Case Name: PEYTON v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1911-10-16
Citations: 130 La. 986
Docket Number: No. 19,007
Parties: PEYTON v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 130
Pages: 985–991

Head Matter:
(58 South. 852.)
No. 19,007.
PEYTON v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
(Oct. 16, 1911.
On the Merits, June 4, 1912.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Appeal and Ebbob (§ 361’") — Motion eor Appeal — SuEEiorENcy.
Though, in a motion for appeal, the attorney for the party condemned, appearing as such, alleges that “mover” is aggrieved by the judgment and that “mover” desires to appeal therefrom, nevertheless, where, by the order, which is made part of such motion, the appeal is granted to the party condemned by name, the appeal will be held to have been applied for by such party, through his attorney, and granted to him, and will be 'sustained accordingly.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1941-1959; Dec. Dig. § 361.’"]
2. Master and Servant (§ 240*) — Injuries to Servant — Contributory Negligence.
It appearing in this case that it was customary to leave cars standing upon the tracks in the yards of the railroad controlled by defendant, the yards being intended for that use, and that plaintiff, a switchman, knew it, it was obligatory on him to observe such reasonable precautions for his own safety as that knowledge and the circumstances demanded, and he failed to discharge that obligation when he half seated himself on the drawhead of a switch engine, upon which he was employed, with his right leg hanging over in front and his left foot resting on the footboard, while the engine was moving through the yards, at night, and, as plaintiff asserts, with no headlight burning, the position so taken having been about the only one upon the engine in which he was sure to be injured in the event of a slight collision, such as occurred with a car left standing on the track, and a position which he was not called upon by his duty to his employer to take.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 751-756; Dec. Dig. § 240.*]
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; George H. Théard, Judge.
Action by Charles V. Peyton against the City of New Orleans. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed, and suit dismissed.
John J. Reilley, Asst. City Atty., and I. D. Moore, City Atty., for appellant. Armand Romain and Buck, Walshe & Buck, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
MONROE, J.
Plaintiff brought suit against the city of New Orleans for damages for personal injuries sustained by him whilst discharging the duties of switchman on the Public Belt Railroad, and, having obtained judgment for $10,000, now moves to dismiss the appeal taken therefrom on the ground that defendant did not apply for the appeal and is not before the court as an appellant, and that the party who moved for the appeal is without interest. The motion and order of appeal read, in part, as follows:
"On motion of John J. Reilly, assistant city attorney, and oc suggesting to the court that mover is aggrieved by the judgment hereint rendered, that said judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence, and that mover desires to appeal therefrom.. it is ordered that a devolutive and suspensive appeal be granted to the defendant, the city of New Orleans. "
It thus appears that the appeal was granted to "the defendant, the city of New Orleans," upon the application made in his-official capacity of the assistant city attorney.
The case therefore falls within the rulings made in the cases of Kraeutler v. Bank, 12 Rob. 458, and Ansley v. Stewart, 123 La. 335, 48 South. 953, rather than in that made in Voelkel v. Aurich, 118 La. 529, 43 South. 151, in which latter, the appeal was both applied for by, and granted to, the mover, the attorney. The motion to dismiss is accordingly overruled.