David Davis

Name: Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court
Author: David Davis

Summary

“Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by David Davis. It explores elements such as passenger, San Francisco and Duane.

Quotes from Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court (David Davis)

David Davis, Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court

“ Independently, however, of this, the damages cannot be regarded as grossly excessive. The expulsion of Duane was a great and mortifying indignity to him. It was an injury, too. He had been banished from San Francisco on the shortest notice. He was without funds, of course; and was unable to return to his former home for years; suffering the greatest hardships in the mean time over the whole continent.
The act of expulsion by Pearson was, in addition, a great breach of public rights; rights, at least, which every man is interested to maintain. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Davis, Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court

“ An agent of a railway would be justified in refusing to sell a ticket to a pugilist on his way to participate in a prize fight, as would the conductor of a train in putting him off before reaching the place where the fight is to take place. Will it be asserted that a disappointed prize-fighter could recover damages against the carrier for thus averting a flagrant breach of the peace? The case before the court is stronger against a recovery.
If a carrier has reason to suppose that a passenger is engaged in canvassing for another line, the law excuses him for refusing to carry the passenger ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Davis, Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court

“ A boatman, in the night, is induced to take goods on board under such circumstances as, if the defendant had been apprised of them, it is clear that he would not have contracted to receive them as a common carrier.'
Almost all legal propositions which are true in the abstract have their exceptions in applying them. Thus, no feature of the common law is more conspicuous than the tenacity with which it has maintained the sacredness of a man's person. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Davis, Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court

“ Common carriers of passengers, like the steamship Stevens, are obliged to carry all persons who apply for passage, if the accommodations are sufficient, unless there is a proper excuse for refusal. [12]
If there are reasonable objections to a proposed passenger, the carrier is not required to take him. In this case, Duane could have been well refused a passage when he first came on board the boat, if the circumstances of his banishment would, in the opinion of the master, have tended to promote further difficulty, should he be returned to a city where lawless violence was supreme. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Davis, Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court

“ Although a railroad or steamboat company can properly refuse to transport a drunken or insane man, or one whose character is bad, they cannot expel him, after having admitted him as a passenger, and received his fare, unless he misbehaves during the journey. [13] Duane conducted himself properly on the boat until his expulsion was determined, and when his fare was tendered to the purser, he was entitled to the same rights as other passengers. The refusal to carry him was contrary to law, although the reason for it was a humane one. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Davis, Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court

“ The carrier of goods, as will be conceded, is held to sider obligations than the carrier of passengers. Yet, if the goods offered are of a nature which will at the time expose them to extraordinary danger or popular rage, he need not take them. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Davis, Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court

“ The master of a ship has powers practically despotic. It is of great importance that every such person be taught that his powers must be exercised in subjection to law.
Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Davis, Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court

“ In addition, carrying the libellant to San Francisco was calculated not only to endanger the safety of the ship and passengers, but would have subjected the cargo to risk, for which the owners would have been responsible. It has been held, that the phrase, 'king's enemies,' does not include the violence of a mob, or riot, or civil commotion of any nature. [8]
II. But if the court should hold that the libellant is entitled to recover, then the damages allowed are excessive. No special damage is averred or proved ”

David Davis

Summary

Quotes from Pearson v. Duane — Opinion of the Court (David Davis)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature