Seymour v. Bruske
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Manistee; McAlvay, J. Motion to retax costs, recall execution, and modify judgment .on error submitted July 21, 1905. Trover by Richard A. Seymour and John Seymour, co-partners' as Seymour Brothers, against Herman Bruske. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
Plaintiffs sued to recover the value of certain pine and hemlock logs. The amended bill of particulars states the number of pine logs converted as 22,000, worth $20,400, and of hemlock 1,000 logs, worth $1,200. The bill of particulars also contains the following:. ‘e Said saw lo^s at the time of their unlawful conversion being on the banks of the Sable river, Upper and Lower Hamlin Lake, and upon the waters therein, and a small portion of said saw logs, to wit, about 700 hemlock saw logs, were below the dam on said Hamlin Lake, all in Mason county, Michigan. ”
After a trial which occupied…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. KempMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Healy v. NewtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Jenness v. Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Newberry v. TrowbridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Ayres v. HubbardMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Taylor v. Savings Union Bank & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1915