Nashville, Railroad v. Carrico
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 85 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The trial court did not have jurisdiction of appellant.
Read the full summary
Case 85 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The trial court did not have jurisdiction of appellant. (Civil Code, secs. 58, 73, 78, 80, 419.) 2. It was error to take from the jury, by peremptory instruction, the issues of fact. 3. In the absence of allegation and proof of legislative authority the appellant could not lease, or be made liable for injuries occurring on the Western & Atlantic Railway. 1. As the contract of transportation was made in’ Marion County, suit on the contract was properly brought in that county. (Civil" Code, sec. 73.) 2. The service of process was…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was brought by appellee, Carrico, against *490the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and appellant, Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railroad Company, both being’ common carriers, to recover damages for injury to a car load of mules shipped at Lebanon, Marion County, Kentucky, under contract for safe delivery at Atlanta, Georgia.
The contract was made by appellee with the first-named company which undertook to transport the animals to Nashville, Tennessee, to be carried from there by the latter' company, which appears to either own…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Illinois Cent. R. R. v. CurryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Louisville & N. R. R. v. S. D. Chestnut & Bro.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Richardson v. Louisville & Nashville R. R.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. ViersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1902
- Southern Railway Co. v. AveyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.