Montgomery v. Muskegon Booming Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Negligence case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
A fire occurred on plaintiffs’ lumber docks, which consumed certain tramways and docks and a large quantity of lumber. This suit is brought to^ recover the value of the property destroyed, upon the theory that the fire was occasioned by a spark from one of defendant’s tugs by reason of defendant’s negligence. Under the testimony the court should have directed a verdict for defendant.
The declaration contained eight counts, alleging negligence as follows:
1. That defendant “failed to supply the tug with a spark-arrester on its smoke-stack, or with any other *638appliance or device sufficient to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Michigan, Central Railroad v. ColemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Alpern v. ChurchillMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Michigan Central Railroad v. BurrowsMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by11 opinions
- Naudzius v. LahrMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
- Jennings v. SouthwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Richter v. HarperMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Wight v. H. G. Christman Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
- De Shetler v. KordtOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.