Olchefsky v. Mercier, Bryant, Larkins Brick Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.
(after stating the facts). 1. Defendant’s claim that the boilers and furnaces were installed according to approved methods and operated in accordance with the common practice has support in the testimony of qualified witnesses called by it. But this testimony is not undisputed. Plaintiff’s testimony tends to support plaintiff’s claim that proper methods were not used in its operation, and that it was not of proper construction. Of course, on this issue the burden was on plaintiff, but upon a motion to direct a verdict for defendant the testimony and its legitimate inferences most favorable to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Olivier v. Houghton County Street-Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1903
- Beach v. City of St. JosephMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Paperno v. Michigan Railway Engineering Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
- Swaczyk v. Detroit Edison Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Nelson v. GloverMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Jones v. Eastern Michigan MotorbusesMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Pevesdorf v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- National Liberty Insurance v. FothMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
- Veley v. BurtMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
- Wann v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.