Needham v. King
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Jackson. (Peck, J.) Cáse. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
McGrath,. J.
Plaintiff sued defendant’s intestate, one Peckham, for damages by reason of a fire which Peckham had ignited on his own premises, and which had communicated with plaintiff’s premises. The following sketch will illustrate the situation of the lands of the, respective, parties:
*305Plaintiff’s north 80, and about two-thirds of Peckham’s north 80, had been marshy land. The ditching left a peaty topsoil. That portion of plaintiff’s 80 immediately north of the county ditch had been partially subdued, and produced a kind of'blue grass. Peckham’s land, south of the county ditch, and extending…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Higgins v. DeweyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Clark v. FootNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Selleck v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Krippner v. BieblSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Stuart v. HawleyNew York Supreme Court · 1856
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lieuallen v. MosgroveOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Mahaffey v. J. L. Rumbarger Lumber Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1907
- Steffens v. FisherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- McVay v. Central California Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1907
- Nall v. TaylorIllinois Supreme Court · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.