Legal Opinion

Isle Royale Mining Co. v. Hertin

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 16, 1877PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Error to Houghton. Trover and Indebitatus assumpsit. The facts are in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, C. J.

The parties to this suit were owners of adjoining tracts of timbered lands. In the winter of 1873-4 defendants in error, who were plaintiffs in the court below, in consequence of a mistake respecting the actual location, went upon the lands of the mining company and cut a quantity of cord wood, which they hauled and piled on the bank of Portage Lake. The next spring the wood was taken possession of by the mining company, and disposed of for its own purposes. The wood on the bank of the lake was worth $2.81^- per cord, and the value of the labor expended by plaintiffs in cutting and placing it…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Silsbury & Calkins v. McCoon & ShermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
  2. Wetherbee v. GreenMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Riddle v. DriverSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Manry v. RobisonTexas Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Poggi v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Eaton v. LangleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
  4. Hardy v. BurroughsMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Dailey v. KennedyMichigan Supreme Court · 1887

16 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