Smith v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 34, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, B. F. Smith, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Sept. T., 1888, No. 65, on verdict for defendant. Trespass for personal injuries.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 34, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, B. F. Smith, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Sept. T., 1888, No. 65, on verdict for defendant. Trespass for personal injuries. At the trial before MehARD, P. J., specially presiding, the court directed a verdict for the defendant in a charge of which the following is the material part: “ The story upon which plaintiff relies for a recovery is that on the'10th of July, 1888, he was a hackman engaged, amongst other things, in carrying passengers to and from the station of defendant company. He tells you that upon that day he had an order from…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There are twelve specifications of error in this case, all of which relate to the charge of the court and answers to points. A careful examination of them fails to disclose substantial error. The defendant company had a right to make reasonable regulations in regard to the use of its station. It had a right to order that hacks should not stand in front of the entrance, and the plaintiff having willfully disobeyed such order, it was competent to remove him. In doing so, no more force appears to have been employed than was necessary. A number of points were submitted by the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1903
- Lucas v. HerbertIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Public Service Railway Co. v. Township of WeehawkenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
- Hot Springs v. DembySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909