Legal Opinion

Watts v. Tittabawassee Boom Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1883PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Midland. (Judkins, J.) Case. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.

Plaintiffs during the years 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1878 were engaged in manufacturing and transporting square oak timber to market. The lumber was obtained in Gladwin county on one of the tributaries of the Tittabawassee river, and the latter was used by them in running the timber down to the Saginaw during each of those years. It was a navigable stream for floating rafts, logs and timber from Edenville to its mouth.. The defendant is a corporation ; was organized in 1864, and during the years above mentioned was engaged in the business of running, driving, booming, rafting and delivering…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hart v. Mayor of AlbanyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1832
  2. Isle Royale Mining Co. v. HertinMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  3. Benjamin v. Manistee River Improvement Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Hall v. Tittabawassee Boom Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Viebahn v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
  2. Osborne v. Knife Falls Boom Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
  3. Page v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  4. Lepire v. KlenkMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Nester v. Diamond Match Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1900

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API