Legal Opinion

Sullivan v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1925No. Docket No. 107PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

Plaintiff, engaged in lumbering operations, made up a small raft enclosed in a bag boom, slightly over 300 feet across, consisting of handle wood, hardwood, saw* logs, ties and pulp wood at Mosquito bay, about six and one-half miles above the locks and rapids at Sault Ste. Marie. This occurred June 24, 1923. The water was shallow there and calm. The raft was not secured as required by section 6656, 2 Comp. Laws 1915, but two 80-pound anchors were thrown out. No lights were placed on the raft; plaintiff expected to> tow it the following morning to its destination. The work was completed about…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. The OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Belden v. ChaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. Gibbard v. CursanMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  4. The MartelloSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  5. Neall v. GenthnerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. MarvinMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Leszczymski v. Andrew Radel Oyster Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
  3. Thorneal v. Cape Pond Ice Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
  4. Dundee v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. Robins v. KatzMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986

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