Legal Opinion
E. L. Cleveland Co. v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided July 19, 1934PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHudson, J.
“Law” on brief statement of facts.
Under a written permit from the defendant Companycdated July 12, 1932, the plaintiff maintained a potato warehouse “on land of the defendant but not used by it in the operation of its railroad.” On May 18, 1933, this warehouse with its contents was destroyed by fire, communicated to it from the defendant’s locomotive.
This action to recover fire loss is based on Section 63 of Chapter 64, R. S. 1930, which provides:
“When a building or other property is injured by fire communicated by a locomotive engine the corporation using it is responsible for such injury,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. MatthewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. NebraskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. MathewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Griswold v. Illinois Central Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1894
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Emery Waterhouse Co. v. LeaSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983
- Pettit Grain & Potato Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Clifton Forge-Waynesboro Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1976
- Ætna Ins. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1935
- Denaco v. BlancheSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.