Stearns v. Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the ruling of Hathaway, J. tiffs’ building and other property, by fire alleged to have been caused by a locomotive engine of defendants.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the ruling of Hathaway, J. tiffs’ building and other property, by fire alleged to have been caused by a locomotive engine of defendants. This was an action to recover for the destruction of plain- The declaration in plaintiffs’ writ, which is dated October 10, 1856, is “in a plea of the case; for that the plaintiffs, at Paris, in said county of Oxford, on the 24th day of November, A. D. 1855, were seized of a large chair factory, with all machinery, tools, and other apparatus necessary for the manufacture of chairs, of great value, to wit, of the value of four thousand…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
May, J.
At the trial of this action several grounds of defence were urged, which, in consequence of subsequent decisions, are now abandoned. Such'as remain, and have been presented to our consideration in argument, we will consider, and such only; regarding all other grounds, as waived by the learned counsel who has so ably conducted the defence.
The first objection now raised, is, that this action cannot be maintained because no remedy is given by the statute creating the liability; nor by any other statute; nor by the common law. That the statute, upon…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Moorshead v. United Railways Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Moorshead v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- City of New Haven v. FreseniusSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. ChappellIndiana Supreme Court · 1914
- Harden v. . RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.