Citation network
Spring Company Vs. Edgar
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1878
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 645 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Spring Company v. EdgarSearch
-
U.S. 645 (1878) Spring Company v. EdgarSearch
-
and the uniform ruling has been that the omission constitutes no valid objection to the right of recovery. May v. BurdettSearch
-
of the animal and the knowledge of the defendant, without any allegation of negligence or want of care. Jackson v. SmithsonSearch
-
Popplewell v. PierceSearch
-
Decker v. GammonSearch
-
Worth v. GillingSearch
-
the animal is naturally mischievous, but if it is of a tame nature, there must be notice of the vicious habit. Mason v. KeelingSearch
-
Rex v. HugginsSearch
-
action on the ground of negligence, without proof that he knew that the animal was accustomed to do mischief. Vrooman v. SawyerSearch
-
Buxendin v. SharpSearch
-
Cockerham v. NixonSearch
-
as the cause of action arises from the keeping of the animal after the knowledge of its vicious propensity. Jackson v. SmithsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Van Leuven v. LykeSearch
-
Card v. CaseSearch
-
Hudson v. RobertsSearch
-
Dearth v. BakerSearch
-
Cox v. BurbridgeSearch
-
has not made out a case which would warrant the jury to find a verdict in his favor. Merchants' National Bank v. StateSearch
-
Same v. SameSearch
-
to show that they had knowledge of its mischievous propensities, are justly held liable for the consequences. Stiles v. NavigationSearch
-
Oakes v. SpauldingSearch
-
Sarch v. BlackburnSearch
-
Besozzi v. HarrisSearch
-
Dickson v. McCoySearch
-
Applebee v. PercySearch
-
Buster v. NewkirkSearch
-
appellate court will not reverse in such a case, unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous. D. & C. Steam Towboat Co. v. StarrsSearch
-
Page v. ParkerSearch
-
Tucker v. MassachusettsSearch
-
permits them to be examined in questions of art or science peculiar to their trade or profession. Winans v. NewSearch
-
such qualifications and explanations as naturally flow from other parts of the instructions. Magniac and Others v. ThompsonSearch
-
to be regarded as incorrect on account of omissions or deficiencies not pointed out by the excepting party. Castle v. BullardSearch
-
the jury, where it appears that the complaining party made no effort at the trial to have the matter explained. Locke v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. McNamaraSearch
-
will not be reversed, unless the court is of the opinion that the jury were misled or wrongly directed. Carver v. JacksonSearch
-
White v. McLeanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Spring Company v. EdgarSearch
-
May v. BurdettSearch
-
Jackson v. SmithsonSearch
-
Mason v. KeelingSearch
-
Vrooman v. SawyerSearch
-
Merchants' National Bank v. StateSearch
-
Stiles v. NavigationSearch
-
D. & C. Steam Towboat Co. v. StarrsSearch
-
Winans v. NewSearch
-
Magniac and Others v. ThompsonSearch
-
Locke v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial