Legal Opinion

Busch v. Nester

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 8, 1888PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to Marquette. (Grant, J.) Replevin. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChampun, J.

On September 16, 1885, the plaintiff brought an action of replevin against the defendants. The writ commanded the sheriff to take into his custody—

“About twelve hundred thousand feet of pine saw-logs, board measure, consisting mostly of white pine, and marked by the plaintiff, William C. Busch, with his mark, monogram B; also including in said amount logs so marked by said Busch and afterwards overmarked with IIII by Timothy Nester, one of the defendants, the total amount so over-marked being about 57,730 feet, board measure; also all logs marked ‘H,’ amounting to about 220,563 feet, board…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Halleck v. MixerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Keyser v. SutherlandMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Powell v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
  4. Busch v. NesterMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Ball v. BuschMichigan Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hartford Iron Mining Co. v. Cambria Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Fisher v. BuschMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Wilkes v. HolmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  4. Moret v. MasonMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Busch v. FisherMichigan Supreme Court · 1891

4 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