Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Sims
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district- court of Richardson county. Tried below before Broady, J., upon the following stipulation at facts: It is stipulated in this case that the facts are as follows r The plaintiff owned the animal that was killed. He lived close to the defendant’s railroad track, on the north' side of track.
Read the full summary
Error to the district- court of Richardson county. Tried below before Broady, J., upon the following stipulation at facts: It is stipulated in this case that the facts are as follows r The plaintiff owned the animal that was killed. He lived close to the defendant’s railroad track, on the north' side of track. There was a strip of grass land along and near the railroad track, and back from the track on the north; the land was cultivated south of the railroad track, and a few rods away was the Nemaha river. The plaintiff worked the animal during the day-time June 3, 1883, and! at night turned…
1Opinion of the CourtEeese, J.
The principal question involved in this case is, whether the plaintiff in error was liable for the value of stock killed by its train in the night time, the stock being allowed to run at large in violation of law. Comp, Stat., Ch. 72, Art. I.
This question was before this court in B. & M. R. R. Co v. Brinkman, 14 Neb., 70, and we think that decision fully eovers this case. In the opinion of the court, written by Judge Maxwell, the following language occurs, which we adopt as decisive of the case, viz.: “ The statute requires all railroad companies which have been in operation six months to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burlington & Missouri River Railroad v. BrinkmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1883