Legal Opinion

Batterson v. Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1882PublishedCited by 22 opinions

Error to Ingham. Case. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the Court

Graves, O. J.

On and for some time prior to January 2, 1880, Batterson was in the service of the Northwestern & Grand Trunk Railroad Company as a brakeman between Battle Creek and Flint, and on the morning of that day and about dawn, and while trying to couple cars at Hamilton, his hand was caught between the draw-bars and badly injured. April 6, 1880, the Northwestern & Grand’Trunk Railroad Company and their lines were consolidated into one organization, which is the present defendant; and in January, 1881, this suit was brought against it for the injury in question, and it then stipulated…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Marquette, Houghton & Ontonagon Railroad v. MarcottMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  2. Flint & Pere Marquette Railway Co. v. StarkMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  3. Mann v. MorewoodThe Superior Court of New York City · 1852

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Denman v. JohnstonMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Knahtla v. Oregon Short Line, etc., Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Merkle v. Township of BenningtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Schroeder v. Michigan Car Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Batterson v. Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1884

17 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