Legal Opinion

Matchett v. Cincinnati, Wabash & Michigan Railway Co.

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided September 14, 1892No. 15,304PublishedCited by 33 opinions

From the Grant Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.

— The substance of the appellant's complaint is this: He entered the service of the appellee as a brakeman, and his duties required him to set the brakes upon the trains on which he was required to work. On the 13th day of December, 1887, he was working on a freight train composed of many cars. He was signaled to set the brake. He undertook to discharge this duty in obedience to the signal, *336at the time believing that the brake and appliances were “ in order and not out of repair.” The brake was defective and out of repair “in this, the ratchet upon the same, used to hold the brake when…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Northern Pacific Railroad v. HerbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Indiana Car Co. v. ParkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Brazil Block Coal Co. v. HoodletIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Rogers v. LeydenIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. FrawleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. McCoy v. Kokomo Railway & Light Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Hoosier Stone Co. v. McCainIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge Co. v. EastmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
  4. Indiana Stone Co. v. StewartIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
  5. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. HeckIndiana Supreme Court · 1898

28 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