Legal Opinion

Bolton v. Nitz

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1891PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Alpena. (Simpson, J., presiding.) Debt. Defendants bring error’. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Champlin, O. J.

This is an action of debt brought upon a replevin bond.

On April 2, 1886, Charles Nitz sued out of the circuit court for the county of Alpena a writ of replevin to recover possession of certain goods, described therein as follows:

“ One hundred and thirty thousand feet of white pine and Norway pine saw-logs, some of which are 12, some 14, some 16, and some 18 feet long, and now being in a certain stream commonly called the ‘ Narrows/ a tributary of Long lake, in said county of Alpena; being all the white pine and Norway pine saw-logs taken by said defendants hereinafter named,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fish ex rel. Smith v. BarbourMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Wattles v. DuboisMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  3. People v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1845
  4. Coman v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Elliott v. HartMichigan Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Dudley v. ConelyMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Musselman Grocer Co. v. CaslerMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Dages v. BrakeMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  4. William W. Bierce, Ltd. v. WaterhouseHawaii Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Allswede v. Central Warehouse Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918

1 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