Hill v. Day
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions by the plaintiff. Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff and caused by the falling of plastering upon the plaintiff from the ceiling in the kitchen of a certain dwelling house owned by the defendant Day. Plea, the general issue. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, the presiding Justice ordered a nonsuit.
Read the full summary
On exceptions by the plaintiff. Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff and caused by the falling of plastering upon the plaintiff from the ceiling in the kitchen of a certain dwelling house owned by the defendant Day. Plea, the general issue. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, the presiding Justice ordered a nonsuit. To this ruling and certain other rulings excluding certain testimony the plaintiff excepted. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtKing, J.
This case comes up on exceptions to an order of non-suit, and other exceptions by plaintiff to the exclusion of testimony. The action is to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the falling of plastering upon the plaintiff from the ceiling in the kitchen of a dwelling house owned by the defendant Day.
Exceptions to the order of nonsuit.
The declaration alleges that the house was occupied by Clementine R. Foss (one of the defendants) under a contract with Day, and used by her as a dwelling house and for the letting of rooms. No evidence, however, was introduced…
2Cited by10 opinions
- De Motte v. ArkellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- In Re All Maine Asbestos LitigationDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1984
- Bauer v. 141-149 Cedar Lane Holding Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
- Farber v. GreenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Midland Oil Co. v. ThigpenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1924
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.