Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Martin

Eighth Circuit

Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Martin

49 F. 359, 1 C.C.A. 298, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1198

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 8, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 F. 359 (Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Martin, 49 F. 359, 1 C.C.A. 298, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1198 (8th Cir. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Caldwell, Circuit Judge.

This action was commenced before a United States commissioner in the Indian Territory by Martin against the railway company to recover damages for a sorrel mare alleged to have been killed through the negligence of the company. The plaintiff below recovered judgment before the commissioner for $75, from which judgment the company appealed to the United States court, where the case was tried de novo before a jury, and there was a verdict and judgment in that court in favor of the plaintiff for $75, and the company sued out this writ of error. Every error-assigned has been decidod in the cases of this plaintiff in error against Washington, the same against Campbell, and the same against Ellidge, in which the opinions were riled at this term. Reference is made to the opinions in those cases. It is needless to go over the ground again. The only error in this ease was in refusing the defendant’s request for a panel of 18 jurors. For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Caldwell, Circuit Judge.

This action was commenced before a United States commissioner in the Indian Territory by Martin against the railway company to recover damages for a sorrel mare alleged to have been killed through the negligence of the company. The plaintiff below recovered judgment before the commissioner for $75, from which judgment the company appealed to the United States court, where the case was tried de novo before a jury, and there was a verdict and judgment in that court in favor of the plaintiff for $75, and the company sued out this writ of error. Every error-assigned has been decidod in the cases of this plaintiff in error against Washington, the same against Campbell, and the same against Ellidge, in which the opinions were riled at this term. Reference is made to the opinions in those cases. It is needless to go over the ground again. The only error in this ease was in refusing the defendant’s request for a panel of 18 jurors. For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 F. 359, 1 C.C.A. 298, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulf-c-s-f-r-co-v-martin-ca8-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack