Francis Wharton.

A treatise on the law of negligence online

. (page 1 of 104)
Online LibraryFrancis WhartonA treatise on the law of negligence → online text (page 1 of 104)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


BOOKST'^




THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES

SCHOOL OF LAW









^itwjri*'



rtHORjt



*"pk-



fc>



A TREATISE

LAW OF NEGLiaENCE.



BY



FRANCIS WHARTON, LL. D.,

AtJTHOE OF TREATISES ON THE "CONFLICT OF LAWS," " CEIMINAL LAW,"
AND " MEDICAL JORISPKUDENCE."



PHILADELPHIA:

KAY AND BEOTHER, 17 AND 19 SOUTH SIXTH STREET,

HaiD 3iJoDft)Scncr)S, iDuftltifljrrjf, anlr ImpaitrriS.

1874.



• *.*






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by

Fkancis Whaeton,
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at "Washington.



RIVEKSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED BY H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.



e

^



TO MY BROTHER,

HENRY WHARTON,

THIS VOLUME IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED,

IN COMMEMORATION OF HIM FROM WHOM IN EARLY LIFE, WE BOTH RE-
CEIVED NOT ONLY CAREFUL PARENTAL TRAINING, BUT AN ABIDING
TASTE FOR THE SCIENCE OP JURISPRUDENCE.

Cambridge, October, 1874.



740114



PEEFACE.



Much of the material contained in the following pages
was collected by me when engaged in examining the Law
of Negligence in collateral relations. As to publication I
at first hesitated, being deterred by the fact that the sub-
ject has already been discussed by several authors of de-
servedly high reputation.^ But a closer examination has
led me to conclude that so far as concerns the particular
aspect of the law I purpose to present, I have not been
preceded by any writer in the English language.^ To ex-
plain this statement the following observations may not
be out of place : —

Our Anglo-American Law of Negligence, it will be re-
membered, as well as that of Bailments, with which it is
so closely associated, is drawn confessedly from the Roman
Law. It so happened, however, that both Lord Holt and
Sir W. Jones, who did so much to form opinion in these

1 Negligence is one of the chief theory of culpa levissima, the notes by
topics in Sir W. Jones's Treatise on Mr. Green, in the last (1874) edition
Bailments ; and Judge Story has given of Story on Agency ; and an article
the subject the same prominence in his by the same able writer in the July
works on Bailments and Agency. We number of the American Law Review;
have also indei)endent treatises on an article which was published after
Negligence, by Mr. Saunders (Lon- my own observations on this point
don, 1871), by JNIr. Campbell (London, were printed, but which, readj^pg the
1871), and by Messrs. Shearman & same result, though from a line of au-
Rediield, of New York, a third edi- thorities distinct from those to which
tion of whose valuable work was pub- I have appealed, I should be glad to
lished a few weeks since. have placed by the side of my own

2 I must except, in respect to the conclusions on this topic.

V



PREFACE.

departments, relied for authority on the schohastic jurists
of the Middle Ages rather than on the classical jurists
of business Rome ; and it was but natural that Judge
Story and Chancellor Kent, the treatise of Gains not
having been as yet discovered, and the chief accessible
summaries of the Corpus Juris being those of the scho-
lastic jurists, should have followed Lord Holt and Sir W.
Jones.^ Between the scholastic and the classical jurists,
however, there is a conflict, as will be hereafter demon-
strated, which runs through the whole line of the subject
before us. This conflict may be at this point thus briefly
epitomized : —

SCHOLASTIC JURISTS. CLASSICAL JURISTS.

Culpa is of three grades : Culpa has but two grades :
culpa lata, culpa levis, culpa culpa lata and culpa levis, the
levissima ; and in agencies negligence ofa specialist and
involving special trust, the that of a non-specialist ; or,
agent is liable for culpa levis- in other words, the negli-
sima. gence of one professing to

be, and of one not professing
to be, an expert. As to culp)a
levis, it exists where a spe-
cialist neglects the diligence
usual with good specialists of
his department ; and if such
diligence is applied, there is
no negligence the law takes
hold of Culpa levissima the
• law does not punish, for culpa

levissima is incident to all
business, and to punish men

1 The explanation of this is given in detail, infra, § 59 et seq.
vi



PREFACE.



