The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P alleged in his declaration that he agreed with Ds to serve them in the employment of an engineer in the management and care of their engines and cars running on their railroad. P continued to perform his duties as engineer till October 30th 1837, a servant of Ds, Whitcomb, so carelessly, negligently and unskillfully managed and used, and put and placed the iron match rail, called the short switch, across the rail or track of their said rail road, that the engine and cars, upon which P was engaged and employed in the discharge of his said duties of engineer, were thrown from the track. P was thrown with great violence upon the ground, and one of the wheels of one of thecars passed over the right hand of the plaintiff, crushing and destroying the same. Whitcomb had been long in the employment of D, as a switchman or tender, and had the care of switches on the road, and was a careful and trustworthy servant, in his general character, and as such servant was well known to P. P sued Ds, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.