Legal Opinion

Bauman v. Pere Marquette Boom Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1887PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Lake. (Judkins, J.) Case. Defendant brings error. The facts are-stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

The plaintiff owns land bordering upon the North Branch of Pere Marquette river, which she claims was overflowed and injured by the acts of defendant in running and driving logs in the river.

The declaration contains two counts, — one in.trespass, and the other in trespass on the case.

The wrong done to the plaintiff is charged to have been committed as follows:

1. The defendant wrongfully and unjustly put and placed in said stream large quantities of saw-logs and timber, and ran and floated the same down and in the stream, and through, upon, and over the land of plaintiff, in so negligent,…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. Lea Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Witheral v. Muskegon Booming Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Barry v. MurrayWashington Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Garth Lumber & Shingle Co. v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Bellaire v. Worcester Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API