Injure non remota causa sed
proxima spectakir.



Mandatum (agency) is a
gratuitous undertaking, and
the mandatary (agent) is
only bound to ordinary dil-
igence.



If the plaintiff's negli-
gence, no matter how triv-
ial, contributes to the injury,

1 Infra, § 26 et seq.

2 Infra, § 87 ef seq., 134, and also
Appendix.



for culpa levissima in their
business would be to prevent
them from doino; business at
all.i

To causation responsible
moral agency is essential;
and causal connection is ju-
ridically broken, in cases of
negligence, when between
the first negligence and the
damage intervenes the neg-
ligence of a second responsi-
ble person directly produc-
ing the damage.^

Mandatum (agency) is not
gratuitous; for in all cases
a special action lies against
the mandant in behalf of the
mandatary for the recovery
of his salarium or honorarium.
And in any view, the manda-
tary (agent) who undertakes
to act as a business man is
required to exhibit the skill
and diligence good business
men in his department are
accustomed to exhibit.^

Injiina non excusat injuriam.
No matter how negligent
the plaintiff may have been,

8 See infra, § 485.

vii



PREFACE.

he is barred, on the theory this does not excuse the de-
of culpa levissima, from re- fendant in negligently injur-
covery. ing him, if this injury could

have been avoided by the
exercise of the diligence
good business men are ac-
customed to exercise in such
matters. Nor can the plain-
tiff's culpa levissima bar his
recovery. If it does, there
is no .plaintiff who can re-
cover, for there is no human
action to which culpa levis-
sima is not imputable.^
The scholastic theories on the above topics are the pro-
ducts of a recluse and visionary jurisprudence scheming
for an ideal humanity: the classical theories, as contained
in the Corpus Juris, are the products of a practical and
regulative jurisprudence, based, by the tentative pro-
cesses of centuries, on humanity as it really is, and so
framed as to form a suitable code for a nation which con-
trolled, in periods of high civilization, the business of the
globe. Hence, when the attempt was made, even under
the high auspices of Lord Holt and Sir W. Jones, to enforce
the scholastic jurisjDrudence in the business transactions
of England and of the United States, it was but natural
that judges should stagger at refinements so unsuitable for
practical use ; ^ and hence we can understand, also, how
Judge Story, enthusiastic as was his admiration for the
"civil law" (which includes, in his acceptation of the
term, the scholastic jurisprudence), should have shrunk

1 See infra, § 300-3-45. 2 gee for illustrations infra, § 44.

viii



PREFACE.

from judicially imposing the subtleties which he accepted
as theoretically sound. The consequence was that our ad-
judications have been on one plane of jurisprudence, and
our principles on another plane ; the necessities of busi-
ness life drove us to approach the law of business Rome,
while the authority of our jurists induced us to still cling
to the idealistic fictions of mediaevalism. In the following
pages I have sought to avoid this incongruity, by substi-
tuting as a basis the Roman for the scholastic jurispru-
dence ; striving in this way not only to present the law in
logical consistency, but to arrange it in a shape which
can be readily and quickly mastered by the practitioner.
Some of our older decisions, based exclusively on the
scholastic formulas, I have passed over without notice ;
but I think I can fairly claim to have noticed and dis-
cussed, in its proper place, every modern pertinent Anglo-
American adjudication. And these adjudications I have
classified so as to enable them to take their place in fur-
ther exposition of that consummate system which the
jurists of Rome framed as at once the outgrowth and the
law of the business of the Roman Empire. It shows how
much human nature, when subject to the highest strain,
continues to exhibit the same characteristics, that we,
in the nineteenth century, in the United States, should
be instinctively and unconsciously constructing for our-
selves, in defiance of the scholastic traditions we have
been trained to reverence, a jurisprudence which rejects
these traditions, and assimilates itself to the jurisprudence

of Rome at her business prime.

F. W.

Cambridge, October, 1874.

ix



GENERAL ANALYSIS.



BOOK I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

Chapter

L General definition of negligence, § L

IL Different kinds of negligence, § 26.

IIL Causal connection, § 73.

IV. Liability of master for servant, § 156.

V. Master's liability to servant, § 201.

VL Municipal corporations, § 250.

VIL Private corporations, § 271.

VIIL Public officers, § 285.

