Houghton v. Market-Street Railway Co.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granting a new trial. John Hunt, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. A. A. Moore, and Stanley Moore, for Market-Street Rail-way Company, Appellant. M. S. Eisner, for San Francisco and Pacific Glass Works, Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, J.
The plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries, sustained by the wife through the alleged joint negligence of the defendants, while she was riding as a passenger on defendant railway company’s car. The trial was before a jury and defendants had the verdict. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial upon several grounds, of which the following are urged: 1. Insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict; 2. Error in denying plaintiffs’ challenge for cause interposed to jurors; and 3. Newly discovered evidence.
The court granted plaintiffs’ motion on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lombardi v. California Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
- Osgood v. Los Angeles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
- Churchill v. FlournoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Harrison v. Sutter Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
- Sullivan v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Atkinson v. United Railroads of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Housel v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
- Burch v. Southern Pacific Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1909
- Kilgore v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Leibman v. CurtisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.