Campbell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Campbell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

58 N.W. 880, 90 Iowa 764

DecidedMay 8, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 58 N.W. 880 (Campbell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Campbell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., 58 N.W. 880, 90 Iowa 764 (iowa 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Given, J.

This case was before this court on a former appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment dismissing their petition, the case having been submitted below on the pleadings and on an agreed statement of facts. See 53 N. W. Rep. 351. Said judgment being reversed, and the ease remanded, it was again submitted on the same pleadings and agreed statement of facts, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, from which defendant prosecutes this appeal. The case is now before us upon [765]*765the same abstract and arguments as on the former submission, and no other or different questions are presented. A careful review of those questions fails to discover to us any reason for changing the conclusions announced in the former opinion, and, the judgment now appealed from being in harmony with that opinion, it is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Given, J.

This case was before this court on a former appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment dismissing their petition, the case having been submitted below on the pleadings and on an agreed statement of facts. See 53 N. W. Rep. 351. Said judgment being reversed, and the ease remanded, it was again submitted on the same pleadings and agreed statement of facts, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, from which defendant prosecutes this appeal. The case is now before us upon [765]*765the same abstract and arguments as on the former submission, and no other or different questions are presented. A careful review of those questions fails to discover to us any reason for changing the conclusions announced in the former opinion, and, the judgment now appealed from being in harmony with that opinion, it is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.W. 880, 90 Iowa 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-chicago-milwaukee-st-paul-railway-co-iowa-1894.