RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
POLLARD
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.
A railroad company challenged a judgment in a dispute where the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for the jury to decide the case. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the evidence was adequate to submit the case to the jury, that the jury instructions were proper under precedent, and that the court properly refused to instruct the jury on factual questions where evidence conflicted.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. It is unnecessary to decide-in this case, whether the act of June 1st, 1872, by which the practice, pleadings, forms, and modes of proceedings, &c., in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States are made to conform as near as may be to the practice, pleadings, forms, and modes of proceedings in the courts of the States, gives to the Circuit Courts the power to order.a nonsuit against the will of the plaintiff in States where that power exists in the State courts, because, upon an examination of the record, we are all of the opinion that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff' was sufficient to justify the court in leaving the case to the jury. It is conceded that the part of the charge to the jury excepted to, is fully sustained by the decision of this court in Stokes v. Saltonstall. We see no necessity for reconsidering that case. There was no error in the refusal of the court to charge the jury as requested by the defendants. Each request involved the determination of a question of fact by the court, where there was, to say the least, a conflict of evidence. We have decided at the present term, in Texas v. Chiles * that in the courts of the United States parties to a suit are by acts of Congress put upon a footing of equality with other witnesses and are “ admissible to testify for themselves and compellable to testify for the others.” This disposes .of all the errors assigned in this case. Judgment aeeirmed.
N. B. No punitive damages were given. * 21 Wallace, 488.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Orme v. Burr, 157 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1946)…vidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.” This statement of the principle appears to have been applied in Stokes v. Salstonstall, 13 Peters 181, 10 L. ed. 115; New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., 22 Wall. 341, 22 L. ed. 877; Gleeson v. Va. Midland R. Co., 140 U.S. 435, 35 L. ed., 458; San Juan Light & Transit Co. v. Requena, 32 S. C. 399, 224 U.S. 89, 56 L. ed. 680, and other decisions of the U S. Supreme Court. One of the most often quoted State cases i…
-
Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1913)…g by carrier to passenger, and that the court did not rule that the circumstances of the occurrence shifted the burden of proof upon the main issue. Such is the effect that has uniformly been given to the decision. New Jersey R. & T. Co. v. Pollard, 22 Wall. 341, 346, 350; Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451, 455; Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U. S. 551, 554, 555; Gleeson v. Virginia Midland R. Co., 140 U. S. 435, 443, 444; Patton v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 179 U. S. 658, 663. In our op…
-
Patton v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 179 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1901)…on which in .the absence of some explanation or proof to the contrary is sufficient to sustain a verdict against him, for there is prima facie a breach of his contract to carry safely, Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 181; Railroad Company v. Pollard, 22 Wall. 341; Gleeson v. Virginia Midland Railroad, 140 U. S. 435, 443, a different rule obtains as to an employe. The fact of accident carries with it no presumption of negligence on the part of the employer, and it is an affirmative fact for the injured employ…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence