Burns v. Windfall Manufacturing Co.
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Tipton Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtHackney, J.
The question in this case is the sufficiency of a paragraph of complaint by the appellant *262against the appellee. It was alleged that the appellant' was employed, in hauling clay from a pit into appellee’s tile mill by means of cars pulled up an inclined railway, in which employment he was required to ride upon such cars; that while returning to the pit, on the occasion in question, the car in which he was riding struck a point where the ends of two of the rails of said way reared up and overlapped, causing said car to stop suddenly, thereby precipitating the appellant to the ground and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Indianapolis & St. Louis Railway Co v. WatsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Rothenberger v. Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Chicago Drop Forge & Foundry Co. v. Van DamIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Graham v. Newburg Orrel Coal & Coke Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1893
- Schlitz v. Pabst Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Inland Steel Co. v. GillespieIndiana Supreme Court · 1914
- McFarlan Carriage Co. v. PotterIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
- Foster v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Standard Oil Co. v. HelmickIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Andrecsik v. New Jersey Tube Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.