Page v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs, Charles Page and E. S. Page, from an order of the District Court of Mille Lacs County, D. B. Searle, J., made September 8, 1892, denying their motion for a new trial. The plaintiffs are partners in lumbering at Anoka, near the mouth of Rum river. The defendant, Mille Lacs Lumber Company, is a corporation engaged in the business of logging and the manufacture of lumber at Milaca on the same river about seventy-five miles above Anoka.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiffs, Charles Page and E. S. Page, from an order of the District Court of Mille Lacs County, D. B. Searle, J., made September 8, 1892, denying their motion for a new trial. The plaintiffs are partners in lumbering at Anoka, near the mouth of Rum river. The defendant, Mille Lacs Lumber Company, is a corporation engaged in the business of logging and the manufacture of lumber at Milaca on the same river about seventy-five miles above Anoka. In furtherance of its business, defendant built a saw mill at Milaca on the east bank - of Rum River, and opposite its mill built a low dam…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
When plaintiffs rested their case upon the trial the court dismissed the same on the ground that the testimony introduced was insufficient to sustain the action. A motion for a new trial was afterwards denied, and the questions involved are before us on a bill of exceptions. From this bill it appears that both parties have been engaged in lumbering for several years upon Eum river, a stream navigable for logs and timber. Both parties cut their logs on the upper waters, and drive them to their respective mills, there to be manufactured into lumber. The. plaintiff s’ mill is at Anoka, the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Aldrich v. WetmoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Blanchard v. . Western Union Tel. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Brown v. WatsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1859
- Frink v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1849
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State of Louisiana v. TestbankCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Viebahn v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Smart v. Aroostook Lumber Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1907
- Miller v. HareWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1897
- Hill v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.