Legal Opinion

Stevens v. Pantlind

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1891PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Osceola. • (Judkins, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.

On the 14th day of May, 1888, plaintiff leased to defendants—

“His entire saw-mill, together with all tools and supplies on hand, also his team of horses, one set of trucks, one wagon, and use of barn now occupied by him, for so long a time as it shall take said second parties [defendants] to cut what logs they have in the first party’s mill-yard, and lots adjoining; together with the right of ingress and egress, along and upon all and every part of said premises, for the purpose of doing said work. Said first party also agrees to work in the mill under direction *477of second parties, or their…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lipscomb v. ShofnerTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Stevens v. PantlindMichigan Supreme Court · 1893

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

Powered by the Exa API