Hamilton Circuit Court, 1898

C., H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Shroder

C., H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Shroder
Hamilton Circuit Court · Decided January 15, 1898 · Cox, Smith, Swing
9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 208

Counsel

Thos. L. Michie, and Wm. Schmidt, fr., for Schroder. /, Foraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior, for the Street Railway Company., Ramsey, Maxwell & Ramsey, for C., H. & D. R’y Co.

C., H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Shroder

Opinion of the Court

Swing, J.

We think the judgment in this case should be affirmed, on the ground that there was evidence sufficient before the jury to authorize it in finding that the railway company could have avoided the accident if proper care had been used, even after the street railway car had been placed in its perilous position. And we think the jury had a right to find that the street railway company was not negligent in going on the track of the C., H. & D. R’y Co.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.