Legal Opinion · Dissent

Blodgett v. Hovey

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 13, 1892Published

Error to Kent. (Adsit, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the' opinions.

1DissentGrant, J.

There is no dispute as to the material facts in this case. Upon one point only, to be hereinafter noted, is there any conflict of evidence. After the execution of the contract of sale, Blodgett & Byrne, through the boom company, delivered to the defendants the 30,000 logs specified in the contract. They sawed and dead piled the lumber as it was sawed *577from them on their docks. They sold the entire cut, and 2,882,602 feet had been shipped by their vendees. The bills of sale executed by defendants to their vendees were as follows:

“Sold to * * * on dock at Muskegon, Mich., the following lumber:…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Byles v. ColierMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Jenkinson v. Monroe Bros. & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Wagar v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Sandler v. BresnahamMichigan Supreme Court · 1884

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API