Legal Opinion

Gow v. Stoddard

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1911No. Docket No. 64Published

Error to Kalkaska; Chittenden, J. Replevin by James Gow and John Campbell against Orson T. Stoddard. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtBlair, J.

The plaintiffs are lumbermen residing at Muskegon, Mich., and in the winter of 1906 and 1907 were buying logs in the township of Rapid River, Kalkaska county. The plaintiffs’ testimony tended to show that all the logs bought in that township were bought under oral contracts, by the terms of which they were to be delivered f. o. b. cars, and were to be finally paid for when they were on the cars. Some of the logs contracted for had been hauled to the skidways, or sidings, by the vendors, and left there preparatory to loading, at the time the assessment was to be made in April, 1907. The…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dearing Water Tube Boiler Co. v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Curtiss v. WittMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Forster v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Northwestern Cooperage & Lumber Co. v. ScottMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Scott v. WhelanMichigan Supreme Court · 1893

4 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