Williams v. Southern Railway Co.

28 S.E. 367, 121 N.C. 512
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 5, 1897·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The defendant employed the minor son of the plaintiff. The son 'told the defendant’s representatives that his father consented to his working for himself, but in fact bis father did not know of the defendant’s employing his son; and the latter was injured while in the defendant’s service, but, it is admitted, without any negligence on the part of the defendant or of its servants. The plaintiff sues for loss of services after and in consequence of the injury. For the services the son had rendered, compensation belonged to the father; but, as the loss of further services was caused by an injury which was not caused by the fault of the defendant, it cannot be held liable for such loss.

No error.

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

Williams v. Southern Railway Co., 28 S.E. 367, 121 N.C. 512 (N.C. 1897).

28 S.E. 367 (Williams v. Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foster v. Foster
142 S.E.2d 638 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
Toler Ex Rel. Toler v. Savage
37 S.E.2d 485 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
White v. . Comrs. of Johnston
7 S.E.2d 825 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Parker v. . Belotta
200 S.E. 887 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Hurt Ex Rel. Hurt v. Western Carolina Power Co.
140 S.E. 730 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
Shipp Ex Rel. Shipp v. United Stage Lines, Inc.
135 S.E. 339 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Seglinski v. Baltimore Copper Smelting & Rolling Co.
131 A. 774 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1926)
Gurley v. Southern Power Co.
90 S.E. 943 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Floyd v. Atlantnc Coast Line Railway Co.
83 S.E. 12 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)