Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Cranage

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1880PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Error to Bay. 'Replevin. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtMarston, C. J.

The defendants in error brought au action of replevin to recover possession of a quantity of pine saw logs, which the defendants below held and claimed alien upon for charges for boomage, driving the logs, and tolls to an improvement company. There is no serious dispute concerning the facts, and no question of ownership arises.

August 23, 1878, John Jenkinson entered into a written agreement with Pitts & Cranage (plaintiffs below), whereby he agreed to sell them a large quantity of white pine saw logs “to be delivered to said Pitts & Cranage at the boom of the Au Gres Boom Company at the mouth…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lamb v. JeffreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  2. Brink v. FreoffMichigan Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. McCray Refrigerator & Cold Storage Co. v. Woods & ZentMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Sewall v. FoxSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1923
  3. Engelbach v. SimpsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1896
  4. Beiseker v. MooreCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
  5. Johnson v. GarlichsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API