Legal Opinion

Tompkins v. Gardner & Spry Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1888PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to Mecosta. íEaller, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChahplin, J.

In May, 1883, the plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant to cut and manufacture into lumber all the pine timber situated upon certain land therein described, and to sell said lumber, together with certain lumber already manufactured at the plaintiff’s mill, for which defendant was to pay $13 a thousand feet. The contract provided for cross-piling the lumber by the plaintiff, who further agreed—

“ To load on board cars at the railroad siding of the 0. & W. M., situate on section 4, town 14 north, of range 11 west, Newaygo, Michigan, all lumber included in this contract, free of…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Turner v. Bituminous Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1976
  2. William C. Roney & Co. v. The Federal Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
  3. Joseph v. RottschaferMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Cutler v. SpensMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Wenzel v. KierujMichigan Supreme Court · 1911

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