Rogers v. Truesdale
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, William H. Truesdale, Receiver of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company, from an order of the District Court of Waseca County, Thomas S. Buckham, J., made August 19, 1893, overruling his demurrer to the complaint.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, William H. Truesdale, Receiver of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company, from an order of the District Court of Waseca County, Thomas S. Buckham, J., made August 19, 1893, overruling his demurrer to the complaint. The plaintiff, Nettie Rogers, stated in her complaint that on June 28, 1888, the District Court of Hennepin County appointed defendant receiver of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company and authorized him to operate the road, that he accepted the trust and employed William B. L. Rogers as brakeman on a freight train running between Minneapolis and…
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
The complaint in this action alleges that plaintiff’s intestate was a brakeman in the employ of defendant on a railroad *128which he is operating as receiver; that defendant “negligently permitted a flat car to be negligently loaded” with cordwood, and two green slippery elm ties placed at one end of the car, lower than the cordwood, so that the brahemen in passing along over the cars in the discharge of their duty would be obliged to step down from the cordwood upon these ties; that these ties were so hewed that the edges remained in their natural state, except that the bark was loose and partly…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lytle v. PrescottSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
3Cited by7 opinions
- City Water Power Co. v. City of Fergus FallsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Sherman v. Southern Pacific Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1910
- United States Express Co. v. WahlCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Waterhouse v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Lytle v. PrescottSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.