Legal Opinion · Dissent

Krause v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 20, 1925No. 24,177Published

1DissentQuinn, J.

(dissenting.)

I dissent. It is undisputed that, in moving to the log track, it was necessary for the loeocomotive to backup, pushing the 7 cars east past the depot and water tank; that the time of taking water was always for the engineer to determine; that it was the custom to go on to the log track with a full tank of water; that this custom was known to all members of the crew; that there was a street crossing about 3 carlengths east from the water tank; that there was a slack of from 6 to 12 inches in each coupling between cars; that the air was not connected on the string; that, when the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Wyatt v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Eisentrager v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1916
  3. Thomas v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  4. Rogers v. GookinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  5. Perkins v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922

4 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