.), vol. 
 14, p. 845. 
 Admissibility of evidence of 
 existence of other ditches 
 leading into main ditch, in 
 action for overflowing land. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528. 
 Commencement of time re- 
 quired for prescription to 
 ripen where lower land is in- 
 jured by railroad bridge. 
 Eells V. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. (W. Va.), vol. 21, p. 
 669. 
 Diversion of surface water. 
 Parker v. Norfolk & C. R. 
 Co. (N. Car.), vol. 14, p. 844. 
 Duty as to location of culverts 
 to prevent flooding land of 
 lower proprietor. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Williams (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 19, p. 361. 
 Effect of consent of owners of 
 intermediate lands on lia- 
 bility for overflowing lower 
 land. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528: 
 Enjoining obstruction of 
 stream which had been 
 brought about by natural 
 causes. 
 
 Harrelson w. Kansas City 
 & A. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 16, 
 p. 848. 
 Extraordinary floods need not 
 be provided against in con- 
 structing road, for the pro- 
 tection of landowners. 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Williams (lad. Ter.), vol. 
 19, p. 361. 
 
636 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 ■WATJER AND WATEB- 
 COXJB.SE3—ConHnued. 
 Hearsay evidence as to whether 
 marks on embankment were 
 made by geological survey, 
 in action for turning water 
 on plaintiff's land by em- 
 bankment and ditches. 
 New York, etc., E. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 
 528. 
 In action for diverting 
 streams, defendant should 
 be permitted to show costs of 
 restoring it to former chan- 
 nel. 
 
 Sweeney v. Montana Cent. 
 Ey. Co. (Mont.), vol. 22, 
 p. 540. 
 Instructions as to defendant's 
 liability for overflowing 
 land not warranted by plead- 
 ing. 
 
 New York, etc., E. Co. v, 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528. 
 Joinder of counts in declara- 
 tion in action for overflow- 
 ing land. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.l, vol. 23, p. 528. 
 I<iabiUty for accumulation of. 
 Baltzeger v. Carolina Mid- 
 land Ey. Co. (S. Car.), 
 vol. 14, p. 845. 
 L(iability for causing overflow 
 of surface water in construct- 
 ing street railway. 
 X/ion V. Baltimore City Pass. 
 Ey. Co. (Md.), vol. 23, p. 
 538. 
 Iviability for damage caused 
 by plaintiff's refusal to allow 
 ditch to be dug on lower 
 land. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Williams (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 19, p. 361. 
 I/iability for discharging 
 water on lower laud in 
 draining right of way. 
 New York, etc., E. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528. 
 Liability for overflow caused 
 by insufflcient culvert ob- 
 structing natural water- 
 courses. 
 
 Chicago, etc., E. Co. t>. 
 Andreesen (Neb.), vol. 22, 
 p. 536. 
 Liability of railroad for flood- 
 ing land of lower proprietor. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Brinton (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 
 153. 
 
 WATER AND WATEB- 
 OOUBSES — Continued. 
 Liability of railroad for flood- 
 ing land of upper proprietor 
 by obstructing surface 
 water. 
 
 Smith V. Louisville & N. R. 
 Co. (Ky.), vol. 19, p. 157. 
 Liability of street railway for 
 injury to property caused by 
 overflow of its vaults con- 
 structed to carry off surface 
 water. 
 
 Lion V. Baltimore City Pass. 
 
 Ey. Co. (Md.), vol. 23, p. 
 
 538. 
 
 Limitations where injuries to 
 
 lower land are caused by 
 
 railroad bridge, continuous 
 
 injury. 
 
 Eells V. Chesapeake & O. 
 Ry. Co. (W. Va.), vol. 21, 
 p. 668. 
 Mere general denial in action 
 for overflowing land. 
 New York, P. & N. E. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol. 23, p. 528. 
 Negligence in construction of 
 bridge, in action for injury 
 to property by flood. 
 Brown v. Pine Creek Ry. 
 Co. (Pa. ) , vol. 8, p. 693. 
 Obstructions of high water 
 channels by railroad. 
 , New York, C. & St. L. E. Co. 
 V. Hamlet Hay Co. (Ind.), 
 vol. 9, p. 291. 
 Obstruction of navigable 
 stream. 
 
