Summary
In Southern Pac. Co. v. Thomas, 21 Ariz. 355 [188 P. 268], the Supreme Court of Arizona held (quoting from the syllabus): "Where the carrier failed to have proper couplers on cars, as required by the Federal Safety Appliance Act, the brakeman's contributory negligence in going between the cars without giving the proper signal was no defense."
Summary of this case from Ballard v. Sacramento Northern Ry. Co.Opinion
Civ. No. 4312.
July 11, 1922.
PROCEEDING in Mandamus to require the levy and collection of a tax sufficient to pay a judgment against a municipality. Writ granted.
The facts are the same as those stated in the opinion of Oscar Heyman Brother (a Corporation) v. Edwin C. Bath et al., ante, p. 499.
E. J. Foulds and H. W. Hobbs for Petitioner.
George Lull, City Attorney, and Maurice T. Dooling, Jr., Assistant City Attorney, for Respondents.
[1] Let a peremptory writ issue as prayed on the authority of Oscar Heyman Brother (a Corporation v. Edwin C. Bath et al., ante, p. 499 [ 208 P. 981].
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 7, 1922.
All the Justices present concurred.
Richards, J., pro tem., and Myers, J., pro tem., were acting.