Arizona & N. M. Ry. Co. v. Clark

Citations

• 207 F. 817
• 125 C.C.A. 305
• 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1662

Syllabus

<p>1. Trial (§ 420*)—Directed Verdict-—Denial—Waiver of Error.</p> <p>Error, if any, in a denial of defendant's motion to direct a verdict at the close of plaintiff’s evidence is waived by the defendant’s introduction of testimony in his own behalf, and failing to renew the motion at the close of all the evidence.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 983; Dec. Dig. § 420.*]</p> <p>2. Master and Servant (§ 264*) — Evidence — Negligence of Plaintiff — Prior Misconduct.</p> <p>Where, in an action for injuries to a railroad engineer, there was no claim that he did not promptly obey signals given him at the time of the accident, evidence as to prior instances within two years, when he had been negligent in tho operation of his engine in failing to obey signals, was immaterial.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 861-876; Dec. Dig. § 264.*]</p> <p>8. Master and Servant (§ 274*)—Injuries to Servant—Evidence—Reputation for Prudence or Recklessness.</p> <p>In an action for injuries to a railroad engineer, evidence of his general reputation for prudence or recklessness in the operation of his engine was inadmissible.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 939-949; Dec. Dig. § 274.*]</p> <p>4. Appeal and Error (§ 683*)—Record—Bill of Exceptions—Rulings on Evidence.</p> <p>The court’s refusal to admit a deposition in evidence cannot be reviewed, where the deposition, while printed in tho transcript, was not included in the bill of exceptions, or in any way made a part of the record.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1765, 1706, 3450-3155; Dec. Dig. § 683.*]</p> <p>• 5. Witnesses (§ 209*)—Physician—Privilege.</p> <p>Where plaintiff, a railroad engineer, after having been injured, was taken to a hospital, where the physician in attendance informed him that they had no eye specialist, and advised plaintiff to have an eye specialist examine his eye, and