Wines v. Crosby & Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Rohnert, J. Case by Julia Wines against Crosby & Company, SixEive-Eour Manufacturing Company, and Charles E. Crosby for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. On motion for a new trial, the verdict was set aside, and the motion granted as to the Six-Five-Four Manufacturing Company, and denied as to the other defendants, who bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
The plaintiff, a married woman, 28 years old at the time of the injury herein complained of, brought this action against Charles F. Crosby, Crosby & Co., and *211the 6-5-4 Manufacturing Company, the last two named defendants being corporations, to recover damages for a personal injury received by her on June 15,1907, through a severe burning, occasioned by the alleged inflammable nature of a compound, or stove polish, known as “ 6-5-4, Self Shining Lusta,” that she was using to polish a Peninsular coal range. It was the claim of the plaintiff that the article in question was manufactured and sold…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Fanning v. . OsborneNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Phelps v. . WaitNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Nunnelly v. Southern Iron Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1895
- Greenberg v. Whitcomb Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Clement v. Crosby & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Department of Agriculture v. Appletree Marketing, LLCMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
- Warren Tool Co. v. StephensonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
- Allen v. Morris Building Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1960
- Baranowski v. StratingMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- Bailey v. SchaafMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.