Legal Opinion

Stanley v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 1894PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Newaygo. (Palmer, J.) Negligence case. „ Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

Plaintiff was a brakeman in defendant’s employ. The train crew consisted of the conductor, engineer, fireman, and two brakemen. The train was composed of about 25 freight cars. An empty flat car was next the tender, the remainder being box cars. It was necessary to leave two box cars at a station known as “ Linderman Siding.” The conductor communicated this information to plaintiff. The train had' stopped about-four er five car lengths from the switch. Plaintiff started to go between the cars to uncouple them. He testified that the conductor said:

“No, no; get up on that flat car, and do not…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Morch v. Toledo, Saginaw & Muskegon Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Baker v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Cavanagh v. . McGovernNew York Court of Appeals · 1917

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API