Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-10-04
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY ". B. MARTIN.
Exclusively FOR tlrginian-PilotJ
WILEY v. REYNOLDS.

i q Is i (
WILEY ". REYNOLDS.
Court Of Appeals of Indian Territory.
June IL, 1899.
THE FAILURE OF AN ASSIGNOR
= TO STATE THE AMOUNT OF HIS
INDEBTEDNESS TO EACH PRE-
FERRED CREDITOR MENTIONED
IN HIS DEED, WILL NOT. OF IT
SELF, INvALIDATE THE AS
SIGNMENr.
The point decided is shown by the
opinion of the court.
The court says:
The sole question to be determined
here Is whether or not the deed Of as
eignment executed and delivered by c.
10. Wiley &c Son to Herbert Kneeland,
interpleader. is fraudulent and void
upon its face as to Reynolds, Davis &
Co., attaching creditors.
It Is contended by appelees that the
oeed OF assignment was void as to
them because it did not fix the amount
due any of the creditors, except TO the
attorneys who drew the deed.
Appellants cite us to the following:
(here follows list of cascs) and TO the
case OF Sanger V. Flow, which was an
1nuian Territory case, and the opinion
was delivered by Judge Caldwell. The
court said, among other things: ''Tne
names and amounts due the unprefer-
req creditors are not given in the deed.
or IN any schedule attached thereto
II Is claimed that the failure to at
tnch such schedule avoids the deed
Ihe law is otherwise. Such u
schedule. If filed. would not be con,
elusive as to who were creditors, or the
amount OF their debts. If any surplus
remains to be distributed to such cred
TORS, and there is any doubt he; to who
tney are, or the amount OF their debts
the assignee should refer the matter
10 the Court OF Ch2ncery administer
ing the trust: and that court will by
some appropriate proceeding determine
these questions, and order the find dis
tributed accorlingly"-
we are of the opinion that the onis-
SION OF the assiSnor to state the amount
due from him to each OF the creditors
mentioned in the deed would not OF
ltself render the deed of assignment
void upon its face. and the Judgment
Oh the trial court is therefore reversed.
STEELE v. SOUTHERN r. co.
Supreme Court OF South Carolina.
June ~, 1899.
WHERE A PASSENGER WAS
Thrown FROM HIS SEAT AND
INJURED by a COLLISION BE
TWEEN DIFFERENT PARTS or
a TRAIN WHICH BECAME UN-
COUPLED. A PRESUMPTION OF
NEGLIGENCE ON THE CARRIERS
PART ARISES
a PASSENG Err ON a FREIGHT
TRAIN ASSUMES TEE INCON-
VENIENcES AND RISKS INCL
DENT no SUCH TRAINS IT OPE-
II 1Dr
SKILL AND CARE.
This was an action for damage for
an injury TO plaintiff who was II pas
sShBer on a freight train OF defendant.
Ihere was u judgment for planting and
the company appealed.
The court says.
Inc appeal presents .wo general ques-
tons: O The rule as to The presume
ton OF negligence In Il case like this.
t2) the degree of care to be exercised
ny a. carrier of passengers on n freight
lra1n. ana the risks assumed by such
passengers.
]. The Circuit Court refused to charge
nippelilhts request as follows: THE
burden is upon the plaintiff to show
mat the railroad in this case was ncgli-
gent. Negligence must rest upon The
actual facts as shown by the evidence
anu must not depend upon conjecture
OF surmise: and, in the case of n rail,
road accident, where the evidence dis.
cioses the facts and circumstances
!hereof, there is no presumption of neg
ligence." - eS
me court charged as follows: "yyhen
passenger is injured on n railroad
there is from that fact alone mira
1acie evidence of neglect in the man
agement OF the read, which evidence
the railroad company is bound to re-
but" ~ re-
This refusal to charge. and charge
are The basis of ~ Il -
ceptlons. 60
In reference to this subject, the Cir
cult Court explicitly charged the fury
thlt Inc presumption was rebuttable
anu mat the jury must determine the
question OF negligence from the facts
anu circumstances cf the case. 1t will
pc noted that the charge complained of
is IN the exact language quoted from
the case Of IIegeman v. Railroad Corn.
py Juose " Neall, with entire approval,
IN Iemp v. Railroad Co, wherein It was
held that proof that a passenger hns
Deen injured OH Il railroad is prirnn
iaele' evidence of neglect. This learned
1udSer referring to banners Case, said:
:, surely II prina facie case of neg.
Hgence Is made out by showing. t,a
!act that stock was killed or injured on
the railroad, much more ought tho
same result to follow from. a passenger
being injured; for as to him the COM
pany undertake to carry safely. MS far
us human care and foresight Will 20.
This liability can only be DISCHARGED
Dy showing that all reasonable skin
and diligence have been emp!yed. Whilc
this rule Is regarded as too broad Inv
come courts of high authority. we ba
Iieve It IS sustained by reason ana the
weight on authority. y carrier of a pas
senger on a freight train is bound to
exercise the highest degree of care con-
sstent with the practical and eGicient
use of the train for its primary purpose
OF transporting freight, and a passen-
ger thereon assumes such inconven-