Legal Opinion

Shufelt v. Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1893PublishedCited by 34 opinions

Error to Osceola. - (Judkins, J.) Negligence case. Plaintiff brings error. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

I concur witb my Brother Montgomery that there was no negligence in the rate of speed of the defendant’s train, or in the piling of the wood along its track. I think the circuit judge was correct in directing a verdict for the defendant.

1. The plaintiff’s wife was herself guilty' of contributory *328negligence. The road was dry and hard. She had two horses, and a lumber wagon with a box, and a spring seat fixed upon the box. She did not stop her team to listen. She had been for a long time familiar with the crossing, and had frequently driven over it. When upon the little rise of ground from 90…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Beauchamp v. Saginaw Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Robinson v. Flint & Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Davis v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
  2. Elias v. CollinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Nipp's Adm'xCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
  4. Wilkinson v. Oregon Short Line RailroadUtah Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. BennettCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910

29 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