Higgins v. Deeney
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new triaL The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
Action for damages. The plaintiff alleged that his child, two years and five months old, had been run over, knocked down, and injured by the team of horses and wagon of the defendant, William Deeney, driven by Phillip Deeney, the servant and agent of William; that the team was being driven at an unlawful rate of speed, and in violation of a city ordinance. Judgment was had for the plaintiff, in the sum of five hundred dollars, from which, and an order denying a new trial, this appeal is taken.
The point is made here for tire first time that the com*580plaint does not state facts…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Siemers v. EisenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Jessen v. SweigertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by9 opinions
- Stein v. United R.R. of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Schneider v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
- Driscoll v. Market Street Cable RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- United States Brewing Co. v. StoltenbergIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
- Macdonald v. O'ReillyOregon Supreme Court · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.