McKinney v. Atlantic City R.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

McKinney v. Atlantic City R.

138 F. 1007, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4658

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 12, 1905

DocketNo. 51

StatusPublished

This text of 138 F. 1007 (McKinney v. Atlantic City R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKinney v. Atlantic City R., 138 F. 1007, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4658 (circtedpa 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLLAND, District Judge.

The fifth reason for a new trial, among others, is as follows: “The learned court erred in declining to charge as requested by defendant in its first point, to wit: ‘There is no evidence that the train that caused the accident was the property of or in control of defendant or its servants, and your verdict must be for the defendant.’ ” Upon a review of the evidence, I find no proof at all on this point; nor is there any evidence to show that the railroad upon which this accident occurred is under the defendant’s management. As defendant’s counsel insists that proof of these facts is material in this case, a new trial should be granted; and it is so ordered.

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

HOLLAND, District Judge.

The fifth reason for a new trial, among others, is as follows: “The learned court erred in declining to charge as requested by defendant in its first point, to wit: ‘There is no evidence that the train that caused the accident was the property of or in control of defendant or its servants, and your verdict must be for the defendant.’ ” Upon a review of the evidence, I find no proof at all on this point; nor is there any evidence to show that the railroad upon which this accident occurred is under the defendant’s management. As defendant’s counsel insists that proof of these facts is material in this case, a new trial should be granted; and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 F. 1007, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinney-v-atlantic-city-r-circtedpa-1905.