Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Billingslea
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas. This is an action at law by the defendant in error, Robert H. BiEingslea, herein called plaintiff, to recover damages for personal injuries against the Kansas City Southern Railway Company and Samuel W. Fordyce and Webster Withers, as receivers of the properties of the Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railway Company, the Texarkana & Ft Smith Railway Company, and the Kansas City, Shreveport &…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas. This is an action at law by the defendant in error, Robert H. BiEingslea, herein called plaintiff, to recover damages for personal injuries against the Kansas City Southern Railway Company and Samuel W. Fordyce and Webster Withers, as receivers of the properties of the Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railway Company, the Texarkana & Ft Smith Railway Company, and the Kansas City, Shreveport & Gulf Railway Company, herein styled defendants. The cause of action accrued against said Fordyce and Withers, receivers…
1Opinion of the Court 1
After stating the facts as above,
2Opinion of the Court · PardeePardee, Circuit Judge
The first assignment of error charges that “the verdict of the jury for the full amount sued for, to wit, $20,000, for the loss of plaintiff’s left foot about half way between the knee and the foot, manifests that the jury was prejudiced, and was influenced by passion or ignorance, and did not render an impartial verdict under the fact's nor charge of the court.” We find nothing in the record to indicate that the jury was influenced by either passion or ignorance, but, on the contrary, find that, in the opinion of the trial judge, the amount of the verdict was…
3Cases cited15 opinions
- Northern Pacific Railroad v. HerbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Armour v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Bradley v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Finalyson v. Utica Mining & Milling Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- City of Minneapolis v. LundinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by6 opinions
- Francis v. Terminal Railroad Assn.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1946
- Payne v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1953
- Pritchard v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
- Bunker Hill & S. Mining & Concentrating Co. v. KettlesonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1903
- Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. ThomasinoCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.