Gulf, M. N. R. Co. v. Havard
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
SAYRE, J:
This ease went to the jury on counts 3 and 4 of the complaint, and there is no need to consider errors supposed to have affected the case as stated in counts 1 and 2.
In our original opinion it was stated that • plaintiff, appellee, stepped on the covering of a hole which was in a public street or highway near the corporate limits x>f the city of Mobile, and also — as we. understood— in defendant’s right of way at or near the point where defendant’s track crossed the highway. On rehearing it appears that the foregoing statement is not accurate. Perhaps we were misled by the maps of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Alabama Consolidated Coal & Iron Co. v. HealdSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
- Burnwell Coal Co. v. SetzerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
- Going v. Alabama Steel & Wire Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1904
- Alabama Great Southern R. v. Ensley Transfer & Supply Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- Village of Haverstraw v. . EckersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Cain v. SkillinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Norwood Clinic, Inc. v. SpannSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
- Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. PowaskiSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- Rochester-Hall Drug Co. v. BowdenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Howard WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.