Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Thunder Bay River Boom Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1885PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Error to Alpena. (Emerick, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

This is an action on the case, brought by the plaintiff as owner and occupant of certain parcels of land bordering on the Thunder Bay river, to recover damages, which he alleges he has sustained by means of the booms of the defendant, and its negligent and improper management of the logs committed to its charge for booming purposes.

The plaintiff in error is a corporation duly organized under the general laws of the State of Michigan, and has been doing business therein for several years last past. Said business consists in the driving, booming, sorting aud delivery of logs in the waters of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Van Deusen v. . YoungNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
  2. Moyer v. ScottMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  3. Davis v. NashSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1851

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Whitney v. DeweyIdaho Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Schindler v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railroad v. JacksonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  4. Butte Hardware Co. v. FrankMontana Supreme Court · 1901
  5. O'Rourke v. DeffenbaughMichigan Supreme Court · 1937

6 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