Legal Opinion

Hill v. Haynes

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1919No. Docket No. 57PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Kent; Perkins, J. Case by Fred E. Hill against Ralph Haynes and another for personal injuries. Judgment for defendants on a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtKuhn, J.

The testimony taken on the trial of this case discloses that on and prior to June 2, 1917, defendant Haynes was operating a small garage on National avenue in the city of Grand Rapids, where cars were storéd for owners and repairs made as desired. Defendant Haynes was absent from Grand Rapids on that day and the defendant Curren, who was employed in the work of the garage, was left in charge. One Conrad, who had a Chevrolet car stored in the garage, had left directions that a grease leak in the right rear wheel be stopped, and a direction to that effect was written upon a tag card and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Brinkman v. ZuckermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Riley v. RoachMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Eberle Brewing Co. v. Briscoe Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Barnes v. MitchellMichigan Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Loux v. HarrisMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Rupp v. Walgreen Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1933
  4. Barnes v. MitchellMichigan Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Posey Ex Rel. Posey v. KroghNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API