Legal Opinion
Runt v. Herring
New York Court of Common Pleas
Decided December 5, 1892PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal from trial term. Action by Balthasar Runt against Frank 0. Herring and others to recover for personal injuries arising from defendants’ negligence. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
1Opinion of the CourtPryor, J.
The case is before us on a single exception, and with only so much .of the evidence as is requisite to show the point and pertinency of that exception. On the 19th of January,, 1885, the plaintiff, being in the service of the defendants, but for no definite time, signed the following paper:
“Por and in consideration of employment, and one dollar in hand paid to me by Herring & Co., I hereby agree that, in the event of my receiving any personal injury, accidental or otherwise whether from the fault of other employes or machinery, belting, boilers, engines, trucks, defects of buildings, or from…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Santa Clara Valley Mill and Lumber Co. v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- McNamara v. GargettMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. PeaveySupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- Wentern & Atlantic Railroad v. BishopSupreme Court of Georgia · 1873
- Western & Atlantic Railroad v. StrongSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McKay v. Louisville & Northern RailroadTennessee Supreme Court · 1915
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MahoneyIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Bridger v. GoldsmithNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- Garrison v. C., H. & D. Ry. Co.Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1907
- McKay v. Louisville Northern Railroad Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1915