Boyle v. Musser
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Washington county against P. Musser, William Sauntry, and others, as copartners as Musser, Sauntry & Co., to recover $6,750 and interest for driving logs mingled with logs of plaintiffs. William Sauntry and W. M. Cain, copartners as Sauntry & Cain, intervened.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Washington county against P. Musser, William Sauntry, and others, as copartners as Musser, Sauntry & Co., to recover $6,750 and interest for driving logs mingled with logs of plaintiffs. William Sauntry and W. M. Cain, copartners as Sauntry & Cain, intervened. The case was tried before Williston, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and against Sauntry as defendant, and against intervenors, for $4,724.80; and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant Sauntry and intervenors appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
CANTY, J.1
This is an action under G. S. 1894, § 2466, to recover compensation for driving logs intermingled with the logs of the plaintiffs. They recovered a verdict against William Sauntry and W. M. Cain, who appealed from an order denying a new trial.
1. The logs in question were driven down the Kettle river, and from the mouth of that river 25 miles further down the St. Croix river to Never’s dam. From the head of this drive down to the booms of the St. Croix Boom Corporation, some considerable distance below Never’s dam, there was no place at which the inter: mingled logs could be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- O'Brien v. GlasowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898