Hayden v. Maine Central Railroad

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Hayden v. Maine Central Railroad

103 A. 1047, 117 Me. 560, 1918 Me. LEXIS 60

DecidedJune 17, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A. 1047 (Hayden v. Maine Central Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayden v. Maine Central Railroad, 103 A. 1047, 117 Me. 560, 1918 Me. LEXIS 60 (Me. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action on the case to recover damages for injury to three horses shipped by the plaintiff from Lewiston, Maine, to Lexington, Kentucky. The plaintiff recovered a verdict for $772.92, and the case is before the court upon general motion and exceptions by the defendant.

The action was at common law to enforce a common law liability. The theory of the plaintiff throughout the case, and not abandoned in argument, was that the negligence alleged was in fact the negligence of the defendant, and not that of a connecting carrier, and that the delay causing the damage was on the defendant’s railroad in the State of Maine. The defendant asked for a directed verdict and was refused. The refusal was the subject of the third exception.

It was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove liability on the part of the Maine Central Railroad. The plaintiff’s evidence taken as a whole failed to prove that fact, and therefore the motion of the defendant to direct a verdict in its favor should have been granted. The conclusion here reached necessarily disposes of the motion. Exceptions sustained. McGillicuddy & Morey, for plaintiff. White & Carter, for defendant.

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

This is an action on the case to recover damages for injury to three horses shipped by the plaintiff from Lewiston, Maine, to Lexington, Kentucky. The plaintiff recovered a verdict for $772.92, and the case is before the court upon general motion and exceptions by the defendant.

The action was at common law to enforce a common law liability. The theory of the plaintiff throughout the case, and not abandoned in argument, was that the negligence alleged was in fact the negligence of the defendant, and not that of a connecting carrier, and that the delay causing the damage was on the defendant’s railroad in the State of Maine. The defendant asked for a directed verdict and was refused. The refusal was the subject of the third exception.

It was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove liability on the part of the Maine Central Railroad. The plaintiff’s evidence taken as a whole failed to prove that fact, and therefore the motion of the defendant to direct a verdict in its favor should have been granted. The conclusion here reached necessarily disposes of the motion. Exceptions sustained. McGillicuddy & Morey, for plaintiff. White & Carter, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A. 1047, 117 Me. 560, 1918 Me. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayden-v-maine-central-railroad-me-1918.