Legal Opinion

McCullough v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1894PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Schoolcraft. (Steere, J.) Negligence case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment obtained at the circuit for an injury sustained near defendant’s railway, at its crossing of a highway.

Plaintiff was riding in a cutter with her husband, upon a highway that was nearly parallel with defendant’s track for about three-fourths of a mile, varying in distance from the track from 35 to 200 feet. This highway finally crossed the track, near the place of the accident, at an angle of about 45 degrees. To the east of this crossing was a sharp curve around a hill which lay to the eastward of the highway, rendering it impossible to see the train…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Geveke v. Grand Rapids & Indiana RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Sanborn v. Detroit, Bay City & Alpena RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Jensen v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Randolph v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Foster v. East Jordan Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Quirk v. Rapid RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1902

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

Powered by the Exa API