 Hedges v. West Shore R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), vol. S, p. 647. 
 Obsttuction of surface water, 
 liability. ' 
 
 Walker v. New Mexico & S. 
 
 P. E. Co. (N. Mex.), vol. 
 
 14, p. 839. 
 
 Plaintiff's duty to diminish 
 
 damage caused by diverting 
 
 watercourses. 
 
 Sweeney v. Montana Cent. 
 
 Ey. Co. (Mont.), voL 22, 
 
 p. 540. 
 
 Eights of lower proprietor 
 
 where watercourse has been 
 
 obstructed. 
 
 Harrelson v. Kansas City & 
 A. E. Co. (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 
 848. 
 Rights of upper proprietor 
 where surface water has 
 been obstructed. 
 Harrelson v. Kansas City & 
 A. R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 16, p. 
 848. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 637 
 
 "WATER AND "WA-TEH- 
 COXJRSES— Continued. 
 Subsequent conveyance to 
 company not sufficient to 
 release grantor's claim for 
 damag-es for trespass com- 
 mitted in diverting creek. 
 Sweeney v. Montana Cent. 
 Ry. Co. (Mont.), vol. 22, p. 
 540. 
 SuflBciency of declaration in 
 action for overflowing land. 
 New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. 
 Jones (Md.), vol, 23, p. S28. 
 Under contract releasing from 
 damages caused by proper 
 construction of road, plain- 
 tiff must show that damages 
 from surface water was 
 caused by defective construc- 
 tion. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Williams (Ind. Ter.), vol. 
 19, p. 361. 
 What constitutes an extraordi- 
 nary flood is a question for the 
 jury in action for injury to 
 property. 
 
 Brown v. Pine Creek Ry. Co. 
 (Pa.), vol. 8, p. 693. 
 Use of railroad embankment as 
 reservoir dam. 
 
 Montana Ore Purchasing Co. 
 V. Boston & M. Consol. Cop- 
 per & Silver Min. Co. 
 (Mont.), vol. 10, p. 754. 
 
 "WATEB PIPES. 
 See Easements. 
 
 WAYS. 
 
 See Private Ways. 
 Right of Way. 
 
 "WAY OF NECESSITY. 
 See Crossings. 
 
 WEALTH. 
 
 See Damages. 
 Evidence. 
 
 WEATHER. 
 
 See Carriers of Goods. 
 
 WIFE. 
 
 See Damages. 
 
 Married Women. 
 
 WILFUL NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 See Carriers of Passengers. 
 Contributory Negligence. 
 Crossings. 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 Pleading. 
 
 WILFUL NEGLIGENCE— Co«- 
 tinued. 
 
 See Stock, Injuries to. 
 Negligence. 
 Street Railway i. 
 Allegation of. 
 
 Ullrich V. Cleveland, C, C. & 
 St. L. Ry. Co. (lud.), vol. 13, 
 p. 783. 
 Ordering trespasser from mov- 
 ing train does not tend to show 
 intent to willfully injure. 
 Bolin V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Wis.), vol.19, p. 735. 
 Sufficiency of evidence. 
 
 Sharp V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 21, p. 47. 
 Sufficiency of evidence to war- 
 rant inference ot intent to 
 willfully injure. 
 Bolin V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 
 (Wis.), vol. 19, p. 735. 
 
 WILFUL TORTS. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 " W^ILSON ACT." 
 
 Does not cause state power to 
 attach to' interstate shipment 
 while the merchandise is in 
 transit. 
 
 State V. Intoxicating Liquors 
 (Me.), vol. 20, p. 511. 
 
 WIRES. 
 
 See Electric Railroads. 
 Gross Negligence. 
 Street Railways. 
 Liability for personal injury 
 from hanging wire belonging 
 to another company. 
 Macon v. Paducah St. Ry. Co. 
 (Ky.), vol. 22, p. 614. 
 
