...himself. Two things must occur to support the action — an obstruction in the road by the default of the defendant, and no want of ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff'.' 1 Beav., 169, two cases cited. In Bridge v. Grand Junction Railway, Parke, B., said : ' The rule of...

...it was made than to the one under consideration. "Two things must concur, " said that learned judge, "to support this action, — an obstruction in the...ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff. " This rule, stated in different Language, has been consistently and uniformly declared and adhered...

...another's using ordinary care for himself. Two things must concur to support this action. an obstruction of the road by the fault of the defendant, and no want...the part of the plaintiff." Butterfield v. Forrester has been a leading case In England (1 Beven on Negligence [2d NT) (NT Ed.] p. 169 ; Pollock on Torts...

...in contact with an obstruction on a highway is that two things must concur to support the action, aa obstruction in the road by the fault of the defendant,...ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff. Frccdman v. City of Winnipeg (Man.), 43 DLR 126, [1918] 3 WWR 479. OBSTRUCTIONS — DEATH — LIABILITY...

...ordinary care for himself. Two things must concur to support thia action. An obstruction in the road, and no want of ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff." The rule of law laid down in Butterfield v. Forrester was expressly approved in Bridge v. Railway Го.,...

...follows: "One person being in fault will not dispense with another's using ordinary care for himself. Two things must concur to support this action, an...ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff." This statement of the law was expressly approved in Bridge- v. Grand Junction Ry. Co., 3 M. & W. 244,...

...against them. One person being in fault will not dispense with another using ordinary care for himself. Two things must concur to support this action —...ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff." There are obiter expressions in some of the cases apparently recognizing or assuming that contributory...

...Butterfield v. Forester, II East (Eng.) 60 (1809). He said: "Two things must concur to support the action, an obstruction in the road, by the fault of...ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff." •Citing cases on this point is indeed piling Ossa on Pelion. However, collections of cases may be...

...right. . . . One person being in fault will not dispense with another's using ordinary care for himself. Two things must concur to support this action, an...ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff. 1 1 1 East 60. 61 i The contributory negligence rule is a harsh one. In its classic formulation, contributory...

...dispense with another's using ordinary care for himself. Two things must concur to support this actioq: an obstruction in the road, by the fault of the defendant;...ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff." In the case at bar we have the spurious deed executed by a pretender in the name of West, and negligently...