Legal Opinion

Dayton & Troy Electric Ry. Co. v. Bradford

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided July 2, 1923PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtKtjnkle, J.

Defendants in error, G-. F. Bradford and E. F. Routsong, are partners engaged in the undertaking business in the city of Dayton. In March, 1921, they were employed by W. E. Roberts, an undertaker of Dayton, to convey a body from that city to New Bremen, Ohio, for burial. They started from Dayton for New Bremen, and were riding on the driver’s seat of a hearse belonging to defendants in error, in which was contained the casket and body. The hearse was being driven by Bradford. Mr. Roberts was riding beside him. They drove north on the Dayton and Troy pike and when they arrived at Stop 5, on…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Evans v. Erie R.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Peotone & Manteno Union Drainage District v. AdamsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1895

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

Powered by the Exa API