Legal Opinion

Sanborn v. Detroit, Bay City & Alpena Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1894PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Alpena. (Simpson, J., presiding.) Negligence case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinions, and in 91 Mich. 538.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

The facts in this case will be found fully stated in 91 Mich. 538. No claim is made by the defendant's counsel that the record differs from the former one, while the only difference claimed by plaintiff's counsel appears in their brief in the following language:

“ It appeared from the other record that one or two minutes elapsed from the time of looking and listening and going upon the track. It will be seen by this record that it does not appear that any time, to speak of, elapsed from the lime plaintiff went in front of horses, and looked and listened, and driving upon the track.”

The…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hubbard v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
  2. Turner v. Muskegon Machine & Foundry Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Sanborn v. Detroit, Bay City & Alpena RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. McCullough v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API