TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Luman Abrams v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Corporation

Luman ABRAMS Et Al., Appellants, v. BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Et Al., Appellees

Luman Abrams v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., a Corp., 223 F.2d 331 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 12, 1955
Docket
No. 12399_1
Judges
Bazelon, Edgerton, Per Curiam, Prettyman
Citations
223 F.2d 33196 U.S. App. D.C. 391955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3963

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, of whom there are nineteen, were plaintiffs in a civil action for damages arising out of an alleged incident on a railroad car. The trial court dismissed the complaint as to eighteen of the plaintiffs and transferred to the Municipal Court the action of the one remaining plaintiff.

The train was en route from New York to Chicago via Washington, and the appellants were passengers in a special car. An argument between them and a porter occurred, and the latter was told by some of the appellants to stay out of their car. The porter’s duties required him, however, to traverse the car, so at Washington he notified the station master at Silver Spring, Maryland, of the difficulty. The station master notified the police, and they boarded the train when it arrived at Silver Spring. The officers entered the private car, and a fracas occurred.

The original complaint sounded in tort based upon fright. An amendment added an allegation of breach of contract by the station master in calling the police. But the complaint does not allege the police did anything at the instigation of the railroad employees except enter the car. The complaint says merely that the police “trespassed into plaintiffs’ car” and that “During the course of that trespass an affray occurred — at whose fault the pleadings do not show.” The District Court was of the view that the complaint stated no cause of' action upon which relief could be granted. We agree, and the judgment must be Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1955: 11959: 119552026peak 1955 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harold I. Cammer v. United States223 F.2d 322 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
  2. Woods v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company149 A.2d 425 (D.C. 1959)

Most recent

  1. Woods v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company149 A.2d 425 (D.C. 1959)
  2. Harold I. Cammer v. United States223 F.2d 322 (D.C. Cir. 1955)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list