Mundhenk v. C. I. R.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Marshall District Court. Action to recover double damages for injury to two horses done by one of the defendant’s trains; also to recover the amount of a veterinary surgeon’s bill paid for doctoring one of the horses. There was a trial by jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for' the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
i-eaibroads: stoekY: duty to construct cattle guards, I. The railroad runs north and south. The horses were struck either where the railroad crosses a highway, running east and west, or a few feet north of the highway. The train which struck them was going north. The plaintiff claims that they were struck north of the highway, and where the defendant had a right to fence. The defendant claims that they were struck in the highway. The defendant also claims that if they were struck north of the highway they were struck where it is not fit, proper, or suitable to fence, and therefore where it…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Furst v. . Second Avenue Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Davis v. Burlington & Missouri River R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1869
- Michigan Central Railroad v. CarrowIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Verry v. B., C. R. & M. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Mackie v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. KyneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
- Walters v. Iowa Electric Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1927
- Hoover v. First American Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
- Blanford v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R'y Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Latta v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.