Hammond v. C. & N. W. R.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Marshall District Gowrt. The plaintiff recovered for a mule alleged to have been killed on the defendant’s track, by reason of the same not being properly fenced. The negligence, if any, consisted in not providing proper fastenings to a gate. The answer denies all negligence, and avers that the plaintiff was negligent in not keeping the gate closed. The railroad runs through the plaintiff’s farm, cutting off about one acre from the south corner.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Marshall District Gowrt. The plaintiff recovered for a mule alleged to have been killed on the defendant’s track, by reason of the same not being properly fenced. The negligence, if any, consisted in not providing proper fastenings to a gate. The answer denies all negligence, and avers that the plaintiff was negligent in not keeping the gate closed. The railroad runs through the plaintiff’s farm, cutting off about one acre from the south corner. On this acre is a tenant house. The plaintiff lived about forty rods north of the railroad. The railroad is fenced and between the…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
1.railroads: of'statute0;11 stock. T. It is contended by the appellant that the mule was not running at large, within the meaning of those words as used in the statute, but it was held in Hinman v. The Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co., 28 Iowa) 494, that the Words running at large import that the stock is not under the control of the owner. The mule in this ease escaped. The plaintiff’s hired man tried to catch it, and was unable to do so. It was, we think, running at large within the meaning of the statute.
2_: negiigence; fence. II. The defendant asked the following instruction, which was…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Lemery v. LeonardOregon Supreme Court · 1921
- Conway v. JordanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Taft v. New York, Providence, & Boston RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Thompson v. SavageSupreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. FinchAppellate Court of Illinois · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.