Hollowell v. Norfolk & Southern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from Ferguson, J., at tbe Spring Term, 1910, of ChowaN. Tbe plaintiff complained tbat bis borse was injured by a defective crossing of tbe defendant railway’s roadbed, negligently constructed and maintained by the defendant. The jury so found and assessed plaintiff’s damages at $102. The defendant ap-j>ealed.
1Opinion of the CourtManning, J.
The defendants are the railway company and its receivers. It was admitted that plaintiff’s cause of action arose prior to the appointment of the receivers by the Federal court. The plaintiff filed a single complaint against the railway company and its receivers, and a joint answer was filed by the defendant, admitting the appointment of the receivers, but denying the alleged acts of negligence and tbe damages sustained thereby. There was no plea that the defendant receivers were not liable because the injury complained of was not received while the receivers were operating the railroad under…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Grady v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- State v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Farris v. Receivers of Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
3Cited by5 opinions
- Clements v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- State v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Stott v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- Wright v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Kissenger v. . FitzgeraldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910