The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-04-29

 CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY
 COMPANY " MARTIN.
 Action against Railroad Company to re-
 cover Damage for Personal injuries
 Appeal from the City Court of Bir-
 mingham. --...... ....- .-...-t.
 1. Use of same line of track by two railroad companies; duties and liabilities arising therefrom.-Where two railroad companies use and operate their respect i've trains upon the same line of track. there is imposed a duty of watchfuiness and care upon each of said companies to- wards the others, in the conservation of the safety of trains and the employees of the other, and there is a liability upon each for failing to discharge this duty, whereby injury would be inflicted upon tho property of the other or upon the persons of the other employees.
 Action against railroad company for personal injuries; sufficient averments of negligence.--In an action against rail- road company seeking to recover damages for personal injuries, counts of a com pIaint which, after averring the circum- stances attending the injuries complain ed of, then ayers that "the said injuries were caused by the negligence of the de- fendant's employees. in the management and opration of defendants said train," etc. are sufficient in their averments of negligence.
 3. Same: sufIiciency of plea.-where two railroad companies use and operate their respective trains upon the same line of track, in an action brought by the engineer who was in charge of an engine operated by one of said companies, against the other of said railroad com panies, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of collision which occurred between the engine upon which the plaintiff was riding, and the train operated on said track by the other railroad company. plea sets up no de- fense to the action, which ayers that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory neg l,gence, in that he run his engine at such a rate of speed that it was impossible, af- ter discovering defendants train on said track for the plaintiff to stop his said engine and prevent a collision with de- fendant's train; since in the absence Of knowledge or notice to the contrary. the plaintiff had the right to assume that the defendants employees in charge of l the train, would discharge their duty by having the train out of the way of the plaintiff's engine, or would give season able notice of It's position of danger. f. Statutory municipal requirements as | to signals, etc; not applicable to trains | operated Dy IWO NOhiPoAHSS OA' | same line of track.-The statutory re- ouirements that engineers shall give sig nals on approaching public crossings and | on entering into and while passing through villages, towns and cities, and municipal requirements of the speed Of | trains within the limits of towns, cities and villages, have no application as to the rights and liabilities of two railroad com panies which operate their trains over the same track by agreement with them selves, and imposes no duty on trainmen towards other trains on the same line and the employees upon such other trains looking to the avoidance of collisions be- tween trains; and. therefore, the negli- gence of an engineer operating an engine of one of such railroad companies to give the signal of approach on entering and while passing through town, as required by statute, and his violation of munich nal ordinance. limiting the speed Of trains in such town. cannot be made tho basis of an action against his company, for the result of a collision with a train of the other company on the same track. nor af- ford the defendant of contributory neg llgence against his company for personal ir juries sustained by him in such col l;sion due to tho negligence of the train men on the other train, in leaving thelr
  and failing to give proper warning of its presence.
 :. Action against railroad company foi personal injuries; what can be proved un- der plea of the general issue.-WhHre in an action by an engineer who was crerating an engine for a railroad com rany. which was using the same line of tack with the defendant company, where the comrlaint counts upon the defend ants negligence in stopping and allow ing it's train to remain 1t an unusual place on the track. without warning of Its position, where 1t was run into hy plaintiffs engine. under a plea of the general issue it is proper for the plaint- 1t to show 1t was tho duty of defendants trainmen to send back a tiagman. in or der to give proper warning to other ap- preaching trains. ana testimony of the custom on we'll regulated railroads to do this. is incompetent as going to establish such duty.
 6 Evidence; conclusions of witness not admissible.--Mere conclusions of a wit ness are not admissible in evidence