Advance Gin & Mill Co. v. Thomas

Mississippi Supreme Court

Advance Gin & Mill Co. v. Thomas

81 Miss. 486

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1902·Published

Opinion

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We cannot concur with counsel for appellant that the general law as to public nuisances has any pertinancy to this case, which is an action for damages for a specific injury, caused by a specific act of negligence.

The jury found for plaintiff, and it is not conceivable that their verdict could have been affected whether the action of the court below in reference to Morrissey’s testimony or the Clendenning subpoena was right or wrong.

In the instructions given for defendant it got the benefit of every principle it was entitled to under the evidence.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We cannot concur with counsel for appellant that the general law as to public nuisances has any pertinancy to this case, which is an action for damages for a specific injury, caused by a specific act of negligence.

The jury found for plaintiff, and it is not conceivable that their verdict could have been affected whether the action of the court below in reference to Morrissey’s testimony or the Clendenning subpoena was right or wrong.

In the instructions given for defendant it got the benefit of every principle it was entitled to under the evidence.

Affirmed.

Advance Gin & Mill Co. v. Thomas, 81 Miss. 486 (Mich. 1902).

Pincite

81 Miss. 486 (Advance Gin & Mill Co. v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.