Legal Opinion

Petrie v. Lane

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1885PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Muskegon. (Russell, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.

In the year 1882 the plaintiffs were copartners and mill-owners engaged in the manufacture of lumber for themselves and others, at the village of North Muskegon. The defendant had a large quantity of logs in the Muskegon river to be sawed, but no mill to saw them. The plaintiffs claim that on or about the 21st day of July, 1882, the defendant made a contract with them whereby he agreed to furnish to the plaintiffs, in the boom of the Muskegon Booming Company, for sawing, all the logs he had in the Muskegon river which should come down into the boom, under the control of that company, during…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Potter v. Barry Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Frazier v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889
  3. Stevens v. YaleMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Fell v. NewberryMichigan Supreme Court · 1895

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

Powered by the Exa API