Legal Opinion

Lane v. Pere Marquette Boom Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1886PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Mason. (Judkins, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error; The facts are stated in the opinion and head-notes..

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

The plaintiff, in the year 1882, was engaged in logging certain pine timber owned by him on the Little South Branch of the Pere Marquette river. ' In the spring' he entered into a written contract with the Pere Marquette Boom Company, by which it agreed, for a certain price, 59 cents per thousand feet, to drive his logs to Ludington.

*66The contract provided, among other things, as follows:

“ Payments to be made as fast as logs are ready for delivery, before delivery, or logs will be stored at owner’s expense. Sworn weekly statements of the amount of logs sawed, of each and every mark, shall be…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pierson v. SpauldingMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  2. McArthur v. LuceMichigan Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Couper v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Murphy v. McGrawMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Mahiat v. CoddeMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Broughton v. JonesMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Truax v. BlissMichigan Supreme Court · 1905

2 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