Deaderick v. Oulds
Tennessee Supreme Court
PROM WASHINGTON. A.ppeal in error from Circuit Court of Washington County. Newton Hackee, J. Replevin for a saw-log, brought by Deadriclc against Quids, and decided below in favor of the plaintiff upon a special finding by the Circuit Judge. Defendant Oulds appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtLurtoN, J.
This is an action of replevin for the recovery of one walnut log. The defendant, Oulds, during the year 1883, cut and put in the headwaters of the Nollachucky River some eight hundred walnut logs, to be floated during the tides in the stream through the gorge in the mountains to a boom built by himself below the gorge. He undertook to have all of his logs branded with the letter “D,” and while the proof shows it possible that some of Ms logs were not so branded, yet there is no sufficient proof to justify a finding that any of liis logs were unmarked. Many of defendant’s logs failing to reach…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Foulke v. New York Consolidated RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Kuykendall v. FisherWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1906
- Foster v. Fidelity Safe Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- Flood v. City National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
- Foster v. Fidelity Safe Deposit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.