Manistique Lumbering Co. v. Witter
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Schoolcraft. (Steere, J.) Replevin. Defendant brings error. cited as bearing on the statute, Putman v. Fife Lake 45 Mich. 134; McCoy v. Anderson 47 Midi. 503; Torrent v. Yager 52 Mich. 500; Monroe v. Greenhoe 54 Mich. 9; Osterhout v. Jones id. 22S; “ storage ” does not mean temporary deposit: Campbell v. Macliias 33 Me. 419; Desmond v. Machias Port 4S Me. 479 ; Lee v. Templeton 6 Gray 579; Ryerson v. Muskegon 57 Mich.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of Michigan for manufacturing purposes. Its principal office for the transaction of business is located in the city of Detroit. It is the owner of large quantities of pine, located on the Manistique river and its tributaries. It neither owns nor hires a mill to manufacture its logs into ■lumber. Its operations consist in cutting logs and running them down the Manistique river to Manistique, where they are manufactured into lumber under the following contract:
“Detroit, Mich., May 19th, 1883.
Mr. Abijah Weston, President of the Weston Lurriber…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hood v. JudkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Maurer v. CliffMichigan Supreme Court · 1892