Lundy v. Cent. Pac. R.R.

California Supreme Court

Lundy v. Cent. Pac. R.R.

4 P. 1193, 66 Cal. 191, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 728

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 8, 1884

DocketNo. 8,200

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 4 P. 1193 (Lundy v. Cent. Pac. R.R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lundy v. Cent. Pac. R.R., 4 P. 1193, 66 Cal. 191, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 728 (Cal. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Thornton, J.

-The court below, in granting the nonsuit in this case, misconceived the meaning of the contract for passage between the plaintiff and defendant. In our view, it was only-required of the plaintiff that he present himself at the cars of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or of the defendant, and take passage at any time within nine days from the 12th day of March, 1874 The plaintiff took passage on the 21st of the same month, and was illegally ejected from the cars of defendant by its servant on the morning of the 25th following.

The admission of defendant showed clearly that the contract for carrying the plaintiff from Omaha to San Francisco, though made by the Union Pacific Railroad Company, was made by authority of defendant.

We have no doubt that the action was properly brought against the defendant.

We see nothing in the evidence to uphold the ruling of the court below nonsuiting the plaintiff, and the judgment and order denying a new trial are therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, that a new trial may be had in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Sharpstein, J., and Myrick, J.,concurred.

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

Thornton, J.

-The court below, in granting the nonsuit in this case, misconceived the meaning of the contract for passage between the plaintiff and defendant. In our view, it was only-required of the plaintiff that he present himself at the cars of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or of the defendant, and take passage at any time within nine days from the 12th day of March, 1874 The plaintiff took passage on the 21st of the same month, and was illegally ejected from the cars of defendant by its servant on the morning of the 25th following.

The admission of defendant showed clearly that the contract for carrying the plaintiff from Omaha to San Francisco, though made by the Union Pacific Railroad Company, was made by authority of defendant.

We have no doubt that the action was properly brought against the defendant.

We see nothing in the evidence to uphold the ruling of the court below nonsuiting the plaintiff, and the judgment and order denying a new trial are therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, that a new trial may be had in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Sharpstein, J., and Myrick, J.,concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 P. 1193, 66 Cal. 191, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lundy-v-cent-pac-rr-cal-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack