Cain v. Gold Mountain Mining Co.
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson Qouníyj M. 3. Par- . her, Judge. ActioN for personal injuries by Thomas Cain against the Gold Mountain Mining Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. When the facts are undisputed the effect of the testimony is a question of law, unless reasonable men might fairly draw different conclusions from the testimony. (Olsen v. Ry. Go., 9 IJtah, 129 ; Bunnel v. Ry. Go., 44 Pac.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson Qouníyj M. 3. Par- . her, Judge. ActioN for personal injuries by Thomas Cain against the Gold Mountain Mining Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. When the facts are undisputed the effect of the testimony is a question of law, unless reasonable men might fairly draw different conclusions from the testimony. (Olsen v. Ry. Go., 9 IJtah, 129 ; Bunnel v. Ry. Go., 44 Pac. Pep. 927.) When the evidence is undisputed or is of suc-h conclusive character that the court in the exercise of a sound, judicial…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holloway
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Tbe plaintiff, Thomas Cain, was employed as a miner by the defendant, tbe Gold Mountain Mining Company, in tbe Euby mine, in Jefferson; county, Montana, working in the slopes getting out ore1. Tbe operations of that portion of tbe mine were reached through a tunnel about 600 feet in length. A track of iron rails was laid in tbe tunnel, and ordinary tram cars were used to haul out the ore and waste. Tbe tunnel bad sufficient grade that tbe cars ran out by force of gravity and with considerable velocity. On January 19, 1898, tbe plaintiff left bis work in tbe…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Dawson v. SchlossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Weber v. Kansas City Cable Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Ferguson v. IngleOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Kumle v. Grand Lodge Ancient Order of United WorkmenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Elmore v. ElmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Ball v. GussenhovenMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- Later v. HaywoodIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- Shaw v. New Year Gold Mines Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
- Nord v. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
- McCulloch v. HortonMontana Supreme Court · 1936
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.