Legal Opinion

Swift & Co. v. Fue

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided November 30, 1896PublishedCited by 2 opinions

'Trespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tdthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1896.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Waterman

Upon the trial of this cause, the plaintiff introduced in evidence, against the objections of the defendant, the following ordinance of the city of Chicago:

“ In every factory, workshop or other place or structure where machinery is employed, the belting, shafting, gearing, elevators and every other thing, where so located as to endanger the lives and limbs of those employed therein while in the discharge of their duties, shall be, as far as practicable, so covered or guarded as to insure against any injury to such employes.”

Among other objections to the introduction of this ordinance, it is…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. BodemerIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
  2. McRickard v. . FlintNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  3. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. JohnsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Illinois Central Railroad v. WelchIllinois Supreme Court · 1869
  5. Smith v. Peninsular Car WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hall v. United States Radiator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
  2. Schulk v. Joliet & Southern Traction Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API