IX. Contributory negligence, § 300.

X. Ignorance of law or fact, § 410.

XL Provinces of court and jury, § 420.

BOOK II.

NEGLIGENCE IN DISCHARGE OF DUTIES BASED ON CON-
TRACT.

Chaptee

I. General rules, § 435.

II. Depositum, § 450.

IIL Mandatum, § 482.

IV. Trustees, assignees, attorneys in fact, guardians, ex-
ecutors, AND OTHER agents, § 515.

V. Carriers op goods, § 545.

VI. Passenger carriers, § 645.

VII. CusTODiA, § 665.

VIIL COMMODATUM, § 667.

xi



BOOK III.] GENERAL ANALYSIS.

IX. PiGNUS OR PAWN, § 670.

X. Innkeepers and livery stable-keepers, § 675.

XL Expressmen, § 697.

XII. Forwarding merchants, § 703.

XIII. Ferrymen, § 706.

XIV. LocATio (Hiring), § 710.
XV. Physicians, § 730.

XVI. SociETAS (partnership), § 740.

XVII. Lawyers, § 744.

XVIII. Telegraph companies, § 756.

XIX. Vendors, § 774.

XX. Drovers, § 778.

BOOK III.

NEGLIGENCE IN DISCHARGE OF DUTIES NOT BASED ON

CONTRACT

Chapter

I. General principles and illustrations, § 780.

II. Collision of railroad trains with travellers, § 798.

III. Injuries caused to travellers and visitors by owners

OF land or houses, § 815.

IV. Dangerous agencies, § 851.
V. Fire, § 865.

VI. Defective fencing, and collision of railroad train

WITH CATTLE, § 883.

VII. Noxious animals, § 904.

VIII. Interference with support to land or houses, § 929.
IX. Interference with watercourses, § 934.
X. Collisions on water, § 943.
XL Gas companies, § 953.
XII. Duty of public authorities in repairing roads, § 956.

Appendix on the causal relation.
xii



TABLE OF CASES.



[the fiodres refer to sections.]



