Legal Opinion
Sather v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 29, 1889PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
1. The statute (Laws 1876, c. 24, amended by Laws 1877, c. 73, — Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, §§ 54,.57) requires all railroads “to build and maintain good and sufficient cattle-guards at all wagon-crossings, and good and substantial fences on each side of such road.” And a failure to build and maintain cattle-guards and fences as above provided is to be deemed an act of negligence- The term “wagon-crossing,” used in the statute, refers to crossings for public travel on roads, highways, or streets. Greeley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 136, (22 N. W. Rep. 179.) It means established *92wagon…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Greeley v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Brooks v. New-York & Erie RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Cook v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by5 opinions
- Clarke v. Ohio River R.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1894
- Reynolds v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Lindemann v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Omaha & R. V. R. v. SeverinNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- McLaughlin v. BetcherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902