Legal Opinion

Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. Speechly

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 1875PublishedCited by 35 opinions

Error to Alpena Circuit.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.

The defendants in error, plaintiffs below, are in the possession and use of a water-mill for the manufacture of lumber, situate on Thunder Bay river, and known as the Broadwell mill. The defendants- below are in like possession and occupancy of what is called the Trowbridge mill, about three miles further up on the same stream. They appear to operate this mill for cutting lumber, but use the dam by which the power is obtained for the purpose mainly ox accumulating water to facilitate their operations as a company for running, driving and booming logs. The declaration in the case, after…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Morgan v. . KingNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
  2. Moore v. SanborneMichigan Supreme Court · 1853
  3. Middleton v. Flat River Booming Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Morgan v. KingNew York Supreme Court · 1858
  5. Shaw v. CrawfordNew York Supreme Court · 1813

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. United States v. CressSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Wood v. FowlerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
  3. Bott v. Natural Resources CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Kamm v. NormandOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Shaw v. Oswego Iron Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1882

30 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