Case Name: MICHAEL G. CANNON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1912-03-04
Citations: 82 N.J.L. 730
Docket Number: 
Parties: MICHAEL G. CANNON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 730–731

Head Matter:
MICHAEL G. CANNON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Argued November 29, 1911
Decided March 4, 1912.
On error to the Supreme Court, on review of a judgment of the Warren Circuit Court.
The views of the Supreme Court are expressed in the following memorandum:
Pee C ubjcak.
Thi'te suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover daifiages for injuries sustained by him while driving along a public highway leading from Buttzville to Oxford. The injuries resulted from the plaintiff being thrown from a wagon in which he was, riding, and this was caused by the running away of the horse, which became frightened at a whistle which was blown upon a locomotive engine of the defendant company.
The ease made by the plaintiff was that the engineer in charge of - the locomotive saw the plaintiff and tire hoi’se and wagon; that as the horse got near the engine, the engineer blew two long blasts of the whistle; that upon hearing the whistle the horse started to run, and that the engineer then blew two more blasts; that these blasts were excessively loud, and unnecessarily so.
In support of the verdict it must be assumed that the jury accepted the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses as a correct description of the way in which the accident happened. On this theohy the case is identical with that of Bittle v. Camden and Atlantic Railroad Co., 26 Vroom 615. The trial court so considered and refused either to direct a nonsuit of the plaintiff, or a verdict in favor of the defendant.
The onfy errors assigned and argued being directed at the refusal of these motions, the judgment under review will be affirmed.
For the plaintiff in error, Maximilian M. Stallman.
For the defendant in error, William G. Gebhardt.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Supreme Court should be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the above opinion delivered in that court.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Kalisoh, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Yroom, Congdon, White, JJ. 12.
For reversal—None.