Legal Opinion

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hilligoss

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1908No. 21,138PublishedCited by 57 opinions

Prom Madison Circuit Court; John F. McClure, Judge. Action by James W. Hilligoss against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & .St. Louis Railway Company. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals-

1Opinion of the CourtHadley, J.

Appellee sues to recover for injuries received in a collision between a freight-car, belonging to appellant, and an electric street-car, under control of appellee, and be*419longing to the Indiana Union Traction Company. Said collision occurred at a grade crossing in the city of Anderson, through the alleged negligence of appellant. There are two paragraphs of complaint, each of which was held good on demurrer for insufficient facts. There are two answers — a general denial and one affirmative — to the latter of which a demurrer for insufficient facts was sustained, and an exception reserved.…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Tompkins v. Clay St. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Abb v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Leddy v. BarneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
  4. McBride v. ScottMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Seither v. Philad. Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Dwy v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
  2. Montgomery v. CrumIndiana Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. GossettIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
  4. York v. InTrust Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1998
  5. McClish v. Niagara MacHine & Tool WorksDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 1967

52 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