Asbach v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Decatur District Court. — Hon. John W. Harvey, Judge. Action for tlie recovery of double tbe value of a horse which plaintiff alleges was killed on defendant’s railroad at a point where it had the right to fence its track, but where it had neglected to fence the same. The cause was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was entered for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtReed, J.
*2501. Evidence: tSf-’what1" necessary. 2. rau.koads: stool?from fence :°iíabmty. *249The main question in the case is whether .the judgment is supported by the evidence. It is undisputed that the animal in question was killed while running at large by falling from a bridge oii defendant’s railroad, and that the track at that point was not fenced. None of the witnesses claim to have seen the accident, and the exact time when it occurred cannot be determined from the testimony. The engineers who were employed on that part of the road were examined, and each testified in effect that the animal was not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Young v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1876
3Cited by90 opinions
- Hyer v. City of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Whetstine v. MoravecSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
- Gardner v. SeymourWashington Supreme Court · 1947
- Davis v. DennertNebraska Supreme Court · 1956
- Hayes v. StunkardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
85 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.