Snowden v. Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co.
This text of 153 N.W. 682 (Snowden v. Detroit & Mackinac Railway 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.
Opinions
I am impressed, that the act, the violation of which is relied upon to establish the negligence of defendant, cannot be held to apply to the machinery in charge of plaintiffs decedent. Plainly, the water tank and its machinery was not a factory, storehouse, or warehouse. The act should be made effective, as a police regulation, having reference to its scope and purposes as evidenced by the language employed. To make it apply to windmills, or to pumps operated by gasoline engines, upon farms, would be, I think, a plain extension of the scope and purpose of [141]*141the act. And yet, if held to apply in the case at bar, no sound reasoning can except from its operation such, farm machinery. I disagree, therefore, with Mr. Justice Bird upon the third point stated in his opinion, and hold that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
153 N.W. 682, 187 Mich. 140, 1915 Mich. LEXIS 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snowden-v-detroit-mackinac-railway-co-mich-1915.