Keep v. Indianapolis & St. Louis R. Co.[1]
Keep v. Union Railway & Transit Co.[1]
(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. February 13, 1882.)
1. Trial of Causes of a Like Nature at the Same Time—Rev. St. § 921.
Federal courts have authority to order causes pending before them of a like nature, and in which substantially the same questions are involved, though against different defendants, to be tried at the same time, even where, in consequence, the defendants will be brought into antagonism.
2. Same—Judgements
Where causes, one of which sounds in tort and the other in contract, are tried at the same time, separate judgments may be rendered in each.
3. Practice—Joint Wrongs—Seperate Suits.
Where several tort-feasors are each and all liable for the same wrongful act, a separate suit for damages may be maintained against each of them.
4. Common Carrier—Negligence—Motive Power.
A common carrier is liable to a passenger whom it has contracted to convey to a particular point, if he is injured while being so conveyed through the negligence or unskilfulness of employes of a corporation with which such carrier has contracted for motive power.
8. Liability of Party Furnishing Motive Power—Negligence—Unskilfulness.
In such cases the corporation furnishing the motive power is also liable to the passenger if the injury is sustained through the direct negligence or unskilfulness of its employes.
Motions for a New Trial.
Separate judgments having been rendered against each of them, both of the defendants in the above-entitled causes move for a new trial. The motion of the Union Railway & Transit Company assigned as error:
(1) That the verdict is unsupported by the evidence, but is contrary thereto, and is against the evidence and the weight of evidence. (2) That the verdict is for the plaintiff, whereas it ought to have been for the defendant. (3) That the court erred in refusing to give the instructions asked by defendant at the close of plaintiff's case. (4) That the court erred in refusing to give the instructions asked by defendant at the close of the evidence in the case. (5) That the court erred in giving the instructions which were given by the court to the jury. (6) That the court erred in its instructions given to the jury. (7) That the court erred in its instructions given to the jury after they retired, and in answer to their inquiry to the effect that "if each company is at fault the same amount of damages should be rendered against each." (8) That the court erred in admitting improper and illegal evidence against the objection of the defendant; the court erred in rejecting legal, competent, and
