Stewart v. Cincinnati, Wabash & Michigan Railway Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Berrien. (O’Hara, J.) Negligence case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in 80 Mich. 166.
1Opinion of the Court
Champlin, 'O. J.
In addition to the facts stated in our former opinion (80 Mich. 166), the defendant introduced testimony which tended to show that the .ditch over which the bridge was constructed at that time was about four feet in width, and that in 1887 a freshet carried off several feet of the planks of the bridge, together with some of the stringers, and left them a short distance to the west. Defendant also introduced testimony tending to show that none of the servants of the defendant were directed to replace the bridge, and the witnesses sworn did not know who did replace it, but it…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carleton v. Franconia Iron & Steel Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Indiana, Bloomington & Western Railway Co. v. BarnhartIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Nichols' Adm'r v. W. O. & W. R. R.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1887
- Diamond State Iron Co. v. GilesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1887
- Stewart v. Cincinnati, Wabash & Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by8 opinions
- Retan v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Dupuis v. Saginaw Valley Traction Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906
- MacKe Laundry Service Co. v. OvergaardMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
- McCormick v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
- People v. FronteraMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.