Montgomery Light & Water Power Co. v. Miller

Fifth Circuit

Montgomery Light & Water Power Co. v. Miller

182 F. 1023, 104 C.C.A. 669, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4997

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 1910

DocketNo. 2,054

StatusPublished

This text of 182 F. 1023 (Montgomery Light & Water Power Co. v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Montgomery Light & Water Power Co. v. Miller, 182 F. 1023, 104 C.C.A. 669, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4997 (5th Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The evidence of plaintiff below tended to show that the installment of electric wires, including the hanging of the chandeliers, in the residence of J. E. Dowe, was by the authority of the Montgomery Light & Water Power Company, and that said company was primarily responsible for negligence in relation thereto. While there is some evidence tending to show that the electrician, Mosely, who actually did the work, was in such matters an independent contractor, the weight of the evidence is the other way as far as the Dowe installation was concerned. The peremptory charge to find for the defendant below was properly refused. Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The evidence of plaintiff below tended to show that the installment of electric wires, including the hanging of the chandeliers, in the residence of J. E. Dowe, was by the authority of the Montgomery Light & Water Power Company, and that said company was primarily responsible for negligence in relation thereto. While there is some evidence tending to show that the electrician, Mosely, who actually did the work, was in such matters an independent contractor, the weight of the evidence is the other way as far as the Dowe installation was concerned. The peremptory charge to find for the defendant below was properly refused. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 F. 1023, 104 C.C.A. 669, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-light-water-power-co-v-miller-ca5-1910.