Norfolk Beet-Sugar Co. v. Hight
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from tbe district court of Madison county. Tried below before Allen, J. See opinion for statement of tbe case. 'Tbe amendment to tbe petition introduced a new cause of action, ag'ainst wbicb tbe plea of tbe statute of limitations should bave been sustained. See Union P. R. Go. v. Wyler, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep., 877; Denman v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Go., 52 Nebr., 140; Mayo m.
Read the full summary
Error from tbe district court of Madison county. Tried below before Allen, J. See opinion for statement of tbe case. 'Tbe amendment to tbe petition introduced a new cause of action, ag'ainst wbicb tbe plea of tbe statute of limitations should bave been sustained. See Union P. R. Go. v. Wyler, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep., 877; Denman v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Go., 52 Nebr., 140; Mayo m. Spartanburg, Ü. '& G. R. Go., 21 S. E. Rep. [S.'Car.], 10; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Go. v. Jones, 37 N. E. Rep. [111.], 247; American Salt Go. v. Heidenheimer, 15 S. W. Rep. [Tex.], 1038; Anniston & A. R. Go. v. Ledbetter, 9 So.…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
The plaintiff, Thomas G. Hight, recovered a judgment against the Norfolk Beet-Sugar Company on account of personal injuries which he sustained while engaged in the service of the defendant. The original petition alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant in its sugar factory as a common laborer; that in the room where he was at work there was a rapidly moving belt used to propel certain machinery; that defendant’s foreman negligently ordered plaintiff to take a gunnysack and wipe from such belt some water which had accumulated thereon; that plaintiff had no experience in the use…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Scovill v. GlasnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Consolidated Coal Co. v. HaenniIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Smith v. Peninsular Car WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Kuhns v. Wisconsin, Iowa & Nebraska Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- North Chicago Rolling Mill Co. v. MonkaIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Fitter v. Iowa Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Shirley M. Russell v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company and Consumers Public Power DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1962
- West Omaha Investments v. Sanitary & Improvement District No. 48Nebraska Supreme Court · 1988
- Muenchau v. SwartsNebraska Supreme Court · 1960
- Johnson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1907
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.