Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/65

 BBOWN V. UEUPHIS «fe 0. B. 00. 53 �Id. 881; Garrett t. Hichnan, 41 Miss. 94; Wright v. Alex- ander, 11 S. & M. 411; Dean y. Young, 13 S. & M. 113; Verchum v. Byron, 7 How. (Miss.) 365; Brantley v. Carter, 4 Cush. 282; Simpson v. Bowden, 1 C. Page, 526; Wiggins v. McGimpsy, 13 S. & M. 532; ffi/Z v. Cafein, 4 How. (Miss.) 231; So. Law Eev. 791, (note;) 1 Greenl, Ev. § 51; Best, Prin. Ev. §§ 61, 64, 65, 229, 249; Peck v. Kallroad Co. 10 N. Y. 587; McKinney v. Railroad Co. 44 lowa, 314; Mar- quett V. Railroad Co. 33 lowa, 562; Thomp. on Carriage of Passengers, 302; Railroad Co. y. Vallely, 32 Ohio,. 315; Mwrphy v. Railroad Co. 118 Mass. 228; Haley v. Railroad Co. 21 lowa, 15; Hutohinson on. Carriers, 473; 5 So. Law Eev. (N. S.) 777; 10 Cent. L. J. 41; 9 Cent. L. J. 208; Ma&re v. Railroad Co. i Gray, 465; Holmes v. Wakejield, 12 Allen; 580; Goss V. Goss, 3 Hnmph. 278; Pettit v. Pe«t<, 4 Humph. 191; Busby V. Smith, 3 Humph. 406; 'Law^yF. iiaairoatiCo. 32 lowa, 534; Zioss \. Railway, 36 Wise, 450; Healing v. Raihoad Co.> 28 Ohio, 23; Railroad^ Co. :v. Vandiver, 43 Pa. 365; fflinev. RaiJ/road, S7 C&l. iOO; Putnam y. Railroad Co. 55; N. Y; 103; Williamson v. Railroad Go. .66 N. Y. ;643; .Day V. Ozt^rfra, 5 Mich. 520; Applewhite y. AUen, 8 Humph. 697; Davidv, Bell, Peck, 135; Brison v. Amitta, Peck, 194;, Railroad Co.:^. Will- iams, 55 m. 185,. .;. ,:, ■ .;: �Humes d Poston, for defendant, cited Angell on Carriers, 525; Thompson on Carriers, 10, 14,316,317; Hilliard^on New Trials, 384; 3 Graham & Waterman, New Trials, 1063; Jenks V. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221 ; Neits v. Clark, 1 Cliff. 149; Thurston v. Railroad Co. 4 Dillon, 321 ; Seymour v. Railroad Co. BisB. 146; Ferry-boat v. Gregory, 2 Ben. 239; Da^ v, Woodward, 13 How. 371; Railroad Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. — ; Deane v. Pearson, 4 Wall. 605; Railroad Co. v. Owens, 91 U. S. 492; Telegraph Co. v. Ej/ser, Id. 495; HoZi v. De Cuir, 96 U. S. 502; Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Mets. 596; FeMfeiw V. Railroad Co. 11 Allen, 104; Gardner v. Mitchell, 6 Piok. 115; Markham v. Brown, 8 N. H. 523; Bennett v. Dwf. tow, 10 N. H. 481; Railroad Co. v. MiM«, 55 Pa. St. 211; State v. Overton, 4 Zah. 441 ; iiaiiroad C7o. v. Ayres, 29 N. J. Law, 395; Day v. Owe», 5 Mich, 520; Boss v. RaiJ/road Co. ��� �