Grinde v. M. & St. P. R. Co.
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pomerantz v. Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corp. (Iowa 1931)
- Orr v. Des Moines Electric Light Co. (Iowa 1928)
- Monaghan v. Equitable Life Insurance (Iowa 1918)
- Hanen v. Lenander (Iowa 1916)
- Griffin v. City of Marion (Iowa 1914)
- Sherman v. Southern Pacific Co. (Nev. 1910)
- Gordon v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. (Iowa 1906)
- Dorr Cattle Co. v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. (Iowa 1905)
- Adams Express Co. v. Aldridge (Colo. App. 1904)
- Adams Express Co. v. Aldridge (Colo. App. 1904)
- Collett v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. (Wash. 1900)
- Snyder v. Fort Madison Street Railway Co. (Iowa 1898)
- Omaha & Republican Valley Railway Co. v. Wright (Neb. 1896)
- Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co. v. Jones (Fla. 1894)
- McGonigle v. Kane (Colo. 1894)
- Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co. v. Garrison (Fla. 1892)
- Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad v. Barnes (Ind. Ct. App. 1891)
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Smith (Tex. 1889)
- Fisher v. Golladay (Mo. Ct. App. 1889)
- Hanselman v. Carstens (Mich. 1886)
- Wilson v. Denver, South Park & Pacific Railroad (Colo. 1883)
- Wilson v. D., S. P. & P. R. R. (Colo. 1883)
- Wilson v. D., S. P. & P. R. R. (Colo. 1883)
- Otto v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1882)
- Clark v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. (Minn. 1881)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We are of opinion that the petition is sufficiently specific. It does not follow, because negligence is a mixed question of law and fact, that the general allegation is pleading a legal conclusion only. The facts necessary to be pleaded are not merely physical facts. It is not allowable to jilead mere abstract conclusions of law, having no element of fact; they form no jiart of the allegations constituting a cause of action; but if they contain the elements also of a fact, construing the language in its ordinary meaning, then force and effect must be given to them as allegations of fact, as when necessaries are furnished to an infant, or when a deed or mortgage is alleged as having been made, or the ownership of property is asserted; the general allegation is sufficient, being the ultimate fact to he established by evidence. To allege more would be to plead the evidence which is not allowable. Oldfield v. N. Y. & Harlem R. Co., 14 N. Y., 310; Nolton v. Western B. Co., 15 N. Y., 444.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.