Legal Opinion

La Londe v. Trans St. Mary's Traction Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1906No. Docket No. 38PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Error to Chippewa; Steere, J. Case by Joseph La Londe against the Trans St. Mary’s Traction Company for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment for injuries done him by a street car belonging to defendant corporation. The case is brought here by writ of error. Appellant’s counsel state the issues to be: First, that on plaintiff’s own statement of his case appellant was entitled to a direction that plaintiff was guilty of contributory *78negligence, as a matter of law, and could not recover; and, second, that error was committed in refusing to permit the witness Stadley to answer a question as to his opinion of the speed the car was going at the time of the collision.

Taking up these issues in the order…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Chauvin v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Gaffka v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1906

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Putnam v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  2. McQuisten v. Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Alabama City G. & A. Ry. Co. v. BessiereSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  4. Brown v. Ann Arbor RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Seebach v. Michigan United Railways Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913

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