Michigan Cent. R. v. Majkzrak
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois; Kenesaw M. Dan-dis, Judge._•_. Action by Anton Majkzrak against the Michigan Central Railroad Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois; Kenesaw M. Dan-dis, Judge._•_. Action by Anton Majkzrak against the Michigan Central Railroad Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Defendant in error, hereinafter denominated “plaintiff,” was employed by plaint iff in error, hereinafter denominated “defendant,” to perform carpenter work in repairing: freight cars at the defendant’s yard in Kensington, Ill. From the record it appears that at the time of the accident he was engaged in doing light…
1Opinion of the CourtKohlsaat, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
[1] Both counsel agree that on the trial the main question in controversy was: “Did defendant’s foreman order or direct the plaintiff to work upon this buzz saw?” Plaintiff, who had the burden of proof, testified that he was so directed, as above stated. In his prima facie evidence, plaintiff was allowed ■ to introduce the testimony of the five witnesses as above set out, for the purpose of corroborating plaintiff’s testimony.
In defense, defendant, among other evidence, introduced the testimony above referred to, controverting the statements of the five…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Reed v. StockmeyerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1896
- Felton v. GirardyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1900
- Hanson v. Ludlow Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Jarvis v. Coes Wrench Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Mountain Copper Co. v. PierceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tweeten v. Tacoma Ry. & Power Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1914