Kundinger v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.
16 N.W. 330, 51 Mich. 185, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 560
Opinion
The only question in this case is whether the evidence in the case conclusively made out negligence ■on the part of plaintiff contributing to the injury of which he complains. Unless it did, he was entitled to recover. "We find, on examination, that there was evidence of such [186] negligence, and also evidence of dne care; and the question-having been decided on the facts in plaintiffs favor, the finding is conclusive, and no question of law arises for decision now.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kundinger v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co., 16 N.W. 330, 51 Mich. 185, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 560 (Mich. 1883).
16 N.W. 330 (Kundinger v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lynch v. Grayson
5 N.M. 487 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1891)
Neumann v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co.
23 N.W. 600 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1885)