Court Opinion

ID: 7092348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 12:07:20.798303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:13:07.828266
License: Public Domain

Wright, J.
Appellants position is sustained by the following authorities which we cite, and without repeating the arguments made, conclude that the testimony should have been received. Hatfield v. Towsley, 3 G. Greene, 584; Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johns. 282; S. C. 9 Ib. 395; Vanderheyder v. Young, 11 Ib. 150; Jenkins v. Waldron, Ib. 114; Linford v. Fitzroy, 13 Ad. & Ell. 240; Chickering v. Robininson, 3 Cush. 543; Tyter v. Alford, 38 Maine 530; Pratt v. Gardener, 2 Cush. 63; Bullitt v. Clement, 16 B. Monr. 193; 1 Chit. Pl, 68; 2 Hilliard on Torts, Oh. 19, p. 311.
The testimony offered tended to show due care and diligence, and as a consequence, the absence of negligence.
Reversed.