Murray v. Washington & Georgetown Railroad

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Murray v. Washington & Georgetown Railroad

9 D.C. 195

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided April 15, 1875·Published

Opinion

Where on the trial of an action for a personal injury there is conflicting testimony as to whether the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the accident, and the jury find in his favor, the court will not, grant a new trial.

STATEMENT OR THE CASE.

This was an action to recover damages from the defendant for injuries resulting to the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant.

Mr. Justice MacArthur did not sit in the above case.

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

Where on the trial of an action for a personal injury there is conflicting testimony as to whether the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the accident, and the jury find in his favor, the court will not, grant a new trial.

STATEMENT OR THE CASE.

This was an action to recover damages from the defendant for injuries resulting to the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant.

Mr. Justice MacArthur did not sit in the above case.

Murray v. Washington & Georgetown Railroad, 9 D.C. 195 (D.C. 1875).

Pincite

9 D.C. 195 (Murray v. Washington & Georgetown Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.