Veit v. Ann Arbor Railroad
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Gratiot; Searl; J. Case by Albert 0. Veit against the Ann Arbor- Railroad Company for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtBlair, J.
Plaintiff, engineer of defendant’s train No. 7, brings this action to recover damages for injuries received near Mesick in a head-end collision with the detached engine of freight train No. 42. Mesick is a day and night telegraph station on defendant’s northern division. North of Mesick about three miles is Bagnall, which is a flag station. Between Mesick and Bagnall, and about two miles north of Mesick, there was a siding known as ‘‘ Claggett’s Siding.”
On the 18th day of March, 1905, an extra freight train, known as 42, was running south, and at Bagnall *359Biding nine cars and the tank of the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Jones v. Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Fernette v. Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. QuinnIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Moyer v. Ann Arbor RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Rogers v. Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1911