Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad v. Cooper
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Bartholomew Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, C. J.
The material facts stated in the second paragraph of the appellee’s complaint are these: On the 18th day of April, 1885, Uriah Holland, the appellee’s intestate, entered a train of the appellants, which carried both passengers and freight, at the city of Columbus, and paid his passage to the town of Hope, a regular station on the line of appellant’s road. When the train, on which the intestate was a- passenger, reached the station of Lambert, a point between the city of Columbus and the town of Hope, the appellant’s employees failed and neglected to announce the name of the station, but some…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Lake v. Atlantic WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Hill v. WinsorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Northern Central Railway Co. v. State ex rel. PriceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. WoodIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Black v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1898
- Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. TrowbridgeIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. NitscheIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Wheeler v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.