><A.bbott V. Macfie








317


Acljtenhagen v. Watertown




403


Ackermann v, Emmott






522


Ackley v. Kellogg








5 78


Acton V. Blundel








939


Adams v. Carlisle






300


422


V. Clem








687


V. Natick








976


V. R. R.


93,


300,


363


991



Adams Ex. Co. v. Darnell 700

V. Fendrick 586

V. Haynes 700

V. Stettaners 422, 587,

589, 698, 700

Administrator v. Boggs 751

Adsit V. Brady 285, 443, 1000

Ala., &c. R. R.t;. Kipp 571, 5 73

Albany v. Cunliff 774

Albro V. Agawam C. C. 223, 224, 229

V. Jaquith 245

Alden v. R. R. 627, 630

Aldrichw. R. R. 569, 574

V. Pelham 968, 989

Aldridge v. R. R. 590, 597, 870

Alexander v. Green 706

Alger V. Lowell 402,976

V. R. R. 883

Allday V. R. R. 597

Allen V. Carter 287, 289

V. Clark 749, 751

V. Hancock 85, 105

r. Ilayward 176,279

V. Williard 423

Allentown v. Kramer 959, 972, 981

Allison ?;. R. R. Co. 157

V. Rayner 751

Allyn V. R. R. 382, 424

Alsop V. Yates 214

Alston V. Herring 325, 346, 563

Althorp z?. Wolf 175

Alton V. R. R. 439

Am. Ex. Co. V. Bk. of Titusville 699,

703



Am. Ex. Co. V. 2d Nat. Bk. 589

V. Hackott 700

V. Sands 698

American Print Works v. Lawrence

126

Am. Trans. Co. v. Moore 554

Am.Un. Ex. Co. i'. Robinson 697, 700

Ames V. Beldin 713

Amies v. Stevens 559, 615

Anderson v. Bath 105

V. Dickie 817

V. Steam Co. 420

V. Steamboat 873

Andrews p. Buckton 916

Angle V. R. R. 578

Anthony v. Adams 195

Applebee v. Percy 922

Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilson 181, 224,

265

Arkwright V. Gell 937

Armistead v. Wildes 690, 691

Armstrong v. Cooley 867 a

Arnold v. Halenbake 546

V. Norton 922

V. Robertson 751

Artz V. R. R. 384, 386, 804

Ashley v. Harrison 136

Ashworth v. Stanwix 205, 208

Assop V. Yates 25, 224-243

Aston r. Heaven 114,525,559,626,

820 /*, 921

Atchison v. King 85, 86, 980

r. Rloore 963

Atlanta R. R. o. Wood 816, 819

Attorney General v. Alford 525

Augusta R. R. V. McElmurray 346

Aurora v. Pulfer 987

Aurora R. R. v. Grimes 300

Austin V. N.J. Steam Co. 125, 949, 951

V. R. R. Co. 44, 826, 356, 437,

549,590, 597

Avegno v. Hart 820 k

Averitt v. Murrell 865

xiii



TABLE OF CASES.



Avery v. Maxwell
Axford V. Prior
Aycock V. 11. R.
Aylesworth v. R. R.



B.



Babcock v. Herbert 706

Babson v. Rockport 93, 984, 985

Bacon v. City of Boston 265, 992

Baikie v. Chandless 746, 749

Bailey v. N. H. & N. R. R. Co. 798
• V. N. y. 190, 250, 262

Bailiffs of Romney Marsh v. Trinity

House 123, 559

Baird v. Morford 300, 424

V. Pettit 203, 230-236

V. Williamson 376, 787

Baker v. Day 687

Balch V. Smith 885

Baldwin V. Am. Ex. Co. 697, 700

V. U. S. Tel. Co. 759, 760,

763, 766

Balfe V. West 442

Ball V. Herbert 848

V. Nye ■ 843

V. Winchester 991

Ballon V. Farnum 1 76

Baltimore, The 945

Bait. V. Marriott 815, 980

Bait. & 0. R. R. V. Boteler 348

V. Breinig 382

V. Fitzpatrick 300,

388, 420, 421,425,

587

V. Green 578

V. Rathbone 698

V. Shipley 420

V. Snyder 310-321

V. State, 348, 388

V. Trainer 203, 244,

341, 385, 388

V. Woodruff" 869

V. Worthington 798,

802

Bancroft v. R. R. 552

Bankr. Adams Ex. Co. 698

V. Champ. Trans. Co. 546

V. Mott 286 a

V. R. R. 311

Bank of Ireland v. Evans 136

Bankard v. R. R. 586

Barber v. Essex 969

Barclay v. Cueidla 555

BardAvell v. Jamaica 962

Barksdull v. R. R. 313

xiv



883


Barnard v. Poor


86,866,


867


349


V. Ward




289


896


Barnes v. Chapin


915,


923


887


V. Smith




297




V. Ward


6, 789,


815



Barney v. Burstenbinder 854

V. Lowell 192

V. Sanders 524

Barnum v. Vandusen 916, 924, 925
Barren v. Black 826

Barrett v. R. R. 395, 923, 924

V. The S. M. Co. 441

Barron v. Eldridge 420, 422

Barry v. City 181-193

Barter v. Wheeler 575, 579, 580

Bartholomew v. R. R. 610

Bartlett v. Crozier 285, lOOO

V. R. R. 890

V. Vaughan 976

Barton v. Montpelier 968

V. R. R. 420, 648

V. Syracuse 262, 800

Bartonshill Coal Co. v. McGuire 88,
216, 224, 227
V. Reid 88, 159,
208, 216, 224, 230
Bass V. R. R. ' 873, 883

Bassett v. Co. 939

Batchelder v. Heagan 421, 866, 867
Batsou V. Donovan 590, 713, 723

Battv V. Duxbury 969

Baulee v. R. R. 200, 238

Baxendale v. R. R. 597, 701

Baxter v. R. R. 382, 384

V. Roberts 210

V. Wheeler 578

Bay City v. Austin 892

Bayley v. Manchester 171

V. R. R. 157

V. Wolverhampton Water-
works Co. 25, 786
Beal V. R. R. 49, 590-597
Beardslee v. Richardson 422
Beatty v. Gilmore 426
Beauchamp v. Powley 477, 722
Beaulien v. Portland Co. 224, 22i)
V. R. R. 243
Beck V. Dyson 923
V. Evans 590
Beckman v. Shouse 422, 546, 589
Behn v. Kemble 437
Beisiegel v. R. R. 382, 385, 386,

804

Belfast R. R. v. Keys 606

Belger v. Dinsmore 697

Bell V. Drew 608

V. McClintock 847, 938



TABLE OF CASES.



