Garlich v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Entering the city of St. Paul from the west, the roadbed and tracks, side by side, and near together, of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway and the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway pass along the bank of the Mississippi river upon a narrow bench of land between the bank of the river (which is 10 feet or more above the water) and the foot of a high, steep bluff reaching the…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Entering the city of St. Paul from the west, the roadbed and tracks, side by side, and near together, of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway and the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway pass along the bank of the Mississippi river upon a narrow bench of land between the bank of the river (which is 10 feet or more above the water) and the foot of a high, steep bluff reaching the general level of the city in that vicinity. This narrow bench of land extends from some distance east of the line of…
1Opinion of the CourtEochren, District Judge
1. The cross-examination of the witness Root was not extended beyond the particular circumstances of the facts about which he had been examined by plaintiff’s counsel. If the disclosure of such circumstances, explanatory of the very matters about which he had testified on his direct examination, also tended to establish a defense to the action, such tendency constituted no valid objection to the cross-examination. Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co. (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. 668.
2. The Minnesota statute offered in evidence is a private act; and neither it nor the ordinances of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. AndrewsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Blount v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1894
- Pyle v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1897
- Camp v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- St. Louis & S. F. R. v. CundieffCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Tipp v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Hart v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
- Robinson v. Denver City Tramway Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
- Tomlinson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.