Hart v. . the Rensselaer and Saratoga Rail Road Co.
New York Court of Appeals
This action was brought against the defendant as a common carrier of passengers for the value of three chests and their contents lost by it.
Read the full summary
This action was brought against the defendant as a common carrier of passengers for the value of three chests and their contents lost by it. It was alleged in the complaint, in October 1849, the defendant owned and used a rail road from the city of Troy to the village of Ballston, connecting with the Schenectady and Saratoga rail road, and the Washington and Saratoga rail road, and owned and used and run upon their road in connection with the other two roads passenger and luggage cars, for the carriage of passengers and their luggage to and from Whitehall to Troy, for hire: that the…
1Opinion of the CourtTaggart, J.
It will be unnecessary to notice any of the points or decisions of the judge at the court, except the motion for a nonsuit and the charge of the judge that if the jury thought the sum of money in the chest a proper sum for traveling expenses, the plaintiff was not bound to give notice of it to the defendant. The several requests made by the defendant’s council to the charge and the refusal of the judge to charge as requested are, as I apprehend, entirely dependent upon the decision of the court refusing to nonsuit the plaintiff. If that decision was right, the refusal of the court to charge…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stuart v. SimpsonNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Pratt v. HullNew York Supreme Court · 1816
3Cited by14 opinions
- Talcott v. . Wabash R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Milnor v. . N.Y. and N.H.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Wiener v. Compagnie Generale TransatlantiqueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- Harrill v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.