Dowling v. Gerard B. Allen & Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals relied on cG-ow an v. B. B. Co., 61 Mo. 528; Nolan v. Shiekle, 3 Mo. App. 300 ; Marshall v. Schricker, 63 Mo. 308; Hayden v. Smithville Man’f’g Co., 29 Conn. 548. relied on Coombs v. New Bedford C. Co., 102 Mass. 572; Conroy v. Vulcan Iron Works, 62 Mo. 35; Whalen v. Centenary Church, 62 Mo. 326; Mauerman v. Siemerts, 71 Mo. 105; Norton v. Ittner, 56 Mo. 351; Wyatt v. B. B. Co., 55 Mo. 485; Loioling v. Allen, 6 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals relied on cG-ow an v. B. B. Co., 61 Mo. 528; Nolan v. Shiekle, 3 Mo. App. 300 ; Marshall v. Schricker, 63 Mo. 308; Hayden v. Smithville Man’f’g Co., 29 Conn. 548. relied on Coombs v. New Bedford C. Co., 102 Mass. 572; Conroy v. Vulcan Iron Works, 62 Mo. 35; Whalen v. Centenary Church, 62 Mo. 326; Mauerman v. Siemerts, 71 Mo. 105; Norton v. Ittner, 56 Mo. 351; Wyatt v. B. B. Co., 55 Mo. 485; Loioling v. Allen, 6 Mo. App. 195; Keegan v. Kavanaugh, 62 Mo. 233 ; Dale v. B’y Co., 63 Mo. 455 ; Cookv. B. B. Co., 63 Mo. 397 ;• O’ Flaherty v.B. B. Co., 45 Mo. 70…
1Opinion of the CourtHenry, J.
"We have adopted the statement of this case made by the court of appeals, having, from an examination of the record, found it substantially correct.
!£his is an action for damages for injuries done to plaintiff whilst in the,employ of defendants, a corporation carrying on a foundry in St. Louis. At the close of plaintiff’s case, defendants offered an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, which was granted. Plaintiff then took a non-suit, and the court having overruled a motion to set it aside,- plaintiff appeals. There was evi*15dence tending to show the following facts:…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Dolner v. The MonticelloU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1870
- Hayden v. Smithville Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- Porter v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Smith v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1878
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. AdamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. FrawleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Hunn v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Camp v. HallSupreme Court of Florida · 1897
- Evansville & Richmond Railroad v. MadduxIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.