Ragsdale v. Northern Pac. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
At Law. On demurrer to answer.
1Opinion of the CourtShiras, J.
In the amended complaint filed in this cause it is averred that on the 17th day of March, 1888, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant company as a locomotive fireman; that in the performance of his duty as such he was on that day required to go upon engine No. 181, which was pulling a train between Missoula and Arlee, upon the line of defendant’s road, in -the then territory of Montana; that, through the fault and negligence of the defendant, a collision occurred between the train on which plaintiff was employed and another train belonging to defendant, near the station called…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
3Cited by6 opinions
- St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. NeedhamCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
- Northern Pac. R. v. MaseCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
- Criswell v. Montana Central Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1895
- Neal v. Northern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Southern Railway Co. v. CheavesMississippi Supreme Court · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.