Belief ontaine R. R. v. Bailey 900

R. R. V. Hunter 382,

388, 397, 804

V. Reed 887

V. Schruyhart 804

Belief ontaine &I. R. R. v. Snyder 310

Bellinger v. Craigue 730

V. N. Y. Cent. R. R. 847 a

Bellows V. Sackell 843

Belton V. Baxter 382, 420-427

Bemis v. R. R. 397, 887, 893,

895-6

Benden v. Manning 355, 438, 503

Bendetson v. French 689

Bennett v. Button 599

V. Filyow 546, 578

V. Mellor 692

V. R.R. 395

Besozzi V. Harris 917, 923

Bessant r. R. R, 274, 888

Bevanus v. U. S. 290

Bigelow V. Randolph 190, 191, 192,

251, 260, 266, 959

V. Reid 331

V. Rutland 404

V. Walker ^ 531

V. Weston 962

Bilbee v. L. B. & S. C. R. Co. 798

Bill V. Norwich 959, 961, 963, 965

V. Smith 945, 948

Billings V. Worcester 980, 989, 990

Bingham v. Rogers 589

Binks V. R. R. 346, 885

Bird V. Holbrook 331, 347, 851

V. R. R. 661

Birge v. Gardiner 300, 303, 310, 318,

346, 424

Birkett v. W, Junct. R. C. 786

Birney v. Tel. Co. 762, 763, 764, 766

Bishop V. B. Charity 817

Bissell V. Booker 109, 882

V. R. R. 241, 588, 589, 595-7,

764

V. Torrey 182

Black V. Baxendale 571

V. R. R. 803

Blackstock v. R. R. 560, 662

Blackstone v. R. R. 571

Blake v. Ferris 181, 818

Blakely v. Lc Due 300

Blakemore v. R. R. 440, 920

Blanc V. Klum])ke 994

Blanchard v. Tel. Co. 846

Blcnkiron v. Gas Co. 954

Bliss V. Greeley 939

V. Torrey 184

V. Wilbraham 985



Blisset V. Daniel 741

Blodgett V. Procter 991

Blood V. Nash 847 a

Bloomington v. Bay 959, 992

Blosser v. Harshbarger 516

Blossom V. Dodd 588, 614

Blot V. Boiceau 420

Blower v. R. R. 563, 565, 615

Blumenthal v. Brainard 546

Blyth v. Bh-m. Wat. Works 1, 25,

114
V. Topham 824 a

Bodwell V. Bragg 689

Bohannon i\ Hammond 114

Bokenham v. Brunett 590

Bolan V. Williamson 292, 295

Boland v. R. R. 310, 420

Bolch V. Smith 348-9

Bolina, The 950

Bolton V. Colder 820 A

Bomar v. Maxwell 608

Boorman v. Brown 435

Booth V. AVilson 462, 508

Boss V. Litton 820 h

Boston & A. R. R. v. Carney 856

V. Shanty 854

Boston & W. R. R. Com. v. 798

Bosworth V. Swansey 331, 405

Bournan v. Woods 733

Bowen v. R. R. 636

V. Tel. Co. 758

Bowman v. R. R. 883, 887 c

V. Teele 556-8

Bowyer v. Burlow 8i?3

Boyd V. Dubois 563

Boyden v. U. S. 290

Brace v. R. R. 887 a

Bradbee v. Mayor 930

Bradley v. R. R. 425, 798, 799, 804
Bradstreet v. Everson 753

Bradt v. Walton 754

Brady v. Ball 883

V. Giles 177

V. Lowell 251, 956

Braithwaite v. Skinner 448

Brand v. R. R. 300

Branly v. S. E. R. R. 701

Brass v. Maitland 348, 563, 564, 693,

854, 856
Bray u. INIavne 715

V. WaUingford 266

Breese v. Tel. Co. 756, 763, 764

Brickner v. R. R. 212, 229

Bridge v. R. R. 300, 326, 370, 376,

380
Bridgeport, The 945

Bridges v. Perry 289



TABLE OF CASES.



