Plott v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tlie Circuit Court for Jumam County. The case is stated in the opinion. The defendants appealed, each independently, from the judgment. They argued, among other things, that their client contracted only to carry the plaintiff to Elroy, the terminus of its line; and this duty it fully performed. In the sale of the ticket to a point beyond such terminus it acted merely as the agent of the other defendant. Hcvrtcm
1Opinion of the Court
The following opinion was filed April 28, 1885:
Taylob, J.
The respondent brought her action in the circuit court to recover damages from the appellant companies for not carrying her directly, and upon the same train, from St. Paul to Wonewoc. The evidence shows that the plaintiff, in the forenoon of the 14th day of August, 1883, purchased a ticket at the Union depot in St. Paul, to be carried over the railroads of the appellants from St. Paul, in Minnesota, to Wonewoc, in this state. After purchasing the ticket the plaintiff asked the ticket agent “ what time the train would leave, and he told…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis Railway Co. v. NuzumIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. RandolphIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Yorton v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Ohio & Mississippi R. W. Co. v. HattonIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. ApplewhiteIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wightman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Campbell v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
- Schiffler v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Atchison, T. & S. F. R. v. CameronCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Church v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.