FOOTNOTES:
[560] Gt. Western Rw. v. Fawcett; Same v. Braid, 1 Moore, P. C. C. (N. S.), 101; 9 Jur. (N. S.), 339.
[561] Con. Stat. Can. ch. 78.
[562] Willets v. Buffalo & Rochester Rw., 14 Barb. 385, where a lunatic was left by himself and in consequence was killed.
[563] Blake v. Midland Rw., 18 Q. B. 93; Bradburn v. G. W. R., L.R., 10 Ex. 3.
[564] Blake v. Midland Rw., 18 Ad. & Ell. (N. S.), 93; Pym v. Great Northern Rw., 4 B. & S. (Ex. Ch.), 396.
[565] Ersk. Inst. 592, note 13.
[566] In argument Gillard v. Lancaster & Yorkshire Rw. Co., 12 L. T. 356.
[567] Armsworth v. Southeastern Rw. Co., 11 Jurist, 758.
[568] Lucas v. N. Y. C., 21 Barb. 245; Worley v. Cincinnati, H., & D. Rw., 1 Handy, 481.
[569] Tilley v. Hudson River Rw., 29 N. Y. 252.
[570] Canning v. Williamstown, 1 Cush. 451; Morse v. Auburn & Syracuse Rw., 10 Barb. 623; so in California, Fairchild v. California Stage Co., 13 Cal. 599.
[571] 1842, c. 89.
[572] Hollenbeck v. Berkshire Rw., 9 Cush. 481.
[573] Bancroft v. Boston & Worcester Rw., 11 Allen, 34.
[574] Penn. Rw. Co. v. McCloskey, 23 Penn. St. 526, 528.
[575] Baltimore & Ohio Rw. v. State, 24 Md. 271.
[576] Secord v. Great Western Rw., 15 U. C. Q. B. 631.
[577] Armsworth v. Southeastern Rw., 11 Jur. 759.
[578] Smith v. N. Y. & Harlem Rw., 6 Duer, 225, City of Chicago v. Major, 18 Ill. 349.
[579] Rowley v. London & N. W. Rw., 29 Law Times Rep. (N. S.), 180.
[580] Balt. & Ohio Rw. v. State, 33 Md. 542; Macon & Western Rw. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409.
[581] Rowley v. London & N. W. Rw., 29 Law Times Rep. (N. S.), 180.
[582] Birkett v. Whitehaven Junction Rw., 4 H. & N. 732.
[583] Railway Co. v. Barron, 5 Wallace, 90.
[584] Hicks v. Newport A. & H. Rw., mentioned in 4 B. & S. 403; see Bradburn v. G. W. Rw., L. R., 10 Ex. 3, where it was held that money received on an accident insurance policy could not be considered in reduction of damages for injuries caused by negligence.
[585] Ferrie v. Great Western Rw., 15 U. C. Q. B. 517.
[586] Pym v. Great Northern Rw., 4 B. & S. 397, Ex. Ch.
[587] Read v. Great Eastern Rw., L. R., 3 Q. B. 555; but see remark of Erle, C. J., in Pym v. Gt. N. Rw., 4 B. & S. 406; and Coleridge, J., in Blake v. Midland Rw., 18 Ad. & El. (N. S.), 93.
[588] Bramhall v. Lees, 29 Law Times, 111.
[589] Court of Appeals, 14 N. Y. 310.
[590] State v. Baltimore & Ohio Rw., 24 Md. 84; but see Penn. Rw. v. Adams, 55 Penn. St. 499.
[591] Dalton v. S. E. Rw. 4 C. B. (N. S.), 296.
[592] Redfield on Railways, vol ii. p. 275.
[593] Franklin v. S. E. Rw. 3 H. & N. 211; Duckworth v. Johnson, 4 H. & N. 653.
[594] Condon v. Great Southern & Western Rw., 16 Ir. C. L. R. 415.
[595] Secord v. Great Western Rw., 15 U. C. Q. B. 631.
[596] Pym v. Great Northern Rw., 4 B. & S. 397 Ex. Ch.
[597] Court of Appeals, 14 N. Y. 310.
[598] Morley v. Great Western Rw., 16 U. C. Q. B. 504.
[599] Springett v. Balls, 7 B. & S. 477.
[600] Clapp v. Hudson R. R., 19 Barb. 461.
[601] Batchelor v. Buffalo & Brantford Rw., 5 U. C. C. P. 127.
[602] Collins v. Albany & Sch. Rw., 12 Barb. 492.
[603] Coleman v. Southwick, 9 Johns. 45; Gilbert v. Burtenshawf, Cowp. 230; Hewlett v. Cruchley, 5 Taunt. 277.
[604] Shaw v. Boston & Worcester Rw., 8 Gray, 45.
[605] Curtiss v. Rochester & S. Rw., 20 Barb. 282.
[606] Redfield on Railways, vol. ii., p. 243.
[607] Fairbanks v. G. W. R., 35 Q. B. (Ont.), 523.
[608] Rockwell v. Third Avenue Rw., 64 Barb. N. Y. 438.
[609] Union Pacific Rw. v. Hand, 7 Kan. 380.
