Healy v. Newton
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Mackinac. (Pailthorp, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
Plaintiff commenced proceedings under
Act No. 229, Laws of 1887, known as the “Log Lien Law," and on June 17, 1889, recovered judgment against the principal defendant for $325 and costs, and was given a lien on the products. The judgment entry is entitled “Cornelius Ready v. James Healy, Defendant, and Archibald P. Newton, Special Defendant," and recites that, the default of the principal defendant in said cause “ having been duly entered, and the same having become absolute, and Archibald P. Newton having claimed to be the owner and interested in the products seized, * * * and having filed…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Page v. TrufantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
- Harrell, Administrator C. v. . Watson and OthersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1869
- Williams v. ShelbyOregon Supreme Court · 1865
- State ex rel. West v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Waynick v. RichmondSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Braithwaite v. JordanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Shean v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Burnham v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. St. Paul Mercury & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- School District No. 18 of Wheatland v. StombergNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.