Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Duke
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, on verdict, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries.
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, on verdict, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This is an appeal [by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company] from a judgment of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, after verdict, in an action by the appellee, Joseph C. Duke, for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while a passenger on one of appellant’s trains. On December 1, 1903, Mr. Duke, who was then a minor,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Robb
It is clear that if the contract originally entered into between Duke and the express company was in force at the time Duke was injured, that contract constituted a complete defense to his action, and hence should have been received in evidence. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Voigt, 176 U. S. 498, 44 L. ed. 560, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 385. At the time Duke signed that contract he was a minor, but- at the time of his injury sixteen months had elapsed since he had attained his majority. The contract, under the authority of Voigt’s Case, was not invalid as against public policy, and hence, if it was a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. LockwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. VoigtSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Northern Pacific R. Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Boering v. Chesapeake Beach Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Monumental Building Ass'n, No. 2 v. HermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1870
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. FankhanelDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1943