DUNLAP
v.
NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY

U.S. | 1889-05-13
No. 256
130 U.S. 649 Supreme Court of the United States (1889) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 32 L. Ed. 1058 · 9 S. Ct. 647 · 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1785 · SCDB 1888-208
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In this railroad negligence case, the Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court erred by instructing the jury to find for the defendant without submitting the question of contributory negligence to the jury, as the evidence did not conclusively establish as a matter of law that the plaintiff could not recover. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding that although the exceptions were not technically perfect, they were sufficiently preserved to allow review of the erroneous jury instructions.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
j^E. Chief Justice. Fullee,

j^E. Chief Justice. Fullee,

after stating the case, as above reported, delivered the opinion.of the court.

The Circuit Court erred in not submitting the question of contributory negligence to the jury, as the' conclusion did not follow;, as matter of law, that no recovery could be had upon any view which could be properly taken of the facts the evidence tended to establish. Kane v. Northern Central Railway, 128 U. S. 91; Jones v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad Co., 128 U. S. 443.

It is urged that the exceptions were not properly saved, and therefore that they should be disregarded. There is some obscurity in the record upon this subject, but upon the whole we think that enough appears to enable us to pass upon the question presented. . The bill of exceptions shows that certain instructions, numbered 1 and 2, were requested by plaintiff and refused, and certain instructions, numbered 3 and 4, objectionable or adverse to plaintiff, were given, and it is stated by the court that “the plaintiff’s counsel presented his request in writing before the charge of the court began. The court instructed the jury to .find for the .defendant, without notice to plaintiff’s counsel that the requests would-not be given, and there was no opportunity for counsel to except to the failure of the court to charge as requested until the instructions were given to the jury. The exceptions, therefore, contained - in Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were not taken or noted during the trial.” But the bill-of exceptions also'states: “Y. The court instructed the jury to return á verdict for the defendant. YI.

The jury returned a verdict in accordance with said instructions, and judgment was thereupon entered up in behalf of defendant in pursuance of said instructions; and to said instructions, verdict and judgment, the plaintiff, by his counsel, excepted and now excepts, during the term at which said case was tried and while said term is still in session, and assigns the same as error, and prays the court .to sign and certify this exception.”

We understand, from this language, taken together, that the general instruction of the court to find for the defendant was excepted to at the proper time; and while greater accuracy of expression-should have been used, we are not inclined by too technical a construction, to preclude ourselves from correcting'the error we hold was committed. The judgment is '

Reversed cmd the ccmse remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1925)
    …unty Commissioners v. Beal, 113 U. S. 227, 241; People’s Savings Bank v. Bates, 120 U. S. 556, 561-562; North Penn. Railroad v. Commercial Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 733; Kane v. Northern Central Railway, 128 U. S. 91, 94; Dunlap v. Northeastern Railroad, 130 U. S. 649, 652; Delaware &c. Railroad v. Converse, 139 U. S. 469, 472; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 606; Elliott v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, 150 U. S. 245; Gardner v. Michigan Central Railroad, 150 U. S. 349, 360; Union Pacific…
  • Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. COX, 145 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1892)
    …hould not have been withdrawn from the jury unless the conclusion followed, |is matter of law, that' no recovery could be had upon any view which could be properly taken of the facts the evidence tended to establish. Dunlap v. Northeastern Railroad, 130 U. S. 649, 652; Kane v. Northern Central Railway, 128 U. S. 91; Jones v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad, 128 U. S. 443. We think the evidence given in the record tended to establish that the coupling apparatus and the track were in an unsafe and…
  • Davidson S.S. Co. v. United States, 205 U.S. 187 (U.S. 1907)
    …tion of facts which have been tried by the jury under instructions correctly defining the legal rights of parties-. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 446; 21 How. 167; Insurance Company v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 249.” In Dunlap v. Northeastern Railroad Company, 130 U. S. 649, 652, this was the ruling: “The Circuit Court erred in not submitting the question of contributory negligence to the jury, as the conclusion did not follow, as matter of law, that no recovery could be had upon any view which could be properly taken…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (15 total)

View all 15 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw