Legal Opinion

Fernette v. Pere Marquette Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 28, 1913No. Docket No. 84PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Error to St. Clair; Tappan, J. Case by Reuben J. Fernette against the Pere Marquette Railroad Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.

(after stating the facts). Consideration will be given to the positions of defendant in their order.

First. This question is now settled adversely to the contention of defendant. Sonsmith v. Railroad Co., 173 Mich. 57 (138 N. W. 347). In reaching the conclusion set out in the opinion in that case, this court gave careful consideration to the arguments upon that question contained in defendant’s brief in the case at bar.

Second, (a) Was “Hoyt” a station-within the meaning of rule 99c? We are disposed to hold that it must be so considered. It is true that the ordinary business usually transacted…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Michigan Central Railroad v. VreelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Carbary v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Fluhrer v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Enright v. Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Whalen v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1897

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Griffin v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
  2. Wilkinson v. United Railroads of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Cole v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1914
  4. Jorgensen v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Kruk v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Ste. Marie Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930

6 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