Legal Opinion

Comstock v. Township of Georgetown

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 14, 1904No. Docket No. 73PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Error to Ottawa; Padgbam, J. Case by Ardon B. Comstock against the -township of Georgetown for personal injuries. There was j’udgment' for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

The plaintiff was injured while driving a traction engine which broke through a bridge which it was the defendant’s duty to maintain. The action is based •upon alleged negligence of the defendant’s officers in allowing certain partially decayed stringers to remain in the bridge. There is some testimony that one or more of the officers had been informed that the stringers were affected to some degree by rot, and the question of notice, as well as the degree of decay, and the propriety of permitting them to remain, were questions for the jury. A verdict being rendered in favor of the plaintiff,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad v. HuntleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Montgomery v. Lansing City Electric Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Jones v. President of PortlandMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Fulton Iron & Engine Works v. Township of KimballMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  5. Township of Medina v. PerkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1882

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Greinke v. Chicago City Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. WileyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
  3. Eamiello v. PiscitelliSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
  4. Gulf Refining Co. v. FrazierCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1934
  5. Higgins v. SteideCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1959

16 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