Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Stephens

Hamilton Circuit Court

Decided February 3, 1906Published

Error to Hamilton common pleas court. On motion to strike bill of exceptions from files. Revised Statutes 5190, 5301, 5302 (Lan. 8699, 8813, 8816); 97 O. L. 463; 96 O. L. 16; Mudge v. Ba/nk, 56 Kan. 353 [43 Pac. Rep. 255]; Keller v. Lewis, 56 Cal. 466; Adams v. Dohrmann, 63 Cal. 417; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633 [22 Pac. Rep. 26]; Girdner v. Beswick, 69 Cal. 112 [10 Pac. Rep. 278]Richardson v. Eureka, 96 Gal. 443 [31 Pac.

Read the full summary

Error to Hamilton common pleas court. On motion to strike bill of exceptions from files. Revised Statutes 5190, 5301, 5302 (Lan. 8699, 8813, 8816); 97 O. L. 463; 96 O. L. 16; Mudge v. Ba/nk, 56 Kan. 353 [43 Pac. Rep. 255]; Keller v. Lewis, 56 Cal. 466; Adams v. Dohrmann, 63 Cal. 417; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633 [22 Pac. Rep. 26]; Girdner v. Beswick, 69 Cal. 112 [10 Pac. Rep. 278]Richardson v. Eureka, 96 Gal. 443 [31 Pac. Rep. 458]; Montana Lumber & Produce Go. v. Howard, 10 Mont. 296 [25 Pac. Rep. 1024]; Gard v. Stevens, 12 Mich. 9. Evidence of damages resulting from death of child.…

1Opinion of the CourtGiffen, J.

The original action was commenced to recover damages for the death of Emily Stephens, nine years of age, occasioned through the alleged negligence of the Cincinnati Traction Company, in operating its cars at a crossing in a public highway. The defense, with the exception of certain formal admissions, was a general denial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, on which judgment was entered.

The first alleged error consists in the admission of the testimony of Darwin Stephens, relative to the amount of damages that would be sustained by next of kin.

After testifying concerning…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Commonwealth v. WilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1854

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API