Hammer v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R'y Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Polk CvravAt Oouri. The plaintiff is administrator of ~W. H. Hammer, who was a brakeman in tlie employ of tbe defendant, and who was killed, as is claimed, because of tbe negligence of the defendant and its employes. Trial by jury, verdict and judgment for tbe plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtSeevers, J.
I. It is insisted by counsel for tlie appellee that there must be an affirmance, because the assignment of 1. assigN-errors instructions: exactness. errors is not sufficiently specific. A large number of errors are assigned, two of -which . ,. . , T> „ . , ,. are in these words: “ lteiusing instructions one to twenty asked by defendant, and refusing each,” and “ Giving instructions one to eight given by the court, and giving each.” These assignments of error are substantially the same as in Sherwood v. Snow, 46 Iowa, 481, and which were held to be sufficiently specific. See, also, Hawes v.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Price v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Bryan v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Memphis & Ohio River Packet Co. v. McCoolIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Sherwood v. Snow, Foote & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Hawes v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern R'y Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ludwig v. BlackshereSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Ellis v. LeonardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Farmers Savings Bank v. WilkaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Koenigs v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- Ball v. MarquisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.