Carr v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Hancock District Court. — J. J. Clarke, Judge. Action for damages for negligent delay in the shipment of stock. There was a trial to a jury and a verdict for the defendant. Upon motion of plaintiff, a new trial’was ordered. From such order, the defendant has appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtEvans, C. J.
1. Carriers transportation of property: delay: burden of proof: instructions: new trial. The motion for new trial, which was sustained generally, presented twelve grounds. . The defendant, as appellant, maintains as a ground of reversal that no one of the grounds of the motion for new trial was tenable, and that, therefore, the order sus- ... ,. taming the motion was erroneous.
Though the order sustaining the motion was general in form, the trial judge filed a written opinion, indicating at least some of the more persuasive reasons in his mind for sustaining the motion. One of .these was that…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Green-Wheeler Shoe Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Gulf, T. & W. Ry. Co. v. DickeyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- Elliott v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Erisman v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Dye Produce Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925
- Huff v. United Van Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1947
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad v. Linwood Stone Products Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1965
- Bateham v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.