Legal Opinion

Cole v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1893PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Error to 'Washtenaw. (Kinne, J.) Negligence case. ’Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in 69 Mich. 363, and 81 Id. 156.

1Opinion of the CourtG-rant, J.

The liability of the defendant in this case has been determined by former adjudications of this Court. *79Cross v. Railway Co., 69 Mich. 363; Cole v. Railway Co., 81 Id. 156. 'A full statement of the facts involved will there be found, rendering any further statement here unnecessary.1 The only errors assigned relate to the admission of testimony and the charge of the court. Several of these were disposed of in the former opinion, and need not now be mentioned.

1. Plaintiff's physician had testified fully in regard to her condition, the disease from which- she suffered, and its probable cause. He…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cross v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Gardner v. BartholomewNew York Supreme Court · 1863

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Bunce v. Mc MahonWyoming Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Bird v. Hart-Parr Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1914
  3. Connell v. McNettMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  4. McCormick v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
  5. People v. BreenMichigan Supreme Court · 1916

6 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