Upham v. Dickinson
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Yan Burén. Trover. Plaintiffs bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
The facts in this case are somewhat complicated, and without attempting to set them out in detail, we prefer to give in brief so much thereof as shall be sufficient to present the only question of law upon which it seems important to express an opinion.
The action is in trover for the conversion of a quantity of logs cut in the years 1867 and 1868 by the copartnership of Dickinson, Rogers & Co. on certain lands in Yan Burén county. The copartnership was composed of the defendants, one Samuel Rogers, and three other persons, and seems to have been formed in contemplation of lumbering operations…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bailey v. BussingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1859
- Final v. BackusMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
- Gunther ex rel. Gunther v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- Moore v. AppletonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Grant v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry. Co. v. EubanksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Baylor University v. BradshawCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Duncan v. BeresMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
- Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1999
- Hack Investment Co. v. Concrete Wall Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1959
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.