Reports of Civil and Criminal Cases Decided by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1785-1951 (Volume 22; V. 129)
Paperback
Currently unavailable to order
ISBN10: 1153837595
ISBN13: 9781153837590
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 296
Weight: 1.17
Height: 0.62 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
ISBN13: 9781153837590
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 296
Weight: 1.17
Height: 0.62 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1909. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Louisville Ry. Co. v. McCarthy. Trial courts are allowed a broad discretion in the matter of granting or DEGREESrefusing continuances, which should be exercised in any given case according to the facts and circumstances thereof; but when there is an abuse of such discretion, operating to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the party applying for the continuance, it constitutes an error which may be corrected upon appeal by the court of revisory power.' The conclusion we have reached, as above set forth, renders it unnecessary to discuss any of the other errors urged by appellant, as a new trial will afford an ample remedy for them all. For the reasons herein expressed, the judgment is reversed for a new trial. CASE 96.--PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BY BRIDGET MCCARTHY AGAINST THE LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY.--October 16. Louisville Ry. Co. v. McCarthy Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Common Pleas Branch, First Division). Emmet Field, Judge. f Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.--Affirmed. Negligence--Imputed Negligence--Husband and Wife.--Under the Weissinger act, defining the rights of married women, a wife is not chargeable with the negligent acts of her husband, unless the relation of master and servant or principal and agent exists; and, where personal injury results to the wife Louisville Ry. Co. v. McCarthy. from the concurrent negligence of the husband and a third person, the negligence of the husband is not ordinarily at- tributable to the wife, so as to bar a recovery by her. FA1RLEIGH, STRAUS & FAIRLEIGH for appellant. GREENE & VANW1NKLE of counsel. 1. Appellant will urge but one ground upon which a reversal is asked, and that is, that the court erred in refusing to give instruction A, offered by the defendant, which is as follows: The court inst...
