Lockwood v. Thunder Bay River Boom Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Alpena. Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
Plaintiff sued defendant for the use and occupation of booming grounds in’ front of his lands on Thunder Bay Biver. The occupation consisted of filling up the river with logs, which were kept back by a large boom which they had below crossing the stream, the effect of which was to leave their logs lying in that part of the stream belonging to plaintiff.
The testimony showed that there had never been any agreement for the occupation of this property, but that plaintiff had repeatedly told members of the company, individually, and at a company meeting, that they must pay for the use if they…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hogsett v. EllisMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Dwight v. CutlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1855
- Watson v. SteverMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Dalton v. LaudahnMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Ward v. WarnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Raven Red Ash Coal Co. v. BallSupreme Court of Virginia · 1946
- Harrell v. F. H. Vahlsing, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1952
- Garey v. Kelvinator Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937
- Extension Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. SkinnerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1901
- In Re MacOmb Occupational Health Care, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2003
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.