The New York herald., 1876-07-06

the injury received by Mrs Arms by reason OF colli
OF the defendants train of cars upon which she
was a passenger, with another train upon the same
track moving in an opposite direction, which resulted
a verdict and judgment for 600 The plaintiffs in
Court below, and that they entitled TO recover In
this Court The bill Of exceptions dIscloses this state
OF facts
Mrs Arms, in October, 1870 was a passenger de-
fcpdant's train OF cars, which whlc running at rate
OF speed OF fourteen fifteen milos an hour collided
with engine on the same track The jar occasioned
by the collision was light was moro OF push than a
shock. The fronts OF the two engines were demo-
ished and engine removed the train. This was
ali the testimony offered by either party as to the
character OF the collision. but therc evidence TO
show that Mrs. Arms thrown from her seat and
sustained the injuries OF which she complained After
the evidence had been submitted to the jury the Court
gave them the following instruction.
If you find that the accident caused by the
negligence OF the defendants servants controlling the
train you may give the plaintiff primitive exemplary
damages
The Court doubtless assumed that the that
two railroad trains collide IS pso facto evidence OF
company, justiiying the amount OF exemplary dnm-
ages Or collision could not well occur under less ag
gravated circumstances or cause slghter injury.
Neither tram thrown from the track, and the ef
feet OF the collision only 10 demolsh the fronts OF
the two locomotives. II did produce the ''shock"
even which usually happens in case OF serious col
lision The tram on which Mrs Arms was riding
moving at very moderate rate OF speed and the other
tram must have been nearly or quite sta
the iact that collision happened upon
which to charge negligence upon the company.
satOry damages, but the inquiry Is whether the jury
had right 10 60 further and give exemplary damages
1t undoubtedly true that the allowance of anything
more than adequate pccunary indemnity for wrong
suffered IS great departure from the principle on
which damages in civil suits are awarded but although
rs general rule, the plaintiff RECEIVERS mere compsD
sation for his private injury, yet the doctrine is TOO
well settled now 10 be shaken that exemplary damages
may in certain DO recovered As The question of
intention is always material action OF tor and
the which aggravate the transaction
therefore, proper to be weighed by the Jury in xiug
nnp uliOni m bp thor
the doctrine o exemplary damages cannot be reconced
with tho idea that compensation alone Is the means of
redress But juriss have chosen TO place this doctrine
on the ground not that tho sufferer Is tn be recon
pcnsed but that the offender Is TO be punished and
although tho soundness OF IL has been questioned by
some ttxtwrers aud courts, Il must be accepted as
the general rule in England and in most Of the States
OF this country 1t being insisted that where there rs
gross negligence. exemplary damages may be recov-
cred and that there was gross negligence IN this case
In permitting the collision the court say thusGross
negligence is relative term 1t IS, doubtless, be
understood AS meaning greater want VI than
implied by ordinary negligence, but after all II means
the absence OF the care that was requisite
under the circumstances. In this scnse the
collision in controversy was the result OF
gross negligence, because tho employees OF the
company did not use the care that was required TO
avert accident But the absence OF this did
authorize the jury to visit the company with damages
beyond the limit of compensation for the INJURY
nicted. To do this there must have been some wul
misconduct or that entire want Of care which would
raise the presumption OF conscious indifference TO
consequences Nothing OF this kind can be imputed to
the persons in charge Of tho traiD and The Court,
therefore, misdirccted the jury. Reversed Mr.. JUS
tice Davis delivered the opinion
Case No. 1lS. Western Union Telegraph Company VS..
Eysor from Supreme Court OF Colorado Territory,
also disposed OF by this opn,on. In that gross
negligence was charged In putting up telegraph wire,
consequence Of which Eysor was injured.
No. l64. Elon Farnsworth and Edward p Cowes,
appellants, VS.. The Minnesota and Pacific railroad
Company, the st. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company,
the First Division OF the St Paul and Pacific Railroad,
Northern Pacific Railroad Company, Edmand Rice,
trustee, &C.; Horace Thompson, trustee. No.;
George BsckeI trustee SCI oOv William ,rsss C.
&c. Jay Cooke. trustee &C. and J. Edgar Thompson,
trustee, &c.--Appcal from the Circuit Court tor the
district OF Mnnesota-The facts aud principles Of law
in this sufficiently stated in the following
ON the Sd of March, 1857 Congress passed an act
granting lands in the Territory OF Minnesota for
The purpose oil aiding In the construction OF several
lines OF railroad between different points in the Terri
tory. The declared that The lands should be ex
clusivcy applied to the construction OF that roaa Oh
account OF which they were granted, and TO no other
purpose whatever, and that they should be disposed
OF by the Territory uture State only as the work
progressed, and only in the manner foilowng-that Is
to say, quantity Of land not exceeding l2O sections
for each OF the roads, and included within continu-
irngsh of twenty oftne ronds, might be sufd,
and when the Governor OF the Territory or the future
State should certify 10 the Secretary OF the Interior
that any continuous twenty miles OF OF the roads
completed, then another like quantity Of the
land granted might be Sold and SO from time 10 time
until the roads were completed.
Held, that the construction of portions of the road
account Of which lands were granted rs thus desig
mated, n condition precedent to cow vance by
the Territory future State any Of the lands beyond
the first 100 sections Accordingly act OF the Terri
tory transferring TO railroad company these
lands in advance Of any work on Its road,
only conveyed title to the first l20 sections.
Where n grant oil land and connected franchises is
made corporation for the construction OF railroad
by statute which provides for their forfeiture upon
failure to perform the work within a prescribed time,
the forfeiture may be declared by legislative act with
judcia proceedings to ascertain determine the
failure OF the grantee Any public assertion by egis-
latve OF the ownership OF the State after the de-
fauIt of ha ch N act nj
the road aud franchises and appropriaing them to
ticular uses granting them to another corporation
TO perform the work is equally effective and operative
Decree below affirmed Mr.. Justice Field stated the
case and delivered the opinion.