Legal Opinion

Williams v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 1894PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Cass. (O’Hara, J.) ■ Negligence case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment for personal injuries received by falling into a cattle guard, fromi which defendant appealed. The' principal contest in the-case was over the question of defendant’s operation of the-road; it being claimed that it was not in possession of the-railroad at the time of the accident, though it was after-wards. The road was owned by another company. The-plaintiff claims that there was sufficient evidence that-defendant was in possession of the road at the time of the-accident to raise a question for the jury. The evidence of' the plaintiff upon the subject consisted…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pierson v. SpauldingMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Grawey v. BOARD OF ROAD COMMISSIONERSMichigan Court of Appeals · 1973
  2. Stoddard v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Cudahy Packing Co. v. BroadbentSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
  4. Yagunchok v. RutledgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Muth ex. of Reuter v. St. Louis & Meramec River RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API