Legal Opinion

Sherwood v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 1891PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Kent. (Grove, J.) Negligence case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in the former report of the case, in 82 Mich. 374.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

A statement of the facts and general principles governing this case will be found in 82 Mich. 374. The new trial granted resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. "We adhere to the opinion in that case, Mr. Justice Long speaking for the Court, and in the present case' will determine only the new questions raised.

1. It was competent to show that no conductors or trainmen were at the platform where plaintiff alighted to assist passengers in alighting. Plaintiff’s -counsel disclaimed- any right to recover for that reason, but only offered it to show the surroundings.

2. After the trial…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Sherwood v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. AdamoWashington Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Easton v. MedemaMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Copeland v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
  4. Forsythe v. Thompson's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Ballance v. DunningtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1929

1 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