Croze v. St. Mary's Canal Mineral Land Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Houghton; Streeter, J. Trover by Joseph Croze against the St. Mary’s Canal Mineral Land Company. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, C. J.
A sufficient statement of the facts in this case is found in the opinion of this court (143 Mich. 514) reversing the judgment and remanding it for a new trial.
The original declaration, as stated in that opinion, contained two counts, one being the ordinary count in trover, the other a special count in trover alleging that the defendant wrongfully converted the timber to its own use by unlawfully and wrongfully removing it from the places where seized. This part of the declaration is as follows:
“ And the plaintiff avers that the said Will C. Baudin did not pay to the said defendant said sum of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Quincy Mining Co. v. KittsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Toomey v. Eureka Iron & Steer WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Robinson v. Charles Wright & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Johnston & Son v. RobuckSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Croze v. St. Mary's Canal Mineral Land Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Hapke v. DavidsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Petersen v. Cache County Drainage Dist. No. 5.Utah Supreme Court · 1930
- Austin v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Exchange State Bank v. Farmers State BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.