841
V. Taylor 425, 566, 636, 660
V. Wardwdl 285

Briiul V. Dale 422, 566, 597, 713

Briiikineyer v. Evansville 261

Bristol R. R. V. Collins 519

British riate Man. v. Meredith 126
Britten V. Inliab. 338

Broadbent v. Ramsbotham 935

Broadwater v. Blot 693, 713, 723

Broadwood v. Granara 684

Broek v. Kemp
Bronson v. Soutlibury
Brook V. Copcland
Brooke v. Pickwick
Brooks V. Hart
V. R. R.
V. Somerville



Brothers v. Carter
Brown v. Boorman
V. Carpenter
V. Clayton
V. Dennison
V. Edgington
V. Ilius
V. Kendall
V. Lynn
V. Mallets
V. N. Y.



287, 289

310, 321,339

914

599, 606-7

820 ;^

384, 582, 899

420, 427, 966,

973, 978

222-4, 241

3, 436

911, 913

566

703

774

939

421

388

846, 851, 944

250



R. R, 311, 319, 348, 388,

425, 427, 804, 817, 878, 887,

887 b, 890



V. Waterman
Browne v. Johnson
Browning v. Hanford

V. Springfield
Brownlow v. Met. Board
Brumbridge v. Massey
Brunner v. Williams
Bryan v. Fowler
Bryant v. Bush
Bryden v. Stewart
Buckhouse i'. Sneed



422, 576
422
289
956, 959
279
751
627
713, 723, 867 6
559
224
559



Buckland v. Ad, Exp. Co. 587, 697,

701, 922
Buckley v. Leonard 913, 922, 924

V. R. R. 571

Buckmaster v. R. R. 662

Budge V. R. R. 388

Buel V. R. R. 93, 304

Buffalo & Hamburg Co. v. Buf-
falo 196, 252
Buhner v. Oilman 746
Burden v. Barnett 913
Burgess v. Clements 77, 678, 690, 691
V. R. R. 652

xvi



Burrell v. R. R.
Burnett v. Lynch
Hurnhani v. Butter
Burns v. Poulson

V. R. R.
Burroughs v. R. R.



Burrows v. The M
Co

V. R. R.
Burtis V. R. R.
Burton v McClelland

V. R. R.
Bush V. Brainerd
V. Miller
V. Steinman
V. Trustees
Buskirk v. Roberts
Butcher v. R. R.
Butler V. Hunter
V. King
V. Knight
V. R. R.
Butt V. R. R.
Butterfield v. Forrester



578, 582

285, 296, 443

850 i, k, I

1G5, 171

245, 365, 627

578, 579, 580,

869, 870, 872

Gas & Coke

77, 145, 300, 954

648

579

867 a

898

883

422, 703

181, 714, 815, 818

959, 967, 980

662

578, 599,601, 612

157, 181, 818, 930

286 a

751

882, 388, 606

422, 713

300,332,382,

404

V. R. R. 382, 420-424

Button V. Great West. Ct. Co. 214

Butts V. Collins 435

Buxton V. Holbrook 883

V. R. R. 397, 443, 584, 886

Buzzell V. Man. Co. 214

Byrne v. Boadle 844, 845



C.

Caffrey v. Darby 531

Cahill V. R. R. 606

Caldwell v. Brown 201, 224

V. Murphy 627

V. N.J. S. Co. 627,630,635-

637, 660

Calkins v. Barger 865, 866, 867

Call V. Buttrick 847 a

Callaghan v. Hall 525

Callahan v. Bean 311

Callender v. Marsh 252

Calye's case 678, 690, 691

Cam. & A. R. R. i'. Baldauff 589

V. Burke 627

V. Forsyth 583

Camp V. Tel. Co. 760, 763, 764

Campbell v. Brown 923

V. Perkins 579

V. Phelps 281

Cane v. Chapman 443



TABLE OF CASES.



Card V, Case
Cargo ex Argos
Carleton v. Franc. Co.
Carlisle v. Holton
Cai'penter v. Blake
Carpue v. R. R.



