Flint v. Norwich and Worcester Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, to recover for injuries to the plaintiff’s horse and wagon Trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., who, before ver diet, by consent of the parties, made a report of the case, of whicl the material part was as follows : “ The defendants’ railroad, and the Boston, Hartford and Erie Railroad, cross a highway in Webster,, at grade, parallel to each ' other. The former railroad runs north and south, and is twenty-five feet east of the latter.
Read the full summary
Tort, to recover for injuries to the plaintiff’s horse and wagon Trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., who, before ver diet, by consent of the parties, made a report of the case, of whicl the material part was as follows : “ The defendants’ railroad, and the Boston, Hartford and Erie Railroad, cross a highway in Webster,, at grade, parallel to each ' other. The former railroad runs north and south, and is twenty-five feet east of the latter. The highway runs east and west. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that his servant was driving the plaintiff’s horse, with a…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
It does not appear that there was any fault in the management of the cars, or that they were the cause of the accident. There was not sufficient evidence to authorize a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment for the defendant».
2Cited by7 opinions
- Norton v. Eastern RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Lepard v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Butcher v. West Virginia & P. R.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1892
- Everett v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Southern Railway Co. v. CooperSupreme Court of Virginia · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.