The daily morning journal and courier., 1898-01-14
NOTABLE COURT DECISION
SUPREME COURT FINDS ERROR IN
 THE NOLAN CASE.

THE NOLAN CASE. Judge Wheeler's Finding in Favor of the l Widow Overruled-FIagm Hall Alone ! Responsible for the Collision. Bridgeport, Jan. 13.-The opinion of | the supreme court of errors in the case of Mary Nolan, administratrix, against | the New York, New Haven and Hart ford Railroad company is one of far reaching interest. It will be remember ed that this was an action against the railroad company for the death of Jere- miah Nolan, assistant roadmaster of the Berkshire division of the road in collision the 18th day of March, 1896, at Kent Furnace, between a freight train and snow-plow train The freight train was ordered to stop at Kent Furnace and pick up some freight cars, and while doing this work the snow-plow train, coming at the rate of forty-two miles an hour, crashed into it, going through three cars and killing several people.
 The trial court found that no one on the freight train knew that the snow blow train was behind, and also that no one one the snow-plow train knew that the freight train had stopped at Kent Furnace
 The orders for the snow-plow train to run and for the freight train to stop at Kent Furnace were given by the train dispatcher at New Haven and he did not give either train notice of the position of the other, but depended upon : the rear fagman of the freight train to prevent a collision. It was very cold day; the rear flagman did not go back far enough from his train, and frightful collision was the result.
 Judge George w. Wheeler, who tried the case, decided that the company was as responsible for the collision as the flagman, because the train dispatcher at New Haven who gave the orders and knew of the position of both trains ought to have given such orders to each train as would have prevented collision; that the orders issued to the two trains created Q grave emer- gency, which called for special orders to avoid an otherwise almost inevitable collision. Judge Wheeler ordered the plaintiff Judgment for S5,000.
 The case was appealed by the railroad company to the supreme court of er- TOTS. and the issues before said court were whether or not Judge Wheeler's decision that special orders were neces- sary could be reviewed by the supreme court, and, if it could, if his decision was correct.
 The supreme court of this state has always heretofore held that the decis- ion of the superior court on a question of fact of this kind was final, as only the trial court could have the neces- sary information to decide upon that point. Its latest previous decision upon that point was the case of Sprague against the New York and New Eng land Railroad company, tried in Hart ford in December, 1896.
 In deciding that case the supreme court said: whether the emergencies above spoken of have arisen, and what action Is called for in view of such emergencies, is manifestly question of fact for the trial court; be that tribunal fudge or jury, that of course makes no difference. We have repeatedly so held in effect These questions are for the determination of the trial court and it's decision is conclusive"
 III QeClQlnS the case OI NOldH NS. tHe New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad company the supreme court says that the question of whether an emergency exists and what action is called for it not properly fact, but an inference, and that in the Sprague case the peculiar circumstances of that case must be considered that their lan- guage was not intended to be broad enough to cover every case. That facts in the nature of inference or deductions could be reviewed by the appellate court, and, taking this view of the law they found that Judge Wheeler's deduc- tion was incorrect; that the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad company had done it's whole duty in the premises and that the collision was due wholly to the negligence of Flagman Hall of the freight train.