the nearest rail of the south-
bound track and thirty-eight feet
from the nearest rail of the
northbound track on which the
train was moving, and from that
point forward, he would have
had, if he had looked, an un-
obstructed view for more than
a mile of the track in the direc-
tion from which the train was
coming. There was nothing
present to interfere with the free
use of vision or hearing, nor
to distract his attention. Held,
that plaintiff's intestate was
guilty of contributory negligence.
Leithead v. West Jersey and
Seashore Railroad Co.,
148
In a quo warranto brought by one 3. The failure of a railroad com-
claiming title in himself under
section 4 of the Quo Warranto
act, the court must determine
the title of the relator as well asi
of the respondent when the for-
mer's title is questioned by
proper pleadings, and if neither
relator nor respondent is entitled]
to the office, judgment must be
entered to that effect. Bullock
v. Biggs,
63
1. Where there is evidence to show
that the statutory signal was not
given by the defendant at a
street which crossed its tracks
at right angles, and the obstruc-
tions and surroundings were such
as to be likely to confuse the
vision of a person driving along|
such street toward the defend-
ant's tracks at the crossing point,
the verdict of the jury will not
be disturbed upon certiorari to a
pany to ring a crossing bell as
a signal of the approach of a
train cannot be regarded as neg-
ligence causing an accident to
travelers on the highway who
were unaware of the existence
of the crossing or the bell, and
therefore did not rely on the lat-
ter as a warning. Horandt v.
Central Railroad Co.,
190
District Court. The driver's 6. The rule laid down in Pennsyl-
negligence is a question for the
jury. Dobbs v. West Jersey and
Seashore Railroad Co.,
vania Railroad Co. V. Good-
enough, 26 Vroom 577, does not
apply to cases in which by rea-
son of the death of the husband
he cannot be joined as plaintiff.
Ib.
2. Plaintiff's intestate, sitting in a
carriage, drove in daylight upon
a railroad crossing and was
killed by a passing train. At a 7. In an action under section 57 of
distance of twenty-four feet from the General Railroad law
train, and it appearing that at
that point his range of vision ex-
tended about two hundred feet
up the track, and, hearing and
seeing no train, he attempted to
cross, when an electric train
coming at high speed suddenly
emerged and caused the damage
complained of. There was evi-
dence from which a jury might
infer that the audible signals re-
quired by statute were not given.
Held, that under these circum-
stances a jury question was pre-
sented, and a motion to nonsuit
was properly refused. Quinn v.
West Jersey and Seashore Rail-
road Co.,
11. The plaintiff, while driving
along a public highway, saw a
shifting engine coming out of the
railroad yards. He stopped his
horse and the engineer stopped
his engine. The plaintiff, sup-
posing that the engine would re-
main stationary, started to cross
in front; just as he got in front
the engine started, he turned his
horse, pulled by the engine and
tried to get behind it; the car-
riage skidded and struck the
curb.
9. Where defendant, in undertaking
to prove that two certain en-
gines, at the time of the fire,
were fitted with proper spark-
arresting screens, and that these
screens were then in good order,
introduced evidence of a regular
system of frequent and careful
inspections of its engines, and a
system of recording the results
of such inspections, and the in-
spectors relied upon such records
when they testified as to inspec-
tions of the two engines in ques-
tion shortly before and shortly
after the fire-Held, erroneous to
exclude evidence offered by
plaintiff in rebuttal, to show that
during the period of the alleged
invariable practice of frequent
and careful inspection the en-
gines of the defendant threw
sparks in great numbers and of
large size, and sparks such as to
occasion fires to property adja-|
cent to the defendant's railroad. 12. The duty imposed by law upon
10. The plaintiff, having driven to
within three feet of defendant's
track and there stopped, looked
and listened for an approaching
The plaintiff was thrown
out and injured. Held-
(1) Although the railroad com-
pany may have had superior
rights upon the highway, the
streets having been dedicated
with the tracks delineated upon
it, still it was the duty of the
company to use reasonable care
that the public in lawful use of
the same were not injured; that
the engineer should have waited
until the plaintiff was safely
across or have given some warn-
ing that he intended to start.
(2) That the plaintiff was not
guilty of contributory negligence.
Carmany v. West Jersey and
Seashore Railroad Co.,
552
13. Plaintiff, driving a horse and
buggy, was injured by being
struck by defendant's railroad
train at a grade crossing. It
appeared that the view down the
track was substantially inter-
fered with by a line of telegraph
poles maintained by defendant as
part of its equipment for elec-
trical propulsion of its trains.
This line of poles stood twenty-
two feet from the middle track
on which the accident occurred,|
and probably not over ten feet
from the nearest rail of the first
track. Held, that the question
of contributory negligence was
for the jury. Dobbs v. West Jer-
sey and Seashore Railroad Co..
679
14. In an action against a railroad
company for damages sustained
by a traveler at a highway cross-
ing, in which action the negli-
gence of the company is predi-See WATER AND WATER COURSES.
1.). The plaintiff's intestate, in at-
tempting to cross a railway at a
street crossing, was killed while
on the first of four lines of
tracks. When on the sidewalk
about fifteen feet from the cross-
ing he stopped and looked in the
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 4.
direction from which trains using See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2, 7.
the first line of tracks usually
came, and then proceeded to walk
across without making any fur-
ther observation, although he
could have done so effectively at
least four feet before going on
the track. When near the sec-|
ond rail of the first line of tracks!
he turned to look towards a com-
ing train, but was instantly 1. The rule contained in section 14
of the Sale of Goods act (Pamph.
L. 1907, p. 311) that if the sale
be by sample, as well as by de-
scription, it is not sufficient that
the bulk of the goods correspond
with the sample if the goods do
not also correspond with the de-
scription, is merely an enactment
character of machine he required SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLANTS.
in the business he was about to
enter. Held, that the issue thus See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 17.
presented was whether the de-
fendant had supplied to the
plaintiff an automobile reason-
ably fit for his use. Berg v.
Rapid Motor Vehicle Co.,
See DAMAGES, 1.
TRIAL, 19.
724 See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 1,
A levy by an execution creditor
upon goods sold in bulk by a
debtor, in the hands of the pur-
chaser, is a proceeding at law
within the meaning of the pro-
viso to section 1 of the act en-
titled "An act to prohibit sales
of merchandise in bulk in fraud 1. A contract by which one who had
laid a cement sidewalk took in
part payment the sand excavated
in the course of the work, is not
a contract in or concerning an
interest in land within sub-
division 4 of section 5 of the
statute of frauds. Okin v. Seli-
dor,
54
of creditors" (Pamph. L. 1907,
p. 570), and if the levy be made
within ninety days after the con-
summation of such sale it will
raise the question of the validity
of such sale under the statute.
Such a sale in bulk is not ipso
facto void, but voidable only at
the instance of persons who may
be injured or aggrieved thereby. 2. Although a contract in term
Whether or not the statute cited
be constitutional, quære.
inson v. Harbison,
A vote of the majority of legal
voters in a school district in
Covers a period of five years,
yet, if under its terms perform-
ance may be required of the
promisor within one year, an
action is not barred by the
statute of frauds if within such
year the event upon which the
duty of performance depended
actually happened.
STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY Civil Service.
(PUBLIC).
Pamph. L. 1905, p. 227,
Pamph. L. 1908, p. 235,
|