Hoyt v. Jeffers
Michigan Supreme Court
30 Mich. 181 (1874)
- Written by Sarah Larkin, JD
Facts
Jeffers (defendant) owned and operated a saw mill. The mill had a chimney from which sparks were seen to escape regularly. The mill was located near a hotel owned and operated by Hoyt (plaintiff). Hoyt’s hotel caught fire and burned down. No one saw the fire begin or what caused the fire, but Hoyt believed sparks emanating from Jeffers’ mill through its chimney caused the fire. Jeffers had increased the height of the chimney just prior to the fire, but sparks had been seen to escape both before and after the chimney was changed. Hoyt filed suit and the matter went to trial. Hoyt was permitted to introduce evidence showing that sparks had escaped from the chimney on previous occasions, that there had been previous fires due to the sparks, that the hotel had been set on fire previously due to the sparks, and that clothes hanging on clothes lines near the mill had often had holes burnt in them or were sooty due to the sparks. Jeffers objected to the entry of the evidence, claiming that the chimney had been substantially changed since the incidents referred to in Hoyt’s evidence. The jury entered a verdict for Hoyt. Jeffers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Christiancy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