 WITNESSES. 
 See Evidence. 
 
 Interrogatories. 
 Trial. 
 Adopting opposing witness on 
 cross-examination . 
 Anderson v. Union Terminal 
 R. Co. (Mo.), vol. 20, p. 834. 
 Attachment. 
 
 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 Kilpatrick (Ark.), vol. 17, p. 
 212. 
 Children. 
 Burke v. Ellis (Tenn.), vol. 19, 
 
 p. 695. 
 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 
 V. Warren (Ark.), vol. 13, p. 
 729. 
 
638 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 WITNESSES— Coniinued. 
 Competency of engineer to tes- 
 tify as to accident. 
 Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. 
 Lackey (Ala.), vol. 7, p. 772. 
 Credibility. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Win- 
 ters (111.), vol. 12, p. 93. 
 LoDzer v. Lehigh Val. R. 
 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 21, p. 333. 
 Rickert v. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 12, p. 162. 
 Schmitt V. Milwaukee St. 
 R. Co. (Wis.), vol. 2, p. 
 156. 
 Of employees. 
 
 Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. 
 Wiggins (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 
 
 CQQ 
 
 Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co. 
 
 V. Runnels (Tex.), vol. 
 
 12, p. 800. 
 
 Of employee, on ground of his 
 
 interest, not question for 
 
 jury. 
 
 Hauss V. Lake Erie & W. R. 
 Co. (C. C. A.), vol. 22, p. 
 864. 
 Credibility, question for jury. 
 Haltom V. Southern Ry. Co. 
 
 (N. Car.), vol. 19, p. 776. 
 Haun V. Rio Grande W. Ry. 
 Co. (Utah), vol. 19, p. 370. 
 Cross-examination. 
 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Murowski (111.), vol. IS, p. 
 698. 
 Effect of failure to produce. 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Bernstein (Ga.), vol. 20, p. 
 952. 
 Evidence as to character of. 
 Warfield v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. (Tenn.), vol. 17, p. 
 135. 
 Evidence of bias of. 
 Shaw V. Chicago & G. T. Ry. 
 Co. (Mich.), vol. 18, p. 131. 
 Evidence of previous state- 
 ments. 
 
 Nashville, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Lawson (Tenn.), vol. 19, p. 
 252. 
 Harmless error in excluding evi- 
 dence tending to impeach. 
 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. 
 v: Baer (Md.) , vol. 22, p. 662. 
 Honest mistake or forgetfulness 
 of witness in one matter not 
 sufficient to authorize jury to 
 disregard all of his testimony. 
 Overtoom v. Chicago & E. I. 
 R. Co. (111.), vol. IS, p. 849. 
 
 "WITNESSES— Continued. 
 Husband and wife. 
 Jones V. Texas & P. R. Co. 
 (La. Ann.), vol. 2, p. 382. 
 Impeachment. 
 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. 
 Trammell (Ga.), vol. 23, p. 
 856. 
 Green v. Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 (Cal.), vol. 13, p. 511. 
 Haver v. Cent. R. Co. of N. 
 
 J. (N. J.), vol. 17, p. 490. 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. Brad- 
 shaw (Ga.), vol. 22, p. 572. 
 Western & A. R. Co. v. 
 Vaughan (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 
 512. 
 Impeachment, refusal to admit 
 brief of testimony on former 
 trial as ground for new trial. 
 Dorsey v. Central of Georgia 
 Ry. Co. (Ga.), vol. 21, p. 566. 
 Impeachment by stenographic, 
 notes of testimony given by 
 him at inquest. 
 Overtoom v. Chicago & E. I. 
 R. Co. (III.), vol. IS, p. 849. 
 Impeachment on cross-examina- 
 tion. 
 
 McGovern v. Smith (Vt.), vol. 
 23, p. 690. 
 Impeachment under Cal. Code 
 Civ. Proc. sec. 2053. 
 Schneider v. Market St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 693. 
 Incriminating witness by cross- 
 examination. 
 
 Knopf V. Philadelphia, W. & 
 
 B. R. Co. (Del.), vol. 20, p. 
 
 172. 
 
