Legal Opinion

Alexander v. City of Big Rapids

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 1889PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Mecosta. (Palmer, J.) Negligence case. Plaintiff brings error. The facts, and points of counsel passed upon by the Court, are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

In this case the court submitted to the jury the question whether the injury was received on the sidewalk or the cross-walk. The jury found that the place where the accident occurred was where the sidewalk was torn up. But the court instructed the jury that the six feet of walk filling the corner of Pine street and Rose avenue was, according to the custom and practice of the city, sidewalk, and not cross-walk, as it was required to be built by the lot-owner and not by the city. This would have undoubtedly been correct, had it not been for the action of the city in tearing up and removing this…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Detroit v. BeckmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Southwell v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Williams v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Alexander v. City of Big RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Malloy v. Township of WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Beattie v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Belyea v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Speck v. Township of BruceMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Burrell v. City of GreenvilleMichigan Supreme Court · 1903

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