 | United States. Supreme Court - 1874 - 738 páginas
...exemption from responsibility when such exemption is not just and reasonable in the eye of the luw. 2. It is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law...responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants. 8. These rules apply both to common carriers of goods and common carriers of passengers, and with especial... | |
 | 1874 - 844 páginas
...exemption from responsibility wheu such exemption is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law. 2. It is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law...stipulate for exemption from responsibility for the négligence of l.iiaself or his servants. 3. These ralee apply both to common carrière of goods and... | |
 | 1874 - 752 páginas
...from responsibility when such exemption is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law. S-tmiUy. That it is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law for a common currier to stipulate for exemption from responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants.... | |
 | Indiana. Supreme Court, Horace E. Carter, Albert Gallatin Porter, Gordon Tanner, Benjamin Harrison, Michael Crawford Kerr, James Buckley Black, Augustus Newton Martin, Francis Marion Dice, John Worth Kern, John Lewis Griffiths, Sidney Romelee Moon, Charles Frederick Remy - 1875 - 674 páginas
...such exemption is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law. The Ohio, etc., RW Co. v. Selby. " 2. That it is not just and reasonable in the eye of the...responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants. " 3. That these rules apply both to carriers of goods and carriers of passengers for hire, and with... | |
 | Marcus Tullius Hun - 1875 - 948 páginas
...the United States is right in the view as stated in one of the conclusions in the case of Lockwood,* that it is not just and reasonable, in the eye of...responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants, the law can now only be changed in this State by an act of the legislature, as it has been in England... | |
 | 1876 - 816 páginas
...exemption from responsibility when such exemption is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law. 2. It is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law to stipulate for exemption from responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants. 3. These... | |
 | Utah. Supreme Court, Albert Hagan, John Augustine Marshall, John Maxcy Zane, James A. Williams, Joseph M. Tanner, George L. Nye, John Walcott Thompson, August B. Edler, Alonzo Blair Irvine, Harmel L. Pratt, William S. Dalton, H. Arnold Rich - 1899 - 602 páginas
...from responsibility, when such exemption is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law;" second, "that it is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law for the common carrier to stipulate for exemption from responsibility for the negligence of the master... | |
 | Lorenzo Smith Boswell Sawyer, United States. Circuit Court (9th Circuit) - 1877 - 740 páginas
...exonerate the carrier from the consequences of his actual negligence. The policy of the law will not permit a common carrier to stipulate for exemption from responsibility for the negligence of himself and his servants. (RR Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357.) Whether there was in this cas# actual negligence... | |
 | Utah. Supreme Court, Albert Hagan, John Augustine Marshall, John Maxcy Zane, James A. Williams, Joseph M. Tanner, George L. Nye, John Walcott Thompson, August B. Edler, Alonzo Blair Irvine, Harmel L. Pratt, William S. Dalton, H. Arnold Rich - 1908 - 604 páginas
...the established and settled rule of policy that a common carrier of such a passenger cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants, but held that no such relation existed between the plaintiff and the railroad company. There it was... | |
 | Isaac Edwards - 1878 - 738 páginas
...just and reasonable in the eye of the law ; 2, that it is not just and reasonable in the eyo of tho law for a common carrier to stipulate for exemption...responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants ; 3, that these rules apply both to carriers of goods and carriers of passengers for hire, and with... | |
| |
That it is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law for a common carrier to stipulate for exemption from responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants. 
