Mobile & O. R. v. Wilson
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In Error to tbe Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. Action by Samuel Wilson against the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Read the full summary
In Error to tbe Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. Action by Samuel Wilson against the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. In this case the circuit court refused all special requests for instructions, and charged the jury as follows: “The declaration in this case contains three counts, each differing somewhat, from the other, but they substantially charge the defendant railroad company with so negligently and carelessly operating its train, consisting of a locomotive and car. as that the…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, Circuit Judge
(after stating tbe facts as above). As we bad occasion to say ip Railroad Co. v. Kelly, 11 C. C. A. 260, 265, 63 Fed. 412: “Jurors are not trained lawyers, and, notwithstanding a general charge covering tbe issues of a case, it is tbe duty of tbe court, on proper request, to give tbe jury a statement of any distinct doctrine or proposition which is fairly and justly applicable to tbe issues or to an important phase of tbe case.” A charge to a jury ought to be more than a skeletonized statement of tbe issues and of abstract propositions of law. Tbe purpose is that tbe jury shall render an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. TolsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Louisville & N. R. v. KellyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1894
3Cited by2 opinions
- Capital Traction Co. v. DivverCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1909
- Nein v. La Crosse City Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1899