Hudson v. Charleston, C. & C. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina
At Law. Action by ¿L T. Hudson against the Charleston, Cincinnati & Chicago Railroad Company for personal injuries. As to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s employment the evidence was in conflict. Borne evidence tended to show that lie acted as baggag’e master, car coupler, switch tender, etc.
Read the full summary
At Law. Action by ¿L T. Hudson against the Charleston, Cincinnati & Chicago Railroad Company for personal injuries. As to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s employment the evidence was in conflict. Borne evidence tended to show that lie acted as baggag’e master, car coupler, switch tender, etc. The evidence was also in conflict as to whether the forward motion of the engine which injured plaintiff ivas due to the accumulation of the steam in its cylinder by reason of lea,ky. valves, or whether it was made by those in charge of the engine, voluntarily, or in response to signals from the…
1Opinion of the Court
DICK, District Judge,
(charging jury.) The cause of action in this case originated in the state of South Carolina. As the action is of a transitory character, it was rightfully brought by the plaintiff in a court of this state in the county of Ms residence. tJnder the provisions of the act of congress of ¡March 3, 1887, corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, the defendant ñled a petition ¡to have the cause removed to this court on the ground of “local [prejudice.’" This court, being of opinion that the sufficient allegations of the petition were sustained by the proofs offered, ordered a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Suravitz v. PristaszCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1912
- The E. V. McCaulleyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1898
- Bradley v. Ohio R. & C. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · 1896
- Broughton v. . YoungSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896