Legal Opinion
Wright v. Holland Furnace Co. Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 3, 1932No. Nos. 28,816, 28,848, 28,849, 28,850PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
Four actions, tried together, resulting in verdict for plaintiffs, each of whom seeks damages for loss of property destroyed in a fire alleged to have been caused by the negligent installation by defendant of a hot air furnace in a residence belonging to plaintiff Edith A. Wright. Defendant appeals from the order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts or a new trial.
The dwelling belonged to plaintiff Edith A. Wright and ivas in a suburb of St. Paul. September 25, 1927, defendant contracted with Edith A. Wright to install a hot air furnace, reserving “the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Schubert v. J. R. Clark Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- O'Brien v. American Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Goar v. Village of StephenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Krahn v. J. L. Owens Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Sleeper v. ParkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Foley v. the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Saylor v. HallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1973
- Dow v. Holly Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Atkins v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Ehlers v. U. S. Heating & Cooling Manufacturing Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.