Vagaszki v. Consolidation Coal Co.

Citations

• 225 F. 913
• 141 C.C.A. 37
• 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2150

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence <§=>29, 43—Judicial Notice—Statutes and Judicial Opinions oí’ States.</p> <p>The courts of the United States take judicial notice of the statutes and judicial opinions of any state, without plea or proof.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 36, 87, 39, 43-46, 48, 62- 65; Dec. Dig. <§=>29, 43.</p> <p>Judicial notice of public laws and regulations, see note to Smith v. City of Shakopee, 44 C. C. A. 4.]</p> <p>2. Courts <§=>366—Authority op Decisions op State Court—Statutes— Construction.</p> <p>An action in a federal District Court of New York for the death of a miner in a coal mine located in Pennsylvania is governed by the Bituminous Mining Act of Pennsylvania (Act “May 15, 1893 [P. L. 521), reenacted as construed by the courts of Pennsylvania, to the effect that a mineowner is not liable for the negligence of a mine foreman or his assistants committed in the discharge of duties imposed by the act.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 954-957, 960-908; Dw*. Dig. <§=>366.</p> <p>State laws as rules of decision in federal courts, see notes to Wilson v. Perrin, 11 C. C. A. 71; Hill v. Hite, 29 C. C. A. 553.]</p> <p>3. Master and Servant <§=>270—Death op Servant—Evidence—Admissibility.</p> <p>Jii an action for the death of a miner in Pennsylvania by rock falling on him, testimony of a conversation, two weeks before the accident, between a witness and the assistant mine foreman, in which the witness asked the official for crossbars, was remote, and properly stricken out as too remote.</p> <p>¡E<1. Note.—For other eases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 913-927, 932; Dec. Dig. <§=>270.1</p> <p>4. Master and Servant <§=>278—Death op Servant—Evidence—Admissibility.</p> <p>The testimony of a witness that about two weeks before the accident he liad asked the assistant superintendent of the mine for crossbars did not, under the decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania construing the act, show that the