across the track at a street cross- company the duty of keeping the ing and was struck and injured space between the rails in repair by the car. It appeared that no is not obvious to the court, as signals were given by the car for necessary to counteract the ordithe crossing. Held, that he was nary wear and tear of the road guilty of such contributory negli- produced by the feet of horses gence as to prevent recovery for constantly passing over it. Other his injuries. South Covington & horses besides those of the railC. St. Ry. Co. v. Enslen, (Ky.), road company pass over and upon 38 S. E. Rep. 830. the railroad tracks, especially Street Railways-Negligence- where the chances for passing are Question for Jury.-The question narrow, and the teams engaged in whether it was negligence on the part of a street-railway company to run a car with the platform crowded with passengers at a high rate of speed around a sharp curve is for the jury. Reber v. Pittsburg & B. Traction Co., (Pa.), 36 Atl. Rep. 245. Riding on Platform of Street Car-Negligence - Question for Jury. A passenger on a crowded street car was unable to get in the car, so in accordance with the conductor's directions, he stood at the outer edge of the rear platform, near the step, and stood with his back to the car, holding to the iron railing behind him. While he was in such position the current was cut off, extinguishing the lights, and the car was allowed to run at the rate of 15 or 20 miles an hour down a grade in which there was a sharp curve with which he was familiar, and his hold was broken and he was thrown off and injured when the car struck the curve. Held, that his standing on the platform was not negligence per se, but a question for the jury. Reber v. Pittsburg & B. Traction Co., (Pa.), 36 Atl. Rep. 245. Street Railways-Duty to Repair Street between Rails.-While a street-railroad company has the right to keep its track in repair, so as to prevent depreciation by wear and tear, the city not opposing, and to keep the earth about its rails firm and secure, and the right of maintaining approaches to its rails at crossings so as to let teams pass over them easily, the propriety of imposing upon the passing are numerous; and at crossings the track is usually much more trodden by horses driven by travelers than by railroad horses. Bangs v. Lewiston, etc., R. Co., (Me. 1896), 36 Atl. Rep. 73. Same. A city, in the absence of municipal regulation or agreement between the parties, does not surrender its supervision and control of its streets, and cannot very well do so while the statutory regulation exists which requires it, at its peril, to keep its streets safe and convenient for travelers. Held, that the controversy whether the city or the railroad company is bound to keep that portion of the street lying within the rails of the railroad in repair becomes, in any view, a practical question only as between the railroad corporation and the city, rather than as between the parties to this suit. Bangs v. Lewiston, etc., R. Co., (Me. 1896), 36 Atl. Rep. 73. Street Railways - Bridge over Railway Track-Additional Servitude. Where a railway company upon entering the limits of a city had to cut through an embankment in such city and to construct a bridge over such cut sufficient for the use of the public and ordinary vehicles, the running of street cars over such bridge imposes an additional servitude thereon, and the street-railway company will be compelled to unite with the railway company in the maintenance of the bridge and to provide the necessary conveniences at the intersection. Carolina Cent. R. Co. v. Wilmington St. Ry. Co., (N. Car.), 26 S. E. Rep. 913. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Milwaukee R. & K. Electric Ry. Co., (Wis.), 70 N. W. Rep. 678. Electric Street Railways-Introduction of Evidence.-In an action against a street-railway company to recover for personal injuries, the defendant introduced as witnesses two employees, both of whom had made written reports to the defendant on the accident Electric Street Railways-Additional Servitude. The property of the owner of the fee in a highway is not subjected to an additional servitude by a charter granted an electric railway company to construct and operate an electric railway over the highway. Canastota Knife Co. v. Newington, at the time of its occurrence. The &c., Co., (Conn.), 36 Atl. Rep. 1107. Same-Unauthorized Construction-Injunction.-Where the franchise of a street-railway company grants it the right to construct and operate a street railway over certain routes, a location made by such company on a highway which is included in the routes over which its franchise is granted can be within the terms of such franchise only if made as part of a location which substantially follows some one of the routes specially described, and where such location does not substantially follow one of such routes, an injunction is the proper remedy of the owner of the fee in such highway, as the construction of the road thereon would be a continuing injury for which he would have no adequate remedy at law. Canastota Knife Co. v. Newington Tramway Co., (Conn.), 36 Atl. Rep. 1107. Electric Railway in HighwayAdditional Servitude.