Hughes v. Tanner
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Iosco. (Simpson, J.) Beplevin. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMc.G-rath, J.
Plaintiffs bring replevin for a quantity of lumber, upon which defendant claims a lien for the saw bill.
In the spring of 1890, defendant, who was the owner of a saw-mill and the docks at Oscoda from which the lumber was replevied, entered into a verbal contract with the Potts Lumber Company to saw logs for the company for that season, at '$2.50 per thousand. The agent of the Potts Lumber Company testified that—
“The contract was that he was to have $2.50 for sawing and piling it on the docks, where the boats could get it, and, if he was compelled to put any on the shore, he had to forward it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Craddock v. DwightMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by8 opinions
- Crawford v. KochMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Elbom v. PavsnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Germain v. Central Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898
- McEwan Bros. & Co. v. CarpenterMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Dodge v. Lansing & Suburban Traction Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.