ISBN: 9780217275088

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www. million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Bau… Plus…

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www. million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Baugh v. Railroad. Baugh v. Railroad. (Nashville. January 13, 1897.) 1. Appeal. From second venllct. An appeal from a final judgment brings up for review the proceedings of a former trial, preserved by bill of exceptions, in which a verdict favorable to appellant was set aside. (Post, pp. 120, 121.) Act construed: Acts 1875, Ch. 106. Code construed: §§ 4851, 4852 (S.); §§ 3836, 3837 (M. and V.). Cases cited and approved: State u. Perry, 4 Bax, 438; King v. Miller, 8 Bax, 382; Railroad v. Conley, 10 Lea, 533: Morgan v. Bank, 13 Lea, 241; Chesapeake v. Higgins, 85 Tenn, 620; Railroad v. Scott, 87 Tenn, 497; Railroad v. Lee, !H) Tenn, 570. 2. Supreme Court. IHll not disturb Judge's action setting aside verdict, when. The Supreme Court will not disturb the action of the trial Judge in setting aside a verdict as unsupported by the evidence, if, upon the facts, the correctness of the verdict is "fairly debatable." (Post, pp. 121, 122.) 3. Same. Charge not part of bi Where the record contains two bills of exceptions taken upon separate trials, and upon suggestion of diminution a charge of the Court is sent up, which is not ear-marked for either trial, it will not be treated, for the purpose of putting the trial Judge in error, as the charge given on the second trial. (Post, p. 122.) FROM DAVIDSON. Appeal in error from Circuit Court of Davidson County. J.W. Bonner, J. Baugh t. Railroad. M.W. Allen for Baugh. "1 iZ East and FooG,[] C.D. Porter, and J.D.B. DEBow for Railroad. Caldwell, J. John Baugh brought this suit against the Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway Company, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by him through its negligence. There were two trials in the Court below. . Books History~~General Reports-Of-Cases-Argued-And-Determined-In-The-Supreme-Court-Of-Tennessee~~Tennessee-Supreme-Court General Books LLC This is an OCR edition without illustrations or index. It may have numerous typos or missing text. However, purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original rare book from GeneralBooksClub.com. You can also preview excerpts from the book there. Purchasers are also entitled to a free trial membership in the General Books Club where they can select from more than a million books without charge. Volume: 98; Original Published by: Rich Printing Co. in 1898 in 822 pages; Subjects: Law reports, digests, etc; History / General; Law / General; Law / Reference;<

2009, ISBN: 0217275087, Lieferbar binnen 4-6 Wochen

Internationaler Buchtitel. In englischer Sprache. Verlag: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 376 Seiten, L=152mm, B=229mm, H=21mm, Gew.=549gr, [GR: 25500 - TB/Geschichte], [SW: - History - G… Plus…

Internationaler Buchtitel. In englischer Sprache. Verlag: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 376 Seiten, L=152mm, B=229mm, H=21mm, Gew.=549gr, [GR: 25500 - TB/Geschichte], [SW: - History - General History], Kartoniert/Broschiert, Klappentext: Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Baugh v. Railroad. Baugh v. Railroad. (Nashville. January 13, 1897.) 1. Appeal. From second venllct. An appeal from a final judgment brings up for review the proceedings of a former trial, preserved by bill of exceptions, in which a verdict favorable to appellant was set aside. (Post, pp. 120, 121.) Act construed: Acts 1875, Ch. 106. Code construed: 4851, 4852 (S.); 3836, 3837 (M. and V.). Cases cited and approved: State u. Perry, 4 Bax., 438; King v. Miller, 8 Bax., 382; Railroad v. Conley, 10 Lea, 533: Morgan v. Bank, 13 Lea, 241; Chesapeake v. Higgins, 85 Tenn., 620; Railroad v. Scott, 87 Tenn., 497; Railroad v. Lee, !H) Tenn., 570. 2. Supreme Court. IHll not disturb Judge's action setting aside verdict, when. The Supreme Court will not disturb the action of the trial Judge in setting aside a verdict as unsupported by the evidence, if, upon the facts, the correctness of the verdict is "fairly debatable." (Post, pp. 121, 122.) 3. Same. Charge not part of bi Where the record contains two bills of exceptions taken upon separate trials, and upon suggestion of diminution a charge of the Court is sent up, which is not ear-marked for either trial, it will not be treated, for the purpose of putting the trial Judge in error, as the charge given on the second trial. (Post, p. 122.) FROM DAVIDSON. Appeal in error from Circuit Court of Davidson County. J. W. Bonner, J. Baugh t. Railroad. M. W. Allen for Baugh. ''1 iZ East and FooG, []C. D. Porter, and J. D. B. DEBow for Railroad. Caldwell, J. John Baugh brought this suit against the Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway Company, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by him through its negligence. There were two trials in the Court below. ...<

