State ex rel. C., B. & Q. R. v. North Lincoln Street Railway Co.
Nebraska Supreme Court
cited, contending that the pendency of the former subs could not be pleaded in abatement: Laflin v. Brown, 7 Met. [Mass.], 576; Hatch v. Spofford, 22 Conn., 484; Downer v. Garland, 21 Yt., 362; Oraig v. Dougherty, 45 Mo., 294; Osborn v. Cloud, 23 la., 104; Moosic v. JR. Co., 13 Atl. Rep. [Pa.], 915; Cox v. Tyler, 6 Neb., 297, 302; Smith v. Lathrop, 84 Am. Dec. [Pa.], 448 and note; Delahayv.
Read the full summary
cited, contending that the pendency of the former subs could not be pleaded in abatement: Laflin v. Brown, 7 Met. [Mass.], 576; Hatch v. Spofford, 22 Conn., 484; Downer v. Garland, 21 Yt., 362; Oraig v. Dougherty, 45 Mo., 294; Osborn v. Cloud, 23 la., 104; Moosic v. JR. Co., 13 Atl. Rep. [Pa.], 915; Cox v. Tyler, 6 Neb., 297, 302; Smith v. Lathrop, 84 Am. Dec. [Pa.], 448 and note; Delahayv. Clement, 3 Scam. [111.], 201; Bolton v. Landers, 27 Cal., 184; People v. Wayne C. C., 27 Mich., 406; Calaveras Co. v. Brockway, 30 Cal., 325; 3 Blackstone, Com., 110; Tapping, Mandamus, 171; People v. C. &…
1Opinion of the CourtNor val, J.
This is an original application for a peremptory mandamus to compel the respondent to take up and remove its tracks, etc., where the same Crosses the grounds of the relatorsj to restore said grounds and tracks to their former condition, and to require the respondent, if it shall desire to cross relators’ right of way, to effect such crossing by means of a bridge or viaduct of sufficient dimensions and height as not to interfere with the safe operation of relators’ trains. A demurrer to the information was overruled pro forma, whereupon the respondent answered to the merits, and also pleaded…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Morgan v. Board of County CommissionersNebraska Supreme Court · 1880
- People ex rel. Mitchell v. WarfieldIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
- People ex rel. Staats-Zeitung Co. v. Common CouncilIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- State ex rel. Graber v. MatleyNebraska Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bartley v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- Monroe v. Reid, Murdock & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- State v. ErpeldingNebraska Supreme Court · 2015
- Ashton v. Blue River Power Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1928
- Kehr v. KehrNebraska Supreme Court · 1962
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.