911, 914, 923

569

826

420

730, 735

422, 660-1



Carr v. Northern Liberties 263

V. R. R. 326, 590, 615, 616

Carroll v. R. R. 381

Carsly v. White 420, 422

Carson v. Godley 181

Carstairs v. Taylor 114, 934

Carter v. Russell 420

V. Towne 90, 142, 853

Cary v. R. R. 578, 579, 582, 604

V. Webster 535

Cashill V. Wright 25, 690, 691,692

Cass?'. R. R. 422,477,576

Cassidy v. Stockbridge 402, 968, 989

Castello V. Landwehr 423

Castle V. Duryea 882

V. Parker 439

Caswell V. R. R. 373, 424, 802

V. Worth 300, 860

Cate V. Cate 141

Catlin V. Hills 395

Cayzer v. Taylor 209, 616, 713, 778

Cecil u. R. R. 397, 899

Center v. Finney 421, 820 c

Central, &c. v. City 435

Central R. R. v. Davis 388

R. R. V. Dixon 300, 392

R. R. V. Grant 200

R. R. V. Moore 427

Cent. O. R. R. v. Lawrence 883, 900

Chadwick v. Tower 929, 930

Chaffee v. R. R. 387

Challen v. Skippam 524

Chamberlain v. Enfield 265, 983, 998

Chambers v. Mason 751

V. Matthews 883

Charabersburg v. McLellan 415, 518

Champaign v. Patterson 817, 984

Chandler v. Wor. Ins. Co. 792

Chapin v. R. R. 887 b, 893

Chapman v. Fr. Ir. Works 824 a

V. R. R. 241, 375, 867 b,

880

V. Rothwell 348, 349, 352,

786, 827

V. Van Toll 746

V. Walton 518

Chappel V. People 882

Charless v. Rankin 929

Chasemore v. Richards 935, 939

Chateau v. Steainb. Co. 622

Chauntler v. Robinson 817, 930

b



Chedworth r. Evans 527

Chester v. Porter 315

Chicago, &c. R. R. v. Adler 804

V. Atley 888, 889

V. Barrie 888, 895,

899

V. Cauffman 398,

883

V. Dewey 334, 393

V. Dignan 390

V. Fears 384

V. Garvey 798,

908 a

V. George 300

V. Gregory 209,

235, *306, 334

V. Gretzner 382,

384, 389

V. Harris 398,887,

888

V. Hazzard 334

V. Jackson 209

V. Magee 398

V. McCahill 870

V. McKean 307

V. Murphy 200,

233

t'. Paine 359, 798,

804

V. Patchen ' 385,

885, 893, 899

V. Pondrora 334,

343, 359,361

V. Pontius 578,

579,583

V. Quaintance

872,876

V. Seirer 397, 398

V. Still 384

V. Stumps 798,806

V. Sweeney 334,

387

V. Swett 200, 209

V. Thompson 608

V. Triplett 334

V. Whitton 385

Chicago V. Gallagher 984

V. Hislop 975

V. Mayor 316,421

V. Robbins 176, 186, 193, 279,

818, 963

V. Starr 311,317

Child V. Boston 192, 251, 262

V. Ilearn 802

Chippendale v. R. R. 597

Chouteau v. Leech 594

Chown V. Parrott 751

xvii



TABLE OF CASES.



Christcnson v. Am. Ex. Co. 697, 698

Cliristie v. Grij^gs 627

Christy v. Smith 295

Church V. Cherryfield 988, 990

Cincinnati v. Stone 185, 190

Cinoin. & L. li. R. v. Boal 622

Cincin. & Zanes. R. R. v. Smith 397

Cincin., 11. & D. R. R. v. Spratt 578

Citizens' Ins. Co. v. Marsh 420

City V. Blood 964

V. Chipp 989, 990

V. Furze 265

V. Hildebrand 400, 420

V. Huffer 262

V. King 980

V. Kirby 310

V. Mayor 311

V. Noble 972

Clark V. Barn-wall 567

V. Barrington 105, 627, 979

V. Corinth 964

V. Faxton 589

V. Foot 867

V. Fry 816

V. Marshall 751

V. Spence 422

V. Un. Ferry Co. 707

Clarke v. Earnshaw 723

V. Gay 599

V. Holmes 77, 211

r. R. R. 565,597,616,617,

619

Clayards v. Dethick 300, 326, 332

Clayton v. Hunt 614

Cleland v. Thornton 80, 97, 865, 866

Cleveland, &c. R. R. v. Curran 589,

593, 641, 641a

V. Elliott 348, 883



Online LibraryFrancis WhartonA treatise on the law of negligence → online text (page 1 of 104)