 Inference from exclusion of her 
 
 physician's testimony by 
 
 plaintiff in action for personal 
 
 injuries. 
 
 Lane v. Spokane Falls & N. 
 Ry. Co. (Wash.), vol. 14, p. 
 436. 
 Inference from failure to pro- 
 duce employees as. 
 Weinkle v. Brunswick & W. 
 R. Co. (Ga.), vol. 14, p. SO. 
 Interpreters. 
 
 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. 
 Joseph (Ala.), vol. 18, p. 659. 
 Memorandum to assist memory. 
 Pierce v. Bangor & A. R. Co. 
 (Me.), vol. 18, p. 533. 
 One party to contract may tes- 
 tify though agent of other 
 party who made such contract 
 is dead. 
 
 Missouri, K. &. T. Ry. Co. v. 
 Byrne (C. C. A.), vol. 18, p. 
 573. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 639 
 
 "WITNESSES— Continued. 
 Qualifications. 
 Born V. Philadelphia & R. R. 
 Co. (Pa.), vol. 22, p. 723. 
 Question as to knowledge of de- 
 fects in appliances did not call 
 for opinion of witness. 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, p. 642. 
 Question whether servant would 
 have used appliances except 
 upon reliance on promise to 
 repair did not call for opinion 
 of witnesses. 
 
 Yerkes v. Northern Pac. Ry. 
 Co. (Wis.), vol. 23, p. 642. 
 Refreshing- recollection. 
 
 Hasie v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co. 
 (Miss.), vol. 20, p. SSI. 
 Refusal to allow witness to tes- 
 tify as expert not error where 
 qualification as such is not 
 shown. 
 
 Creswell v. Wilming-ton & N. 
 R. Co. (Del.), vol. 14, p. 62S. 
 Responsiveness of answer. 
 Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Hoover (Ind. Ter.), vol.23, 
 p. 73. 
 Right of party surprised by his 
 own witness to show incon- 
 sistent statements. 
 Tacoma Ry. & Power Co. v. 
 Hays (C. C. A.), vol. 23, p. 
 58. 
 Should testify in accordance 
 with knowledge had at time of 
 testifying. 
 
 Cleveland, T. & V. R. Co. v. 
 Marsh (Ohio), vol. 20, p. S4. 
 Statements made by witness 
 shortly after accident are ad- 
 missible to impeach him, 
 where foundation has been 
 
 "WITNESSES— Continued. 
 laid for their admission. 
 Alabama Min. R. Co. v. Jones 
 (Ala.), vol. IS, p. -752. 
 Sufficiency of knowledge of. 
 Cleveland, T. & V. R. Co. v. 
 Marsh (Ohio), vol. 20, p. 54. 
 Testimony, question for jury. 
 Schneider v. Market St. Ry. 
 Co. (Cal.), vol. 23, p. 693. 
 Whether qualified as experts, 
 discretion of court. 
 Bowen v. Boston & A. R. Co. 
 (Mass.), vol, 23, p. 267. 
 
 ■WORKING CONTRACTS. 
 Conclusiveness of engineer's es- 
 timate. 
 
 Baltimore & O. & C. R. Co. v. 
 Scholes (Ind. App.), vol. 3, 
 p. 454. 
 Expert testimony. 
 
 Clayton Electric Co. v. Mc- 
 Keesport, etc., Ry. Co. (Pa.), 
 vol. 6, p. 777. 
 
 "WRITINGS. 
 
 See Questions of Law and Fact. 
 
 "WRONGFUL DEATH. 
 See Accident on Track. 
 
 Death by Wrongful Act. 
 
 X-BAY PICTURES. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 "TARDS. 
 
 See Children. 
 Fences. 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 Ordinances limiting speed ap- 
 plies to railroad yards. 
 Jackson v. Kansas, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mo.), vol. 19, p. 99. 
 
1-23 
 KF 2280 A221 Index Digest 
 
 Author - - Vol. 
 
 Am. & Eng. R.R. Cases. 
 
 Title Copy 
 
 
 
 Date 
 
 Borrower's Name