Legal Opinion

Mackerall v. Omaha & St. Louis Railroad

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided May 22, 1900PublishedCited by 24 opinions

Appeal from Fremont District Court. — ILon. Walter I. Smith, Judge. Action for damages caused by a crossing collision. The defendant appeals from judgment on a verdict against it.

1Opinion of the Court

Ladd, J.-

1 The plaintiff, in approaching a crossing from the west, stopped his team, looked, and listened, when one hundred feet from the railway, without observing or hearing the train. He then sat down on the north side of the hayrack with his feet in the box below, his back to the north, and his face towards the team, and slowly drove down a descent to the track. From there to within fourteen feet from the center of the track was an embankment, which obstructed his view up to at least twenty feet from such center. His attention was drawn to the gullies recently washed in the road, though…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Moore v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1897
  2. Schneider v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Erb v. German-American InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
  4. Winey v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1894
  5. Wickham v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Bruggeman v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
  2. Platter v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
  3. Hartman v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1906
  4. Lockridge v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1913
  5. Hoffard v. Illinois Central Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1907

19 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