Legal Opinion

Stanton v. Estey Manufacturing Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 1892PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Shiawassee. (Daboll, J., presiding.) Trover. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.

This is trover for the conversion of certain logs.

Plaintiff, acting for Dwight & Co., of Detroit, prior to February. 23, 1889, had arranged with J. W. Holm, *14who had a saw-mill at Middleton, that he (Stanton) should furnish the cash and pay for logs to be delivered at Holm’s mill; that Holm should saw the logs into lumber; that Dwight & Co. would take the lumber at certain fixed prices; that Holm should retain the mill culls, and be charged, as against the price to be paid for the lumber, the price paid for the logs, and Dwight & Co. should pay the difference. About 80,000 feet of logs were…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Smith v. PinneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sheffield Car Co. v. Constantine Hydraulic Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
  2. People v. SkuttMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Black Hills Mercantile Co. v. GardinerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
  4. People v. SwartzMichigan Supreme Court · 1898

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

Powered by the Exa API