Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: accident Sorted by: old Page 9 of about 474,575 results (0.067 seconds)

1838

United States Vs. Delespine's Heirs

Court : US Supreme Court

..... and it appears also by proofs in this cause that the papers in the office from which the first copy was taken, and the original of which is also sufficiently proved to have been on file, have been, by accident or otherwise, mutilated since the first copy was taken; that the original could no longer be found, and consequently that the copy in this case was the best evidence, from the nature of the case, .....

Tag this Judgment!

1839

Stokes Vs. Saltonstall

Court : US Supreme Court

..... if the jury shall find that the driver was a person of competent skill, and in every respect qualified and suitably prepared for the business in which he was engaged, and that the accident was occasioned by no fault or want of skill or care, on his part, or that of the defendant or his agents, but by physical disability arising from extreme and unusual cold, which rendered him incapable for the time ..... if the jury shall find that the driver was a person of competent skill, and in every respect qualified and suitably prepared for the business in which he was engaged, and that the accident was occasioned by no fault or want of skill or care on his part or that of the defendant or his agents, but by physical disability, arising from extreme and unusual cold, which rendered him incapable for the time ..... if the driver was a person of competent skill, and in every respect qualified and suitably prepared for the business in which he was engaged, and the accident was occasioned by no fault or want of skill or care on his part, or that of the defendant or his agents, but by physical disability arising from extreme and unusual cold, which rendered him incapable for the ..... for although in the first it is said that these facts threw upon the defendant the burden of proving that the accident was not occasioned by the driver's fault, yet in the second it is declared that it was incumbent on the defendant, in order to meet the plaintiff's prima facie case, to prove that the driver was a person of .....

Tag this Judgment!

1839

Downes and Company Vs. Church

Court : US Supreme Court

..... the object of drawing a foreign bill in sets is for the convenience of the payee, or other holder, to enable him to forward the same for acceptance by different conveyances, and thus to guard against any loss, by accident or otherwise, which might occur if there were but a single bill. .....

Tag this Judgment!

1839

Meredith Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... 494 accident, mistake, or fraud, no duties, or short duties have been paid. .....

Tag this Judgment!

1840

Peters Vs. Warren Insurance Company

Court : US Supreme Court

..... on consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court that "in this case, the contributory amount paid by the paragon on account of the collision, was a direct, positive, and proximate effect from the accident in such sense as to render the defendants liable therefor upon this policy. ..... upon the whole, we are of opinion that it be certified to the circuit court that in this case, the contributory amount paid by the paragon on account of the collision was a direct, positive, and proximate effect from the accident in such sense as to render the defendants liable therefor upon this policy. ..... , "whether, in this case, the contributory amount paid by the paragon on account of the collision was a direct, positive, and proximate effect from the accident, in such sense as to render the defendants liable therefor upon this policy. ..... upon this state of facts, the question arose whether in this case the contributory amount paid by the paragon on account of the collision was a direct, positive, and proximate effect from the accident in such sense as to render the defendants liable therefor. ..... by this accident, the paragon lost her bowsprit, jib boom, and anchor, and sustained other damage, which obliged her to put into cuxhaven, a port at the mouth of the elbe, and subject to the jurisdiction of hamburgh, for .....

Tag this Judgment!

1840

Philadelphia and Trenton R. Co. Vs. Stimpson

Court : US Supreme Court

..... 3, under which this patent was obtained, provides that whenever any patent shall be inoperative or invalid by reason that any of the terms or conditions prescribed by the prior acts of congress, have not, by inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, been complied with on the part of the inventor, it shall be lawful for the secretary of state, upon the surrender to him of such patent, to cause a new patent to be granted to ..... , that the error in the former patent has arisen by inadvertency, accident, or mistake and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, and that without such recitals, as it is the case of a special authority, the patent is a mere nullity and inoperative. .....

Tag this Judgment!

1840

Carr Vs. Duval

Court : US Supreme Court

..... " "dear sir: you will perceive by the date of my letter i am thus far on my way to florida, where, if no accident prevents, i shall reach there in the course of five days more, where i hope to see you and have our business brought to completion, where i can pay you the first payment, most of which i have had .....

Tag this Judgment!

1841

United States Vs. Linn

Court : US Supreme Court

..... the only departure of the instrument from the directions of the act is the want of a seal, and this, as is said in the case against bradley, may have been omitted by mutual mistake or accident, and wholly without design. ..... a bond may, by mutual mistake or accident and wholly without design, be taken in a form not prescribed by the act. .....

Tag this Judgment!

1841

Buyck Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... " it is not alleged that they were lost or destroyed by any mutilation of the records or other accident. .....

Tag this Judgment!

1841

Groves Vs. Slaughter

Court : US Supreme Court

..... , the owner of slaves in maryland, in transporting them to kentucky or missouri, should pass through pennsylvania or ohio, no law of either state could take away or affect his right of property, nor, if passing from one slave state to another, accident or distress should compel him to touch at any place within a state, where slavery did not exist. .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //