Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided January 14, 1910PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from Dubuque District Court. — Hon. M. O. Matthews, Judge. Action at- law to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff, resulting from his being struck by an engine on one of defendant’s tracks in the city of Dubuque. Trial to a jury, verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. —

1Opinion of the CourtDeemer, C. J.

Defendant maintains a switchyard in the city of Dubuque, upon which there are three tracks running lengthwise thereof. These tracks run in an easterly direction, branching off from defendant’s main line, which runs substantially north and south. The northerly switch track is called the house track, and just north of this track *433was the defendant’s freight depot. Cars were set in upon the house track to be loaded and unloaded into and from the freighthouse. South of the south switch track is what is known as the Dubuque 33oat Works. In order that travelers might reach these works and other…

2Cases cited55 opinions

  1. Huntington v. AttrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Herrick v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
  3. McGuire v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
  4. Houston & T. C. R'y Co. v. CowserTexas Supreme Court · 1881
  5. Whitsett v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R'y Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1885

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Koehn v. City of HastingsNebraska Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Anthes v. AnthesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1965
  3. Langner v. CavinessSupreme Court of Iowa · 1947
  4. Fries v. GoldsbyNebraska Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Ingram's Admrx. v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1915

8 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