Piette v. Bavarian Brewing Co.

52 N.W. 152, 91 Mich. 605, 1892 Mich. LEXIS 806
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMay 13, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 52 N.W. 152 (Piette v. Bavarian Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Piette v. Bavarian Brewing Co., 52 N.W. 152, 91 Mich. 605, 1892 Mich. LEXIS 806 (Mich. 1892).

Opinion

McGrath, J.

In September, 1885, Messrs. Michenfelder and Eatigan, who were then carrying on business ..as brewers, made a contract with one Jubilo to cut and haul their ice, and fill their ice-house. In December, 1885, and before the work had been commenced under said contract, Messrs. Michenfelder and Eatigan, with -others, organized the defendant company, and the business was afterwards carried on in the name of the Bavarian Brewing Company. Michenfelder was its president, and Eatigan its secretary. The ice was hoisted into the ice-house by means of a stationary hois'ing .-.apparatus, owned by the -company, and it was a part of Jubilóos work, under his contract, to hoist the ice by means of this apparatus, and pack it away in the ice-.house. This apparatus was operated by horse power. The cut on next page will aid in its explanation.

B and B represent the buckets. A wire cable extended from the top of one bucket to the top of the other, and .a manilla rope extended from the bottom of one bucket to the bottom of the other. The pulley at the left was ..attached by the rope “F” to a stake, so that while in operation [608]*608tbe cable and rope were drawn taut. The horse was-attached at the point C,” and pulled either way, according to which bucket it was desired to hoist. The buckets-dropped into wells which were let into the platform on either side, so that the ice might be loaded without lifting. The rope ran through a hole in the bottom of each well,, and it became necessary to shovel out from these wells the ice clippings as they accumulated from time to time. This could only be done while the bucket was up. Plaintiff was in Jubilo’s employ, and, while engaged in cleaning one of these wells, the cable parted, and the bucket fell, injuring him severely. Plaintiff sued, claiming that the-apparatus furnished by defendant was defective, and the-defendant had judgment.

[607]*607

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

Related

Lanes v. Hackley Union National Bank & Trust Co.
464 F.2d 855 (Sixth Circuit, 1972)
Wiles v. B. E. Wallace Products Corp.
181 N.W.2d 323 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970)
Larsen v. Home Telephone Co.
129 N.W. 894 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Hewitt v. East Jordan Lumber Co.
98 N.W. 992 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1904)
McIntyre v. Detroit Safe Co.
89 N.W. 39 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Hennig v. Globe Foundry Co.
71 N.W. 156 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)
Dewey v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milawaukee Railway Co.
56 N.W. 756 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 N.W. 152, 91 Mich. 605, 1892 Mich. LEXIS 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piette-v-bavarian-brewing-co-mich-1892.