Legal Opinion

Van Brunt v. Cincinnati, Jackson & Mackinaw Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1889PublishedCited by 25 opinions

Error to Calhoun. (Hooker, J.) Case. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

William H. Yan Brunt, the plaintiff’s intestate, while in the employ of the defendant as brakeman on a freight train, ivas crushed between defendant’s caboose car No. 86 and caboose car No. 88, on January 1, 1888, at Marshall, and died from his injuries on the *531next day, about five hours after the injury. The administrator brought suit to recover damages on account of such injury and death. The court below directed a verdict for the defendant. The court based its direction, among other things, upon the ground that no damages were shown.

The declaration was in four counts, in each of which it…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. BayfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  2. Hyatt v. AdamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
  3. Cooper v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Staal v. Grand Rapids & Indiana RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Mynning v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Bricker v. GreenMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Breckon v. Franklin Fuel Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Hurst v. Detroit City RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Richmond v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Baker v. SlackMichigan Supreme Court · 1948

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API