Legal Opinion

Mynning v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1888PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Error to Mecosta. (Fuller, J.) Case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChaiiplin, J.

When this case was before us the first time, upon the testimony introduced on the part of the plaintiff, we held that the question of decedent’s contributory negligence was not free from doubt, and that the court did right in submitting the case to the jury. Mynning v. D. L. & N. R. R. Co., 59 Mich. 259.

■ When the case came before us again, we held that, by the plaintiff’s own showing, the deceased was chargeable with such contributory negligence as precluded a recovery (Mynning v. D. L. & N. R. R. Co., 64 Mich. 93), and the case was sent back for a new trial.

Ordinarily, where the plaintiff…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mynning v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Mynning v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Adams v. Iron Cliffs Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Allen v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1975
  3. Westfall v. WaitIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Woodell v. West Virginia Improvement Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Layne v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1935

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API