Northern Pacific Railroad v. Charless
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE' NINTH CIRCUIT. The case is stated in tbe opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Pecnham
The plaintiff below was an ordinary day laborer employed under a section boss or foreman to keep a- certain portion of the roadbed of the defendant in repair. The foreman had power to employ and dischargenien, and to superintend their work, and was himself a workman. He employed the plaintiff, who, with the rest of the men employed in the gang — some four,' five or six — was carried to and from his work daily on a hand oar worked by the men themselves.
In August, 1886, on the 28th of the month, an accident occurred as the men were on their way to their work. They were using a hand car with…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. BaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Northern Pacific Railroad v. HamblySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
3Cited by49 opinions
- Zikos v. Oregon R. & Navigation Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Washington · 1910
- Martin v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Alaska Treadwell Gold Min. Co. v. WhelanSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- James Stewart & Co. v. NewbyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1920
- Oakes v. MaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.