Legal Opinion

Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railway Co. v. Davis

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1890No. 14,548PublishedCited by 8 opinions

From the Decatur Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.

— The appellee, at the time he was employed to render the professional services which he seeks to recover the value of in this action, was a physician and surgeon, in regular practice at Morris, in this State. He was employed directly by one of the appellant’s conductors, by whom he was informed that a telegram had been received from the appellant’s general superintendent authorizing his employ*100ment, to give professional attention to a man who had been injured by one of the appellant’s trains. The telegram of the superintendent was addressed to the conductor, and reads thus : “ Stop at Morris…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. McMurrayIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Railway Co. v. McVayIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. BrownIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. StockwellIndiana Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Parrot v. Mexican Central Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
  2. Bedford Belt Railway Co. v. McDonaldIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
  3. Toledo, St. Louis & Kansas City Railroad v. MylottIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
  4. Weinsberg v. St. Louis Cordage Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
  5. Evans v. Marion Mining Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903

3 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