Hall v. Tittabawassee Boom Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Saginaw. (Gage, J.) RbpleviN. Plaintiff brings error. A log-owner’s right to control bis own logs in the stream cannot be interfered with: Atty. Gen.v.
Read the full summary
Error to Saginaw. (Gage, J.) RbpleviN. Plaintiff brings error. A log-owner’s right to control bis own logs in the stream cannot be interfered with: Atty. Gen.v. Evcurt Booming Co. 34 Mich. 462; as to the liability for labor in running logs under contract, see Johnson v. Cranage 45 Mich. 18 ; Edson v. Cates 44 Mich. 253; a boom company has no authority to interfere with jams of logs not under its control, and not about its booms r Ames v. Port Huron Booming Oo. 11 Mich. 139. Charges-for running logs include money paid to laborers, cost of supplies and use of property: Pere Ma/rguette Boom Go.…
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
The defendant is a corporation organized under “ An act to authorize the formation of corporations-for the running, booming and rafting of logs,” approved February 4, 1864. The first thirteen sections of the act contain no provisions important to the present controversy. The fourteenth section has been several times amended, the last time being in 1881, — Public Acts, p. 237, — and now reads-as follows:
“ (2788.) Sec. 14. Every such corporation shall, by their corporate name, have power to acquire, use and hold all such real and personal estate, by lease or purchase, as shall-be necessary for…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Goodman v. Anglo-California Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1923
- Shaw v. BradleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Nichol v. MurphyMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Watts v. Tittabawassee Boom Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Britan v. Straus Bros. & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.