De Camp v. Mississippi & Missouri Railroad
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Louisa District Court. Plaintife claims $300 as damages for the wrongful and careless act of defendants in running over, and killing two of his horses. Answer in denial; trial and verdict for plaintiff; judgment thereon, and defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
Appellants asked this instruction: “ A railroad company is not responsible for the criminal or wilful acts of its agents or servants. It is only answerable for the negligent and careless acts of its agents in the course of the performance of their duty.” This was refused, and such refusal is now assigned as the prominent error in the case.
*349There was testimony rendering the instruction pertinent. It is not for ns to say how much Aveight should have been given to the testimony of the witness, tending to show that the engineer was actuated by willfulness, and had a criminal intent at the time the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. DerbySupreme Court of the United States · 1853
- Wright v. J. & S. WilcoxNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Huston v. Peters, Hardin & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
3Cited by12 opinions
- Savannah Electric Co. v. HodgesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
- McKinley v. C. & N. W. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Bank of Cal. v. W. Union Tel. Co.California Supreme Court · 1877
- Gilliam v. South, & North Alabama RailroadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Potter v. C., R. I. &. P. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1877
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.