Skip to main content
· 11/13/1905

Denver City Tramway Co. v. Norton

Citations

  • 141 F. 599
  • 73 C.C.A. 1
  • 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4037

Syllabus

<p>1. Trial-Consolidation op Suits.</p> <p>Where separate actions are brought by separate plaintiffs against the same defendants, pending in the same court, for personal injuries sustained in the same accident, depending upon the same evidence, with the only difference in the extent of the injuries to the respective plaintiffs, the causes, under section 921, Rev. St. U. S. [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 685], are properly consolidated for trial.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, § 3.]</p> <p>2. Courts—Jurisdictional Amount.</p> <p>Under the judiciary act the amount in dispute or matter in controversy, determining the jurisdiction of the court, is the amount demanded in the petition in good faith, and not the amount ultimately recovered.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Courts, §§ 890-897.</p> <p>Jurisdiction of federal courts as determined by the amount in controversy, see notes to Auer v. Uombard, 19 C. C. A. 75; Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. Roper, 36 C. C. A. 459.]</p> <p>3. Appeal—Review—Joint Action Against Two Dependants.</p> <p>In a joint action against a street car company and an omnibus company for personal injuries to a passenger, resulting from a collision at a street crossing, tried to a jury, with a verdict of not guilty as to the omnibus company and guilty as to the street car company, on writ of error sued out only by the street car company, no error committed by the trial court in favor of the omnibus company can avail the plaintiff in error, except in so far as it may have prejudiced the defense of the plaintiff in error in showing that the injury resulted from the negligence of the omnibus company without the concurring negligence of the plaintiff in error.</p> <p>4. Street Railroads—Vehicles—Relative Rights.</p> <p>While street cars and drivers of vehicles, equestrians, and pedestrians, as a general rule, have concurrent rights to occupy the public street crossings in a city, the right of t

Judges: Carland, Philips, Sanborn

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.