xt70zp3vt865_207 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70zp3vt865/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70zp3vt865/data/63m46.dao.xml unknown 14 Cubic Feet 31 boxes archival material 63m46 English University of Kentucky Copyright has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Harkins Family papers Mineral rights -- Kentucky -- Floyd County -- History. Law reports, digests, etc. -- Kentucky. Mining leases -- Kentucky -- Floyd County -- History. Practice of law -- Kentucky. Bankers -- Kentucky. Banks and banking -- Kentucky -- Prestonsburg. Coal trade -- Kentucky -- Floyd County -- History. Lawyers -- Kentucky. Elliott, W.J. v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company text Elliott, W.J. v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company 2016 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70zp3vt865/data/63m46/Box_21/Folder_10/2363.pdf 1914-1916 1916 1914-1916 section false xt70zp3vt865_207 xt70zp3vt865 t
e r;
if i
V? ;
g g FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT. i
w. J. Elliott, Plaintiff.
;é Against // Answer. g
;% Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Defendant. %
5% The defendant, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, for it
g: answer and defense to plaintiff's petition herein, says that k
ii it is untrue and it denies that on the ____day of _____l9l4, if
g: or other date, Without any fault on the part of plaintiff's 4;
§:‘ driver or while he was exercising all or any necessary or g;
%: proper care or attention in driving plaintiff's said horse, E
%;E_ i that the defendant, or its agents or servants or employees g
a, i so or at all negligently or carelessly operated one of its @
£3 trains of cars or engines in such close proximity to plain- .
;fi; tiff's said horse or buggy, or that it operated the same so i
fig or at all negligently or carelessly or in such a reckless or g
3? unnecessary manner by throwing from its engine steam or water g
g; in unnecessary large quantities or by making violent or une ?
5g necessary noises that plaintiff's said horse became thereby ?
i: frightened or run over a steep embankment or into Big 3
3? Sandy River, or thereby greatly injyred his said horse or g
a% tearing up or demolishing said buggy. That it has no knowl- g
$5 edge or information sufficient upon which to found a belief ?
g: as to Whether or not said horse was so frightened or damaged %
a; that he was with great difficulty extricated from the river 5
ff or prevnted from being drowned, and therefore denies said %
g; avemments. Denies that the damages to said horse are reason- f
g? ably $ 50.00, or other sum or mnount over or above $ 25.00; V
i} denies that the buggy was almost completely destroyed or ?

 I ‘
if 'd
7 :g
E damaged in the sum of $ 35.00, or any part thereof, or other E
E swn or amount, over or above d 7.50; denies that said machine g
g: was damaged or was a total loss to him in the sum of $ 62.50, g
i; 3 or any part thereof, or other sum or amount over or above 5
E; $ 27.50, or that the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of E
gfi $ 147.50, or any part thereof, or other sum or amount. 5
§( Defendant says that it is unrtue and it denies that said g
$2 injury was caused solely or at all by the gross or any neg— g
E: ligence of the defendant or its agents or servants or employ- fig
g. eed in operating said engine or train , or by their unlawfully :9
g2 or wrongfully throwing a large amount of water or steam in g
g: front of or against his said horse; denies that it either %
6% unlawfully or wrongfully or at all three a large amount of :
Egi water or steam in front of or against said horse; denies that 5;
iél it or its agents or servants or employees knew or by the exer- f
L; cise of ordinary care could have known of the alleged fright- I

:5, ened condition of said horse, or of the alleged peril in which 3

% said horse was placed; denies that it did so discover the al- 1
if led frightened condition or alleged peril in time to have pre- 3
E2 vented the said injury; denies that it did not use any precau- .%
g: tion or care whatever to avoid frightening said horse; denies E
%j that when dthin a few feet of plaintiff's said horse or carriag %
g; it threw against or in front of said horse or buggy large or g
E: unnecessary volumes of water or steam, or that it caused the g
i: horse to jump or run OVEr the embankment aforesaid or into Big E
ii Sandy River, or that it caused the injury in the petition men- 4%
ii tioned and complained of. i
E; Par. No. 2. For further answer and defense herein the E
E% defendant says that at the time of the alleged injury to said §
;§ horse, buggy and sewing machine complained of in the petition, g
{% the agent of the plain§$££1%§53%9 in charge of said horse, bdg- %
n“
Es 1ww~h1111l.1

 L is
5,; if:
fl fig
;5 gy and sewing machine was himself negligent, and that but :é
gr for such negligence on the part of saidagent and employee of t
i: the plaintiii nerein the injury herein complained of would Q
‘fi not happened, Which said contrrbutory negligence is specially Q
E, plead and relied upon as a defense herein. .3
g; Par. No. 3. For further answer and defense herein E
g; the defendant says that the agent and servant of the plain- é
gf tiff in charge of said horse, buggy and sewing machine, at g
g2 the time of said injuryknew of the approach of said train, §
$1 '%
g and knew of the proximity of said county road to this deo 4%
G} .d
;g fendant's line of track; that said agent and employee of the fl
«is
5% plaintiff knew that said horse was likely to become scared ad 5%
i
Yfi unmanagable when passing said train, and with such knowledge h
J T‘
f?. drove said horse upon said county road and near to this de— E
f: fendants line of road, and by reason thereof he assumed all
3: fine risks incident to the same, of which the injuries comp
é; plained of in the petition were a part; and that by reason _
g: of said asswned risk the plaintiff is not entitled to re- %
:lv‘i ‘ .‘
hi e
g; cover herein, which assumed risk is specially plead and re— A
. g3
g4 lied upon as a defense herein. h
E? Wherefore, having fully answered, the defendant prays E
In 3
%‘ that plaintiff's petition be dismissed; prays judgment for g
E; costs, and for all general and special relief. g
%: Chesape “ & Ohi eilway Com ny, ;g
f By ...... :1:
®% Attorneys. E
Lg State of Kentucky, e
ed County of Floyd Set. 1 . . 5
ES The affiant, Joseph D. Herkins, says tnat he 18 attorney Y
%€ for the defendant in the above entitled cause; that the cheif g
fit officers and agents of said defendant are now absent from Flyyd h
lg County, and that the statements of 2‘? oregoing Answer are tre %
i§i as he believes. ,‘ W” . fl
#3 Sworn to before me by Jose, D Harkins Sept. -191 . %
I g -AUORN::R:;N5£::N:IARISRS AT AW *'
‘I PRESTO : RG, KY. W‘mmmgwflww g

 is ' .
,~ ~ ., 2: FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT. '
. , w. J. ELLIOTT . , " ,
' f?
i AGAINST :: "
‘ ' ' . i- CHESAPEAKE} & OHIO RAILWAY ~00.
f m .
- ANSWER ,
® % :I
l .
‘ é HARKINS _EEE HARKINS ' W
: zXTTOZRBTEX’S AND GOUNSELLOI{S AI LAVV ' ,7
' @ ff , PRESTONSBURG,KY. .