Mann v. Pere Marquette Railroad
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon; Russell, J. Case by Robert K. Mann and William G. Watson, co-partners as Mann, Watson & Go., against tbe Pere Marquette Railroad Company, for damages caused by fire-communicated from defendant’s engine. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Plaintiffs are lumbermen, and own a large mill plant near Muskegon.
Read the full summary
Error to Muskegon; Russell, J. Case by Robert K. Mann and William G. Watson, co-partners as Mann, Watson & Go., against tbe Pere Marquette Railroad Company, for damages caused by fire-communicated from defendant’s engine. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Plaintiffs are lumbermen, and own a large mill plant near Muskegon. Desiring to have a side track on each side of their mill for the purpose of shipping in and shipping out products, they applied to the defendant to put in such tracks. Thereupon the following contract was executed by them: “Agreement, made this ninth…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). 1. Counsel for plaintiffs contend in their supplemental brief that the contract is void because it exempts a common carrier from loss resulting from its own negligence, and that such contracts are void as against public policy. This case does not fall within those where contracts to exempt from liability are held void on the ground of public policy. It is a fundamental rule of law that what one may refuse to do entirely he may agree to do upon such terms as he pleases. In contracting to put in these side tracks, the defendant was not acting in the capacity of a…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. VoigtSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- People v. Detroit White Lead Works Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Quimby v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Russell v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1901
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Twin City Pipe Line Co. v. Harding Glass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Allen v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1969
- McDonald v. Farm Bureau InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
- James Quirk Milling Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railroad v. Unaka Springs Lumber Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1914
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.