Legal Opinion

Propert v. Flanagan

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1923No. Appeal, No. 214PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion bt

Mr. Justice Kephart,

This action was brought to recover for loss of a bam and outbuildings destroyed by fire. The court below directed a nonsuit for the reason plaintiff: failed to establish the fire was due to the negligence of defendant' alone; it might have come from one of three causes: a fire on another property adjoining defendant’s, a defective stove pipe in plaintiff’s washhouse, or the fire on appellee’s dump. The negligence charged and attempted to be proven was starting and continuing a fire in a dangerous place, among materials that were carried by high winds then ensuing.

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. McAvoy v. KromerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  2. O'Malley v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  3. Haverly v. State Line R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  4. Pennsylvania Railroad v. HopeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
  5. Siever v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Hudson v. GraceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  2. Fredericks v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Wolk v. Pittsburgh Hotels Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Haddon v. SnellenburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  5. Venzel v. Valley Camp Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API