Legal Opinion

Borneman v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 1905PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county; Hon. Joseph W. Jones, Judge. Action by E. A. Borneman against the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company. Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtHaney, J.

This is an action to recover damages for the loss of a horse belonging to the plaintiff through the alleged negligent operation of one of defendant’s trains. The issues involved are thus stated by the learned circuit court in its charge, to which no exceptions were taken: ' “The evidence in this case shows that the horse was not struck at a crossing, but was struck upon the right of way, upon the track where there was no crossing, on private grounds, and on the railroad right of way. The horse was therefore’a trespasser, and it was not the duty of the locomotive engineer, or of the brakeman,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
  2. Lighthouse v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Waterhouse v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Sheldon v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. FreemanUtah Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Wentzel v. HuebnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1960
  3. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  4. Pemberton v. FrittsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. OliverCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913

5 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