Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bonneville v. City of Alpena

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1909No. Docket No. 120Published

Error to Alpena; Emerick, J. Case by Antoine E. Bonneville against the city of Alpena for personal injuries. A judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court is reviewed by plaintiff on writ of error.

1DissentBrooke, J.

{dissenting). On September 30, 1907, the plaintiff, a physician, in the city of Alpena, at about the hour of 7:30 p. m., was driving at an ordinary gait along Chisholm street, one of the principal paved streets of the defendant municipality. One Bertrand was the owner of premises on the easterly side of Chisholm street. He desired to connect his premises with the sewer in Chisholm street, which lies under the westerly edge of the pavement. For this purpose he employed one Maynard, a plumber. A few days before the happening of the accident Maynard applied to William Stout, defendant’s street…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hayes v. City of West Bay CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Thompson v. City of West Bay CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Wright v. City of MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1905

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

Powered by the Exa API