Legal Opinion

Milbourne v. Arnold Electric Power Station Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1905No. Docket No. 81PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to Ingham; Wiest, J. Case by Cyrus A. Milbourne against the Arnold Electric Power Station Company for personal injuries. There was judgment for defendant notwithstanding a verdict for plaintiff, and plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.

Plaintiff brought this suit to recover compensation for injuries received while in defendant’s employ. He recovered a verdict in the court below. On a motion for a new trial the lower court set aside the verdict on the ground that, under the testimony, a verdict should have been directed for defendant. Upon the stipulation of the parties that “ if the evidence offered ” showed, “ as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment, that a new trial was not desired by plaintiff,” and that, upon the other hand, “if the evidence warranted ” the jury in finding a verdict for the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Railroad Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Eckert v. . the Long Island Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
  3. Fort Wayne, Jackson & Saginaw Railroad v. GildersleeveMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Bradburn v. Wabash RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  5. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. SchumacherSupreme Court of the United States · 1894

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Felgner v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Holderfield v. Rummage Bros. Trucking Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. Corey v. HartelMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Taylor v. Home Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Murphy v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913

4 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