Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Spirk
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Saline county. Tried below before Hastings, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. The petition nowhere alleges that the plaintiffs took passage on a train that was scheduled to stop at the station of Haigler, to which point they held tickets. Nor does it allege that the train on which they took passage would or should stop at said station under any rule or regulation of the railroad company. The petitions were therefore defective.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Saline county. Tried below before Hastings, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. The petition nowhere alleges that the plaintiffs took passage on a train that was scheduled to stop at the station of Haigler, to which point they held tickets. Nor does it allege that the train on which they took passage would or should stop at said station under any rule or regulation of the railroad company. The petitions were therefore defective. (Ohio & M. R. Go. v. Hatton, 60 Ind., 15; Pittsburg, G. & St. L. R. Go. v. Numm, 50 Ind, 141; Ohio <£• M. R. Go. v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Harrison, J.. John and Eman Spirt commenced separate actions against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company to recover damages alleged to have accrued in their favor on account of their unlawful and wrongful expulsion, prior to arrival at their destination, from one of the trains of the company, upon which they were passengers. The alleged causes of action had their origin in the same state of facts; hence after issues joined the causes were, on motion presented therefor, consolidated, the evidence introduced but once and the one jury returned a verdict thereon in each case…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Candee v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Vosburg v. PutneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1891
- Indianapolis, Bloomington & Western Ry. Co. v. BirneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Patter v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lindh v. Great Northern Railway CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Stone v. Union Pacific RailroadUtah Supreme Court · 1907
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. KerrNebraska Supreme Court · 1905
- Nye v. AdamsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1936
- Spirk v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.