Bennett v. Tintic Iron Co.
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of tbe district court of the first district and from an order refusing a new trial, Hon. John W. Blackburn, judge. The opinion states the facts, except that the facts as stated infra in respondents brief are found in the abstract. The record showed that the list of 200 names was exhausted. They cited as to the question of impaneling the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of tbe district court of the first district and from an order refusing a new trial, Hon. John W. Blackburn, judge. The opinion states the facts, except that the facts as stated infra in respondents brief are found in the abstract. The record showed that the list of 200 names was exhausted. They cited as to the question of impaneling the jury. Mossean v. Veeder, 2 Or. 113; Judge v. State, 8 Ga. 173; Be Pont v. McAdoiu, 6 Mont., 226; Williams v. Comm., 91 Pa. St. 493, 12 Am. and Eng. Encye. 340-2. The miner was a fellow-servant. ■ Railway Go. v. Baugh, 13 Sup. Ct. Bep.…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendant, for the sum of $5,000, rendered May 17, 1892, and for costs. The damages were awarded for a personal injury alleged by plaintiff to have-been sustained by him while in the employ of the defendant, caused by the negligence of the defendant. Three. *295assignments of error are made upon tliis appeal: First, that, the court below erred in overruling the defendant's challenge to the panel of the trial jury; second, that the court, erred in sustaining plaintiff’s objection to a certain question asked of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vanderwerker v. PeopleNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Mackey v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1873
- Hunt v. ScobieCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1846
3Cited by1 opinion
- Simmons v. CunninghamIdaho Supreme Court · 1895