Legal Opinion

Amenia & Sharon Land Co. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 1922Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Grace;, J.

(Dissenting in part and concurring in part). This is an appael from five judgments of the district court of Cass county, wherein a judgment was entered in each case in favor of the plaintiff and again the defendant. It is stipulated that the same evidence and exhibits may be considered as the record in all cases.

The cases grew out of a railroad crossing accident. The crossing is located a short distance south of Detroit, Minn., and is known as McCarty’s crossing. The damages claimed is for compensation for injuries there received to persons or property. All the cases were…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Bartolozzi v. MallegniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  2. New York Cent. & H. R. R. v. MaidmentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1909
  3. Kinyon v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
  4. Hendrickson v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
  5. Cathcart v. Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1917

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API