St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Grinnell Brothers

Sixth Circuit

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Grinnell Brothers

458 F.2d 1354, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10128

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1972

Docket71-1531

StatusPublished

This text of 458 F.2d 1354 (St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Grinnell Brothers) 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

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Grinnell Brothers, 458 F.2d 1354, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10128 (6th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the District Court’s judgment for the defendant-ap-pellee after a trial without a jury. The plaintiff-appellant insurance company was the insurer of property adjacent to the premises occupied by the appellee and insured such adjoining property against losses by fire. A fire originated in the premises occupied by the appellee which the appellant alleged resulted from the use by the appellee of a defective extension cord where combustible materials were stored near the defective cord. At the conclusion of the evidence the District Court, as trier of fact, entered judgment for the defendant-appel-lee.

After examination of the record in the District Court we cannot say that the District Judge’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous within the meaning of 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

For the reasons stated by District Judge Don J. Young in his findings of fact and conclusions of law the plaintiff-appellant failed to sustain the burden of proving that the fire in question resulted from the negligence of the defendant-appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the District Court’s judgment for the defendant-ap-pellee after a trial without a jury. The plaintiff-appellant insurance company was the insurer of property adjacent to the premises occupied by the appellee and insured such adjoining property against losses by fire. A fire originated in the premises occupied by the appellee which the appellant alleged resulted from the use by the appellee of a defective extension cord where combustible materials were stored near the defective cord. At the conclusion of the evidence the District Court, as trier of fact, entered judgment for the defendant-appel-lee.

After examination of the record in the District Court we cannot say that the District Judge’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous within the meaning of 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

For the reasons stated by District Judge Don J. Young in his findings of fact and conclusions of law the plaintiff-appellant failed to sustain the burden of proving that the fire in question resulted from the negligence of the defendant-appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 F.2d 1354, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-paul-fire-and-marine-insurance-co-v-grinnell-brothers-ca6-1972.