Legal Opinion

Haughton v. Busch

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1894PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Marquette. (Stone, J.) Trover. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

This is an action in trover for the conversion of a quantity of logs removed from the mouth of Salmon Trout river by the defendant. The defendant was general owner of the property. -The plaintiff claimed a lien upon the logs for the work of cutting, hauling, and rafting, under a special contract. In 1888 the parties had an agreement in writing, by the terms of which Ilaughton agreed to cut, haul, run, and deliver certain other logs at the mouth of Pine river, on or before September 1 following; the defendant agreeing, as fast as scaled and delivered, to pay $4.50 per 1,000. This agreement is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McMaster v. MerrickMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  2. Hilger v. EdwardsNevada Supreme Court · 1869
  3. Palmer v. TuckerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1858
  4. Phillips v. FreyerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Farrington v. MeekSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Quist v. SandmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Kangas v. BoultonMichigan Supreme Court · 1901

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

Powered by the Exa API