ISBN: 9780217275088

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustra… Plus…

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1898. Excerpt: ... Henley v. State. partial trial, but it equally means a trial under the Constitution and law. It is also true that the entire body of the common law, as it existed when the Constitution went into effect, was made the law of the land by that instrument. McGinnia v. State, 9 Hum., 43; Trigally v. Memphis, 6 Cold., 382; JSfeely v. State, 4 Bax., 180. But it was never for a moment supposed that these laws could not be altered, amended, repealed, or added to by subsequent Legislatures, as they, in their wisdom, might deem best, the only restrictions being those thrown around such legislation by the Constitution. Again, it is said that the Act is unconstitutional because it is amendatory of the general law on the subject of fees and costs, and yet does not refer to the laws thus amended. This is not an amendatory Act. It is a new and original law. If it can be held to be a repealing law or an amending law, it is so only by necessary implication, and in such cases the Acts repealed or amended need not be referred to in the caption or certificate of the new law. Home Ins. Co. v. Taxing Dist., 4 Lea, 650; Money v. State, 6 Lea, 218; Railroadx v. Crider, 7 Pickle, 506; Krwxville v. Lewis, 12 Lea, 181; State v. Yardley, 11 Pickle, 546, 559; Ballentine v. Pulaski, 15 Lea, 633; Poe v. State, 1 Pickle, 495; Hunter v. Memphis, 9 Pickle, 571. Henley v. State. We are of opinion, therefore, that the Act in question is free from constitutional objection, and this Court has no power to refuse its enforcement, whether it is wise or unwise, whether hurtful or beneficial in its tendencies and operation. The judgment of the Court below is, therefore, reversed, and the costs allowed are stricken out as unwarranted against the State and county, and the parties interested therein wi... Tennessee. Supreme Court, Books, History, Reports Of Cases Argued And Determined In The Supreme Court Of Tennessee (volume 98) Books>History, General Books LLC<

1897, ISBN: 9780217275088

[ED: Taschenbuch], [PU: Cambridge Scholars Publishing], Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. Th… Plus…

[ED: Taschenbuch], [PU: Cambridge Scholars Publishing], Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Baugh v. Railroad. Baugh v. Railroad. (Nashville. January 13, 1897.) 1. Appeal. From second venllct. An appeal from a final judgment brings up for review the proceedings of a former trial, preserved by bill of exceptions, in which a verdict favorable to appellant was set aside. (Post, pp. 120, 121.) Act construed: Acts 1875, Ch. 106. Code construed: 4851, 4852 (S.) 3836, 3837 (M. and V.). Cases cited and approved: State u. Perry, 4 Bax., 438 King v. Miller, 8 Bax., 382 Railroad v. Conley, 10 Lea, 533: Morgan v. Bank, 13 Lea, 241 Chesapeake v. Higgins, 85 Tenn., 620 Railroad v. Scott, 87 Tenn., 497 Railroad v. Lee, !H) Tenn., 570. 2. Supreme Court. IHll not disturb Judge's action setting aside verdict, when. The Supreme Court will not disturb the action of the trial Judge in setting aside a verdict as unsupported by the evidence, if, upon the facts, the correctness of the verdict is "fairly debatable." (Post, pp. 121, 122.) 3. Same. Charge not part of bi Where the record contains two bills of exceptions taken upon separate trials, and upon suggestion of diminution a charge of the Court is sent up, which is not ear-marked for either trial, it will not be treated, for the purpose of putting the trial Judge in error, as the charge given on the second trial. (Post, p. 122.) FROM DAVIDSON. Appeal in error from Circuit Court of Davidson County. J. W. Bonner, J. Baugh t. Railroad. M. W. Allen for Baugh. ''1 iZ East and FooG, []C. D. Porter, and J. D. B. DEBow for Railroad. Caldwell, J. John Baugh brought this suit against the Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway Company, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by him through its negligence. There were two trials in the Court below. ...Versandfertig in 6-10 Tagen, [SC: 0.00]<