Landon v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Landon v. Boston & Maine Railroad

57 A. 920, 72 N.H. 600, 1904 N.H. LEXIS 73

DecidedApril 5, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A. 920 (Landon v. Boston & Maine Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Landon v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 57 A. 920, 72 N.H. 600, 1904 N.H. LEXIS 73 (N.H. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Walker, J.

The plaintiff’s intestate was killed in the collision of the defendant’s trains which occasioned the injuries complained of in Wallace v. Railroad, ante, p. 504. He was the fireman on train No. 265. There was a trial by jury and a verdict for the plaintiff. The question, whether the printed rules promulgated by the defendant for the government of the train dispatcher and the trainmen were reasonably sufficient and clear, was submitted to the jury, subject to exception. In view of the decision in the Wallace ease, this was error. Ther.e was no evidence from which it could be found that the rules were not reasonably sufficient for the orderly management of the colliding trains.

Exception sustained: verdict set aside.

All concurred.

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

Walker, J.

The plaintiff’s intestate was killed in the collision of the defendant’s trains which occasioned the injuries complained of in Wallace v. Railroad, ante, p. 504. He was the fireman on train No. 265. There was a trial by jury and a verdict for the plaintiff. The question, whether the printed rules promulgated by the defendant for the government of the train dispatcher and the trainmen were reasonably sufficient and clear, was submitted to the jury, subject to exception. In view of the decision in the Wallace ease, this was error. Ther.e was no evidence from which it could be found that the rules were not reasonably sufficient for the orderly management of the colliding trains.

Exception sustained: verdict set aside.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A. 920, 72 N.H. 600, 1904 N.H. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landon-v-boston-maine-railroad-nh-1904.