-The construction and operation upon a highway of a railway which is to be a part of a connecting line between two cities and is to be used for the carriage and transportation of passengers, merchandise, personal baggage, mail, and express matter, in cars and trains propelled by locomotive engines and electricity and other power would tend to obstruct and interfere with the ordinary uses of the highway, and constitutes an additional servitude upon the lands of abutting owners for which they are entitled to compensation. defendant refusing the request of the plaintiff to produce the reports, the court ordered them to be produced, whereupon the plaintiff offered in evidence only two statements from one report, and did not use the other. The defendant requested that the plaintiff be required to use all of such reports which was refused by the court, as was its request to be allowed to introduce them as a part of its own evidence, the court ruling that it might lay in only such part of the report used by the plaintiff as related to the matters contained in the statements introduced by the plaintiff from such report. Held, that such rulings were correct. Laufer v. Bridgeport Traction Co., (Conn.), 37 Atl. Rep. 379. Same-Management of CarsExpert Testimony. In an action against an electric street-railway company to recover for personal injuries evidence of the president and inspector of the defendants, each of whom was an expert in the management of electric cars, as to the management of the car which caused the injury was admissible. Laufer v. Bridgeport Traction Co., (Conn.), 37 Atl. Rep. 379. Same-Maximum Speed-Construction of Statute.-A state statute conferred power on local authorities to regulate the speed of electric cars in their streets, with the restriction that a greater rate than fifteen miles per hour should not be allowed. Held, that such statute did not by establishing a maximum rate intend that any less rate of speed should Laufer v. Bridgeport Traction not be considered reckless, but Co., (Conn.), 37 Atl. Rep. 379. that it merely empowered local authorities to fix any rate under the maximum. Laufer v. Bridgeport Traction Co., (Conn.), 37 Atl. Rep. 379. 16. STOCK. Killing of Stock - Evidence.Where there is uncontradicted Same-Rights in Highway.-An testimony of the engineer, in an electric street-railway company action against a railway company. has a common right in the high- to recover for the killing of stock, way with every other traveler, not that nothing that he could have a superior right, and they must be done would have been effectual to so managed as not to interfere avoid the killing, or likely to have unreasonably with the like rights avoided it, a recovery should not of others. Laufer v. Bridgeport be had for such killing. Mobile, Traction Co., (Conn.), 37 Atl. etc., R. Co. v. Weems, (Miss. Rep. 379. 1897), 21 So. Rep. 306. Same-Injury to Person Driving Killing of Stock - Conflicting --Contributory Negligence. In an Testimony-Question for Jury.— action against a street-railway In an action against a railway, company to recover for personal company to recover for the killing injuries, it appeared that the of a mare, the plaintiff's witnesses plaintiff was driving on the left- testified that the train was sev hand side of a drawbridge on enty or eighty yards from the which there were parallel street- mare when she got on the track, car tracks; that he saw a car that she ran thirty yards before about 225 feet away approaching being killed, that only one alarm him on the track on which he was whistle was given, and the train driving, and knew that another did not stop, and no effort was car was coming up behind him on made to stop, slow up, or give any the other track, but that if it went alarm. The engineer testified at its ordinary rate of speed he that the mare got on the track would have time to cross safely to only a few feet in front of the the right-hand side; it also ap- engine, that he gave the alarm peared that the bridge was so nar- and did everything possible to row that he could not possibly avert the accident, and that she have turned to the left. He at- was killed a few seconds after tempted to cross to the right and getting on the track. Held, that was struck by the car approaching it was error to give a peremptory behind him. Held, that he was charge to find for the defendant, not guilty of contributory negli- and that the case should have gence in assuming that the car been submitted to the jury. Quinn would be run at its ordinary rate, v. Southern Ry. Co., (Miss. 1896), and attempting to cross before it. 21 So. Rep. 6. BILL OF LADING. Delivery of goods without re- Averments of ownership in Delivery of goods without re- Limitation of Liability to Fixed Cases holding that negligence Cases holding that negligence Duty to furnish cars, 524. Right of carrier to limit its lia- CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK · Right to limit its liability as to not charged with Liability for injuries received 584. Liability of company where CAR STEP. See Street Railways. Purchase of competing line, CONFLICT OF LAWS. See Crossings. NEGLI- Contributory negligence at ter of law, 532. Drunken person, 122. Duty of company as to construc- tion and maintenance, 623. Overhead crossing, 537. DAMAGES. See Exemplary Damages. DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT Riding on platform of car, 313. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Photograph of locus in quo, 519. Power of railroad company to Right of railway company to INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Statute regulating stoppage of INTOXICATION. LEASE. Competing road, 346. Liability of lessor for defects in Liability of lessor for failure to LIFE TABLES, 166. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Cases holding that negligence MASTER AND SERVANT. MUNICIPAL CORPORA Authority of municipal corpora- Conditions imposed by munici pality upon use of street, 72. |