Lindner v. Michel
Ellen Lindner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George Michel, Defendant-Respondent
Opinion of the Court
Pee Oueiam.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons set forth in its opinion. The Supreme Court said: “But there is an absence of testimony here that the owner caused the condition complained of or that the improper use of the sidewalk by the unloading of beer kegs was done with his knowledge and for his benefit.” We do not believe that there was any evidence that the alleged defect in the sidewalk was caused by the unloading of beer kegs thereon, and in so far as the quoted language may support such an inference, we are in disagreement therewith.
For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Case, Bobine, Donges, Hehee, Poetee, Colie, Deae, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeeety, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.