The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D owned and operated a sawmill 233 ft. from P's hotel. The hotel was damaged by fire. P sued D claiming that the fire was caused by sparks emitting from D's mill through the chimney. P claimed that D was negligent. There was no direct evidence that a spark caused the fire. However, P offered evidence showing that the chimney emitted a large amount of sparks and had endangered and set fire to properties for a long time previous. The jury gave P the verdict and D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.