Harris v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

Fifth Circuit

Harris v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

141 F.2d 492, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3709

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 1944

DocketNo. 10681

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 F.2d 492 (Harris v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 141 F.2d 492, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3709 (5th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

LEE, Circuit Judge.

Appellants each instituted suit in the State Court for damages resulting from a crossing accident in or near Clay, Louisiana, in which a passenger train of the appellee struck a truck, owned and occupied by appellant, Fleming Butler, and operated by Ira Lee Harris, husband of appellant, Iona Harris.

Fleming Butler sued for personal injuries and damage to his truck. Iona Harris sued for wrongful death of her husband. The causes were removed from the State Court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. There, they were consolidated for the purpose of trial and tried to the Court without a jury. In a well considered opinion, reported in 46 F.Supp. 905, the Court below [493]*493detailed at length the facts leading up to and resulting in the accident, found that there was.no negligence chargeable to appellee in the operation of its train, and that the accident was due solely to the negligence of appellant, Fleming Butler, and of Ira Lee Harris, husband of appellant, Iona Harris.

In this Court the errors complained of are: (1) That certain findings of fact are not supported by the evidence, and (2) that certain conclusions of law find no support in the facts as found.

1. An examination of the record discloses that the findings of fact, with two or possibly three exceptions, are supported by clear and convincing proof, and that the exceptions are supported by substantial evidence. So holding, we are precluded, if we were so disposed, from disturbing the facts as found by the Court below.

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

LEE, Circuit Judge.

Appellants each instituted suit in the State Court for damages resulting from a crossing accident in or near Clay, Louisiana, in which a passenger train of the appellee struck a truck, owned and occupied by appellant, Fleming Butler, and operated by Ira Lee Harris, husband of appellant, Iona Harris.

Fleming Butler sued for personal injuries and damage to his truck. Iona Harris sued for wrongful death of her husband. The causes were removed from the State Court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. There, they were consolidated for the purpose of trial and tried to the Court without a jury. In a well considered opinion, reported in 46 F.Supp. 905, the Court below [493]*493detailed at length the facts leading up to and resulting in the accident, found that there was.no negligence chargeable to appellee in the operation of its train, and that the accident was due solely to the negligence of appellant, Fleming Butler, and of Ira Lee Harris, husband of appellant, Iona Harris.

In this Court the errors complained of are: (1) That certain findings of fact are not supported by the evidence, and (2) that certain conclusions of law find no support in the facts as found.

1. An examination of the record discloses that the findings of fact, with two or possibly three exceptions, are supported by clear and convincing proof, and that the exceptions are supported by substantial evidence. So holding, we are precluded, if we were so disposed, from disturbing the facts as found by the Court below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 F.2d 492, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-chicago-r-i-p-ry-co-ca5-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack