Legal Opinion

Szostak v. Chevrolet Motor Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1937No. Docket No. 10, Calendar No. 39,284PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFead, C. J.

Plaintiffs owned two adjoining lots, on each of which was a frame flat located one block from defendant’s forge plant. On the claim that drop hammers in the plant caused their buildings to vibrate and damaged them, and noxious fumes were emitted from the plant to their discomfort, plaintiffs commenced two actions against defendant in 1934. The declarations were identical as to allegations of nuisance and negligence and the suits differed only in the respect that in one the damages as to one building were claimed and in the other the damages as to the other building were claimed.

The action as…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Continental Insurance v. H. M. Loud & Sons Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Dutton v. ShawMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  3. Tuttle v. Everhot Heater Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Brewster Loud Lumber Co. v. General Builders' Supply Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Beronio v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Coniglio v. Wyoming Valley Fire Insurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Lahar v. BarnesMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Sweitzer v. LittlefieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
  4. General Accident Fire & Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. SirceyMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Lahar v. BarnesMichigan Supreme Court · 1958

2 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