NORTHWESTERN UNION PACKET CO. v. VILES, 154 U.S. 608 (1874)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

NORTHWESTERN UNION PACKET CO. v. VILES, 154 U.S. 608 (1874)

154 U.S. 608

NORTHWESTERN UNION PACKET CO.
v.
EUPHRALIA F. VILES.
No. 70.

December 7, 1874

Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

The errors assigned in this case are the same as those which were considered in the case of these plaintiffs against Clough and wife, just decided (20 Wall. 528), except that some assigned in that case have not been assigned in this. The rejection of Turner's deposition and the admission of the captain's declarations to Mrs. Clough are the only matters now brought to our attention. We need add nothing to what we have said in the former case. The same reasons that

Page 154 U.S. 608, 609

required the reversal of the judgment obtained by Clough and wife require the reversal of this judgment. Indeed, the error here is more apparent. It does not appear that the conversation of the captain with Mrs. Clough occurred before the plaintiff left the boat, and before the relation as a passenger to the defendants or to the captain had ceased. In fact, the contrary appears.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and a venire de novo is directed.

John W. Cary and J. P. C. Cottrell, for plaintiff in error.

M. H. Carpenter, for defendant in error.


U.S. Supreme Court

NORTHWESTERN UNION PACKET CO. v. VILES, 154 U.S. 608 (1874)

154 U.S. 608

NORTHWESTERN UNION PACKET CO.
v.
EUPHRALIA F. VILES.
No. 70.

December 7, 1874

Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

The errors assigned in this case are the same as those which were considered in the case of these plaintiffs against Clough and wife, just decided (20 Wall. 528), except that some assigned in that case have not been assigned in this. The rejection of Turner's deposition and the admission of the captain's declarations to Mrs. Clough are the only matters now brought to our attention. We need add nothing to what we have said in the former case. The same reasons that

Page 154 U.S. 608, 609

required the reversal of the judgment obtained by Clough and wife require the reversal of this judgment. Indeed, the error here is more apparent. It does not appear that the conversation of the captain with Mrs. Clough occurred before the plaintiff left the boat, and before the relation as a passenger to the defendants or to the captain had ceased. In fact, the contrary appears.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and a venire de novo is directed.

John W. Cary and J. P. C. Cottrell, for plaintiff in error.

M. H. Carpenter, for defendant in error.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.