Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Thunder Bay River Boom Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1886PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Alpena. (Emerick, J.) Case. Defendant brings error. The facts am stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, 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 and dams of the defendant, and its negligent and improper management of the logs committed to its charge for booming purposes.

The case has been in this Court once before, and will be found reported in 57 Mich. 216.

The lands were described in the declaration as lots Nos. 4 and 5 of section 31, in township 32 N., of range 7 E.; and lot 1, in section 32, in township No. 32 N., of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Anderson v. Thunder Bay River Boom Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Detzur v. B. Stroh Brewing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Witheral v. Muskegon Booming Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Kelley ex rel. Gibbs v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Alabama Lumber Co. v. KeelSupreme Court of Alabama · 1899
  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