Legal Opinion · Dissent

Voss v. Wagner Palace Car Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 20, 1896No. 1,823Published

Prom the Marion Superior Court.

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion.

'Ross, J.

I am unable to concur in holding either that the appellee, the Wagner Palace Car Company is liable as a common carrier, or that a duty was owing to appellee from it, which it neglected to perform.

The substance of the facts found by the jury in their special verdict, after finding that the appellee railroad company, with other railroad companies, formed a line from New York City to Indianapolis; that appellant purchased a ticket from the former to the latter point, and entered a car belonging to the appellee, the Wagner Palace. Car Company, attached to the -train…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Lewis v. New York Sleeping Car Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
  2. Woodruff Sleeping & Parlor Coach Co. v. DiehlIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Root v. New York Central Sleeping-Car Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1887
  5. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. LoweNebraska Supreme Court · 1889

8 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