Philadelphia & Baltimore Central Railroad v. Holden
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cecil County (Stump and Martin, JJ.) The plaintiff’s first prayer, which was conceded, was : “If the jury find that on or about the loth day of July, 1899, the plaintiff was injured .by the locomotive or cars of the. defendants, while operated by its agents on its road, and that said injury resulted directly from the want of ordinary care and prudence of the agents of the defendants, and not from the want of ordinary care and prudence on the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cecil County (Stump and Martin, JJ.) The plaintiff’s first prayer, which was conceded, was : “If the jury find that on or about the loth day of July, 1899, the plaintiff was injured .by the locomotive or cars of the. defendants, while operated by its agents on its road, and that said injury resulted directly from the want of ordinary care and prudence of the agents of the defendants, and not from the want of ordinary care and prudence on the part of the plaintiff, directly contributing to the injury, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover.”
1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.
On the 10th July, 1899, Charles Holden was injured while crossing the track of the Philadelphia and Baltimore Central Rail Road Company. The point where the accident happened is a private crossing called Holden’s Lane. Suit was brought by 'Holden against the Rail Road Company in the Circuit Court for Cecil County to recover damages. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $2,500.
During the course of the trial the plaintiff offered to prove “by himself and several other witnesses that the whistle was not blown at New Valley, which is a public crossing 1032 feet •east of Holden’s…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. HogelandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1886
- Maryland Central Railroad v. NeubeurCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1884
- Harty v. . Central R.R. Co. of New JerseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. StommelIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. State ex rel. SavingtonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1889
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- McNab v. United Railways, Etc., Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1902
- Jackson v. Pennsylvania RailroadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1939
- Glick v. Cumberland & Westernport Electric Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1914
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. State Ex Rel. RomingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1902
- Lepard v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.