Miller v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R'y Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Keohxik District Court. PlaiNtiff was an employe of tbe defendant on a construction train. He was a laborer, engaged with others in placing on the train timbers lying along the road. He rode on the train from a station, and when the timbers at one place were loaded he rode on tlie train to another place, and at night rode on the train to where the men stopped until morning. He was injured while attempting to get on the train.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Keohxik District Court. PlaiNtiff was an employe of tbe defendant on a construction train. He was a laborer, engaged with others in placing on the train timbers lying along the road. He rode on the train from a station, and when the timbers at one place were loaded he rode on tlie train to another place, and at night rode on the train to where the men stopped until morning. He was injured while attempting to get on the train. There was a verdict for plaintiff, judgment, and the defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtSisbvees, J.
I. The plaintiff asks that the evidence be stricken out because it is not sufficiently identified in the bill 1. tvtt.t. of fíenSficatíon of evidence. exceptions. The bill of exceptions states that “the evidence taken in this cause by E. H. War- ^ official reporter of thig courtj ' * * * is all the evidence taken therein. * * * Said report of evidence is entitled in the cause and filed therein April 9, 1886, and certified to by said reporter and the judge of this court, and marked ‘Exhibit A’ to this bill of exceptions.” The foregoing reference we understand is to the original short-hand…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wells v. B. C. R. & N. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Hill v. HollowaySupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- Town of Manson v. WareSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Robertson v. Consolidated Boat Store Co.Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1898