[610] Hodsoll v. Stallebras, 11 Ad. & El. 301; Whitney v. Clarendon, 18 Vt. 252.
[611] Curtiss v. Rochester & S. Rw., 20 Barb. 282; Memphis, etc. Rw. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466.
[612] Speers v. G. W. R., 5 Pr. Rep. (Ont.), 173.
[613] Fair v. L. & N. W. Rw., Q. B. 18 W. R. 66.
[614] Barnard v. Poor, 21 Pick. 381; Sandback v. Thomas, 1 Stark. 306.
[615] Grace v. Morgan, 2 Bing. (N. C.), 534; Jenkins v. Biddulph, 4 Bing. 160.
[616] Hopkins v. Atlantic & St. Lawrence Rw., 36 N. H. 9; Pack v. Mayor of New York, 3 Comst. 489; Campbell v. G. W. R., 20 U. C. C. P. 345.
[617] Ford v. Monroe, 20 Wendell, 210.
[618] Fitzpatrick v. Great Western Rw., 12 U. C. Q. B. 645.
[619] Hanover Rw. v. Coyle, 55 Penn. 396.
[620] Per Lewis, J. Commonwealth v. Stauffer, 10 Barr. 350.
[621] Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1; Farwell v. Boston & W. Rw., 4 Met. 49; Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill, N. Y. 592.
[622] Hutchinson v. York, etc., Rw., 5 Ex. 353; Wiggett v. Fox, 11 Ex. 837; Keegan v. Western Rw., 4 Selden, 175.
[623] Tarrant v. Webb, 18 C. B. 805; Frazier v. Penn. Rw., 38 Penn. St. 104; Wright v. New York Central, 28 Barb. 80; Hard v. Vermont & Canada Rw., 32 Vt. 473.
[624] Ormond v. Holland, 1 El. Bl. & El. 102.
[625] Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 266; Tarrant v. Webb, 18 C. B. 797; Weems v. Mathieson, 4 Macq. 215.
[626] Holmes v. Clark, 6 H. & N. 349; 7 Ibid. 937.
[627] Morgan v. Vale of Neath Rw., L. R., 1 Q. B. 149.
[628] Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1.
[629] Tunney v. Midland Rw., L. R., 1 C. P. 291; see also, Plant v. G. T. R., 27 U. C. Q. B. 78.
[630] Feltham v. England, L. R., 2 Q. B. 33.
[631] Coon v. Syracuse & Utica Rw., 1 Selden, 492; Louisville & N. Rw. v. Collins, 5 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.), 265.
[632] Farwell v. Boston & W. Rw., 4 Met. 49, 60; Gillshannon v. Stony Brook Rw., 10 Cush. 228; Chicago & N. W. Rw. v. Jackson, 55 Ill. 492.
[633] Wright v. N. Y. C., 25 N. Y. 562; and see Baird v. Pettit, 29 Phil. Rep. 397.
[634] Abraham v. Reynolds, 5 H. & N. 142; Hard v. Vermont & Canada Rw., 32 Vt. 475.
[635] Snow v. Housatonic Rw., 8 Allen, 441.
[636] Faulkner v. Erie Rw., 49 Barb. 324; Warner v. Same, 8 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.), 209.
[637] Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421; Hood v. N. Y. & N. H. Rw., 22 Conn. 1.
[638] Knight v. P. S. & P. R. Rw., 56 Me. 234; 2 Redf. Am. Rw. cases, 458.
[639] Ellsworth v. Tartt, 26 Ala. 733.
[640] McCormick v. Hudson R. Rw., 4 E. D. Smith, 181.
[641] Great Western Rw. v. Blake, 7 H. & N. 987, Ex. Ch.
[642] Thomas v. Rhymney Rw. Co., L. R., 6 Q. B. 266, Ex. Ch.; and John v. Bacon, L. R., 5 C. P. 437.
[643] Redfield on Railways, vol. ii. p. 303; Railway Co. v. Barron, 5 Wall, 90; Ayles v. S. E. Rw., L. R., 3 Ex. 146; Birkett v. Whitehaven Junction Rw., 4 H. & N. 730; Sprague v. Smith, 29 Verm. 421, was an exceptional case.
[644] Wright v. Midland Rw., L. R., 8 Ex. 137.
[645] Mytton v. Midland Rw., 4 H. & N. 615; Great Western Rw. v. Blake, 7 H. & N. 987, Ex. Ch.; Weed v. Saratoga Rw., 19 Wend. 534.
[646] Latch v. Rimmer Rw., 27 L. J., Ex. 155; see also, Cunningham v. Grand Trunk Rw., 31 U. C. Q. B. 350; Curtis v. Rochester & Syracuse Rw., 18 N. Y. 534; Tennery v. Pippinger, 1 Phila. 543; Thayer v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. Rw., 22 Ind. 26; Pitts., Ft. Wayne, & Chicago Rw. v. Maurer, 21 Ohio, N. S. 421.
[647] Goldey v. Penn. Rw., 30 Penn. St. 242.
[648] Buxton v. Northeastern Rw., L. R., 3 Q. B. 549.