Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Burnham v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 1909No. 15,367Published

Appeal from tbe district court for Lancaster county: Albert J. Cornish, Judge.

1ConcurrenceLetton, J.

I concur in the opinion for the reason that to hold otherwise at this time would be to change the law which has been in force in this state since the case of Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Hogan, 30 Neb. 686. In that case it appeared that, if that portion of the depot grounds not within the city limits had been fenced, it would have required the construction of cattle-guards and wing-fences across the track. It was stipulated in that case that it would be unsafe to the railroad employees if cattle-guards and fences were erected.. To quote from the opinion: “It is stipulated by the parties that it…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. HoganNebraska Supreme Court · 1890

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

Powered by the Exa API