Sinclair Refining Co. v. Keister

Sixth Circuit

Sinclair Refining Co. v. Keister

64 F.2d 537, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4146

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1933

DocketNo. 6164

StatusPublished

This text of 64 F.2d 537 (Sinclair Refining Co. v. Keister) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sinclair Refining Co. v. Keister, 64 F.2d 537, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4146 (6th Cir. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff recovered damages for the pollution of the water supply on her premises caused, as she claimed, by leakage of gasoline from storage tanks installed by the defendant on adjacent property. The defendant appeals, contending (1) that the court erred in refusing to admit in evidence certain exhibits which it offered, and (2) that there should have been a directed verdict in its behalf at the conclusion of all the evidence. The first contention is not supported by any valid assignment of error. The ground of the second is that, although there was evidence of a defective storage tank, the evidence as a whole so overwhelmingly preponderated in favor of the view that gasoline from the tank could not have percolated through the earth into the plaintiff’s well and spring that it was the duty of the court to direct a verdict. Martin v. Memphis Stone & Gravel Co. (C. C. A.) 46 F.(2d) 989; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U. S. 90, 50 S. Ct. 231, 74 L. Ed. 720. We do not agree that the evidence so preponderates, but think there was substantial evidence to show that gasoline from the tank could and did percolate into the well and spring. In such a ease the question is for the jury, and this court - cannot consider whether its verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Heatlie, 48 F.(2d) 759, 761 (6 C. C. A.); Cleveland Nehi Bottling Co. v. Schenk, 56 F.(2d) 941, 942 (6 C. C. A.).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff recovered damages for the pollution of the water supply on her premises caused, as she claimed, by leakage of gasoline from storage tanks installed by the defendant on adjacent property. The defendant appeals, contending (1) that the court erred in refusing to admit in evidence certain exhibits which it offered, and (2) that there should have been a directed verdict in its behalf at the conclusion of all the evidence. The first contention is not supported by any valid assignment of error. The ground of the second is that, although there was evidence of a defective storage tank, the evidence as a whole so overwhelmingly preponderated in favor of the view that gasoline from the tank could not have percolated through the earth into the plaintiff’s well and spring that it was the duty of the court to direct a verdict. Martin v. Memphis Stone & Gravel Co. (C. C. A.) 46 F.(2d) 989; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U. S. 90, 50 S. Ct. 231, 74 L. Ed. 720. We do not agree that the evidence so preponderates, but think there was substantial evidence to show that gasoline from the tank could and did percolate into the well and spring. In such a ease the question is for the jury, and this court - cannot consider whether its verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Heatlie, 48 F.(2d) 759, 761 (6 C. C. A.); Cleveland Nehi Bottling Co. v. Schenk, 56 F.(2d) 941, 942 (6 C. C. A.).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 F.2d 537, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinclair-refining-co-v-keister-ca6-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack