Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Action at law by Andrew Duke against the Portland Gold Mining Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. On rehearing.
1Opinion of the Court
ADAMS, Circuit Judge.
This was an action by a servant to recover damages from the master for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him as a result of the master’s negligence. The case has been here before, and is reported in 90 C. C. A. 166, 164 Fed. 180, to which reference may be made for a more extended statement.
The plair ' ff then contended that the evidence was -sufficient to warrant a recovery on common-law principles, without resort to the remedial provisions of the statute of Colorado (known as the fellow servant act) approved March 28, 1901 (Sess. Laws 1901, p. 161),…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Town of South Ottawa v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Gardner v. CollectorSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Post v. SupervisorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Kyner v. Portland Gold Mixing Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Carlton v. GrimesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1946
- People v. LeddySupreme Court of Colorado · 1912
- First Nat. Bank of Commerce, New Orleans v. EavesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1973
- Colorado & Southern Railway Co. v. DavisColorado Court of Appeals · 1912
- Colorado & Southern Railway Co. v. DavisColorado Court of Appeals · 1912