Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Bayfield
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Marquette. Trespass on t-he case for damages under Oomp. L., § 2351, for the negligent killing of the plaintiff’s intestate and next of kin. The facts are in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, C. J.
The case of the plaintiff in the court below was substantially the following:
In May, 1875, Williams, the intestate, a young man between seventeen and eighteen years of age, was living with his mother, the plaintiff, and his sister. He was a little lame, and not strong intellectually. He was employed by the railway company and set at work as a common laborer *208with a construction train at one dollar and forty cents per day, which were then the customary wages of common laborers. Brakemen at the same time were paid two dollars a day. It was not shown that in hiring Williams anything was said…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Railroad Company v. FortSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Chicago & North Western Railroad v. SwettIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- City of Chicago v. PowersIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Ryan v. . FowlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by129 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. AdamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- City of Delphi v. LoweryIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Brazil Block Coal Co. v. HoodletIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
- Dickson v. WaldronIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- Smith v. Peninsular Car WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
124 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.