Quimby v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of Vermont
Case. Heard on an agreed statement, at the December term, 1898, Caledonia county, Start, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The plaintiffs are entitled to. judgment if (1) the duty of the defendant to maintain sufficient cattle guards was absolute, or (2) the mare was unlawfully upon the road crossing, or (3) the case Harwood y. Bennington & Rutland R. R. Co., 67 Vt. 664, is sound.
Read the full summary
Case. Heard on an agreed statement, at the December term, 1898, Caledonia county, Start, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The plaintiffs are entitled to. judgment if (1) the duty of the defendant to maintain sufficient cattle guards was absolute, or (2) the mare was unlawfully upon the road crossing, or (3) the case Harwood y. Bennington & Rutland R. R. Co., 67 Vt. 664, is sound. If the plaintiff’s theory is sound, this case presents the peculiar conditions in which the owner or keeper of. the mare is liable to a fine of twenty dollars under § 3879, by reason…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
During the night of July 5, 1897, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs or their servants, their mare escaped from their pasture, on the “Meserve farm” so called, in St. Johnsbury, at some place not known, into an adjoining mowing field belonging to this farm, and passed from it through an open driveway into the public highway, and after travelling about at large on the highway for about half a mile, passed over a cattle guard in the defendant’s railroad where it crossed the highway at grade, and went along the railroad track for some distance and was struck by an engine of the defendant,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harwood's Admx. v. Bennington & Rutland Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1895
3Cited by3 opinions
- Aldrich v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1917
- Delphia v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- Burnham v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914