Legal Opinion

Montgomery v. Muskegon Booming Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1891PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Michigan, Central Railroad v. ColemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Alpern v. ChurchillMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Michigan Central Railroad v. BurrowsMichigan Supreme Court · 1875

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Naudzius v. LahrMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Jennings v. SouthwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Richter v. HarperMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Wight v. H. G. Christman Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
  5. De Shetler v. KordtOhio Court of Appeals · 1931

6 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