Petrie v. Lane
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Russell, J.). Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
In this case the plaintiffs set out in their declaration an agreement with the defendant that the defendant. *455should deliver to the plaintiffs at their saw-mill, situated in the village of North Muskegon, to be sawed into lumber and piled on the dock of plaintiffs, as the defendant should direct, all the pine saw-logs belonging to defendant at that time in the store hooms of the Muskegon Booming Company, at the city of Muskegon as well as all the pine saw-logs which should thereafter, by the defendant, be floated down the Muskegon river, during the sawing season of 1882, in all about 4,000,000…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Leonard v. BeaudryMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Fell v. NewberryMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Dowagiac Manufacturing Co. v. CorbitMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Herron v. RauppMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Fell v. NewberryMichigan Supreme Court · 1895