JOHN H. FORD
v.
GUY STURGIS, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC.; UNION IRON WORKS V. GUY STURGIS, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC.; REGINALD W. GEARE V. GUY STURGIS, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC.; AND FRANK L. WAGNER V. NICHOLAS APPELBAUM, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC.

U.S. | 1924-11-21
Nos. 277; No. 278; No. 279; No. 280
266 U.S. 584 Supreme Court of the United States (1924) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The certificate from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in each case is dismissed for the reason that the questions or propositions of law certified therein are not such as may be certified under § 251 of the Judicial Code. See Biddle v. Luvisch, ante, 173, and cases there cited.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Hanna v. Fletcher, 231 F.2d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
    …rk was negligently done, its responsibility was only to Fletcher, the landlord, with whom Gichner contracted, and not to Mrs. Hanna, the injured tenant. Ford v. Sturgis, 56 App.D.C. 361, 14 F. 2d 253, 52 A.L.R. 619, certificate dismissed per curiam, 266 U.S. 584, 45 S.Ct. 126, 69 L.Ed. 453, is relied upon as laying down the rule in this jurisdiction that “the negligence of a contractor in constructing a building will not render him liable to a third person, who is injured in consequence thereof after the wo…
  • Whorton v. T. A. Loving & Co., 344 F.2d 739 (4th Cir. 1965)
    …idly applied to contractors despite the apparent basic similarity between a manufacturer and a contractor. The leading contractor case was Ford v. Sturgis, 56 App.D.C. 361, 14 F. 2d 253, 52 A.L.R. 619 (1926), certified question dismissed per curiam, 266 U.S. 584, where the court refused to impose liability upon a contractor who had constructed a theater which collapsed from a defect in the construction after the work had been completed and accepted by the owner. The court based its conclusion on three theor…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw