Legal Opinion

Ephland v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 6, 1896PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Lay, Judge.

1Opinion of the Court

Ellison and Gill, JJ.

Af¡ce^hisTruc-ac" tions."new ques' We can not agree to the following opinion. We do not find anything in the record to justify the discussion contained the opinion.. Defendant did not ask to have the questions submitted to the jury, whether Lamb was a “hind” or swinging brakeman; or whether he had any duty to perform in the caboose, whether with the brake or otherwise; or whether he was acting in the line of his employment when he made the exclamations charged. All of defendant’s instructions are silent as to each of these matters discussed by Judge Smith.

EIsTwitn¿ssfty…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Garretzen v. DuenckelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
  2. Snyder v. Han. & St. Jos. R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1875
  3. Iron Mountain Bank v. MurdockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  4. Devitt v. Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
  5. Clark v. HammerleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Bond v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904

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

Powered by the Exa API