Legal Opinion

Krouse v. Detroit United Railway

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1911No. Docket No. 7PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Wayne; Mandell, J. Case by Ella Krouse against the Detroit United Railway for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.

In this case as set out in the opinion of my Brother Moore, the plaintiff’s right to recover rests upon her own unsupported statements as to the facts. Her interest is, of course, manifest. .Opposed to her are four witnesses, not one of whom, at the time of the trial, had the slightest interest in the controversy. Drouillard, the conductor at the time of the accident, had been discharged by defendant before the case was tried in the lower court. Rogers, the motorman at the time, was, when the case was tried, employed by the Grand. Trunk Railway. Whether he was discharged by defendant or left…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hintz v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Ewing v. LamphereMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Dupuis v. Saginaw Valley Traction Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Krouse v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  2. McGary v. Buick Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Ollenbrook v. BertlingMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Ballance v. DunningtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Collard v. RonisMichigan Supreme Court · 1922

1 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