Tullis v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. The plaintiff in error, Hosea E. Tullís, employed as a rear brakeman upon a freight train of the Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, going eastward on the night of February 10, 1895, was injured by the negligent management of a locomotive which was following the train for the purpose of pushing it over a steep grade up which it had stalled or was just about to start.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. The plaintiff in error, Hosea E. Tullís, employed as a rear brakeman upon a freight train of the Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, going eastward on the night of February 10, 1895, was injured by the negligent management of a locomotive which was following the train for the purpose of pushing it over a steep grade up which it had stalled or was just about to start. The pusher ran against the caboose of the train with such violence as to throw it from the track. The plaintiff, who was at the time in the cupola…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, Circuit Judge
The specifications of error relied upon all depend upon the bill of exceptions, and, it is insisted, cannot be considered because the bill was not signed, nor time for the preparation and filing thereof extended, during the term at which the trial was had and judgment entered. It appears, however, that a motion for a new trial, and briefs in support of it, were filed a few days before the close of the term. . According to the docket entry, this was done in open court before the judge who presided at the trial; but it is stated in the bill of exceptions that the motion and brief were filed in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. BillingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- The Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Brockett v. BrockettSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Voorhees v. John T. Noye Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Clay v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Murphy v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ETC.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
- Fitzgerald v. International Flax Twine Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. CarawaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Slip Scarf Co. v. Wm. Filene's Sons Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.