Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Florida Volume 54

Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Florida Volume 54

By (author) 

List price: US$17.62

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: ...application in question is an attempt to 'restrict liability.' " The foregoing discussion is both interesting and instructive, but it may be well to call attention to the fact that neither of the preceding cases, Donald v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., and Maine v. C. B. & Q. R, Co., is referred to in the opinion. _ Texas. One phase of the question came before the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas in the case of Galves ton. H. & S. A. Ry. Co., sujvra, which was decided in November, I905. The holding of the court therein is as follows: "Under the statute providing that no contract made between an employer and employe, based upon the contingency of death or injury of the employe and limiting the liability of the employer in such case, shall be valid, a contract between a railroad and an employe requiring the latter. if he shall sustain any personal injury in the service of the former, to allow its surgeon to examine his person in respect to the alleged injury, and providing that a refusal to allow such examination to be made shall be a bar to the institution of any action on account of such injury, is void.."-Vew Jersey. In the case of Beck v. Penna. R. Co., su/Ira, decided in 1899, we find that the circuit court A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Beazley.-Opinion of Court. had held that the contract pleaded as a defense by the defendant and which was similar'to the contract set up in the Pennsylvania and Ohio cases was opposed to public policy. Chief justice Magic, of the New jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, in a strongly reasoned opinion, reversed the judgment of the circuit court, holding that the contract was not void because opposed to public policy, because it lacked consideration, was wanting in mutuality, was...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 214 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 11mm | 390g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236956346
  • 9781236956347