...exception. It is not there dated whether the circumftances which fupport the objection were proved on the part of the Plaintiff) or on the part of the Defendant. The affured did not by that contract fecure himfelf at all events againft lofs, though he broke the...

...exception. It is not there stated whether the circumstances which support the jobjection were proved on the part of the Plaintiff, or on the part of the Defendant. The assured did not by that contract secure himself at all events against loss, though he broke the...

...matter. He should, however, ask the jury to state whether they thought that there had been negligence on the part of the plaintiff or on the part of the bank. The jury thought that there was no negligence on either side, and it was thereupon arranged that...

...HARMLESS . EBBOB— INSTRUCTIONS — OMISSION OF OBVIOUS WORDS. An instruction that "negligence, whether on the part of the plaintiff or on the part of the defendant, may be defined as the doing or failing to do some act or thing, which, under the circumstances, it...

...and vigilance which the circumstances Justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. [4, 5] There Is no presumption of negligence either on the...defendant, from the mere fact that injury resulted to the plaintiff by reason of the alleged accident. Whether there was any negligence, at the time of...

...defendant can be held liable only for such negligence as constitutes the proximate cause of the accident There Is no presumption of negligence, either on the...the part of the defendant, from the mere fact that the plaintiff was Injured. The term "ordinary care," when applied to the management of a railway, Imports...

...and the burden of proving it to the satisfaction of the Jury, as alleged, rests upon the plaintiff. There is no presumption of negligence, either on the part of the defendant, or the plaintiff, from the mere fact that the plaintiff was Injured. Whether there was any...

...himself from being injured. There is no presumption of negligence, either on the part of the deceased or on the part of the defendant, from the mere fact that there was a collision of the train and the automobile. Whether there was any negligence, at the time...

...negligence to the satisfaction of the jury, by a preponderance of the evidence, rests upon the plaintiff. There is no presumption of negligence, either on the part of the plaintiff's intestate or on the part of the defendant, from the mere fact that the plaintiff's Intestate...

...action must be one in which, whatever may be the form of the action, recovery of possession is sought, either on the part of the plaintiff or on the part of the defendant. Order affirmed. AUGUSTUS H. HORNSBY vs. LD HAUSE. July 7, 1886. Eoal Estate Agent — Authority —...