Shaw v. Bradley
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Arenac. (Green, J.) “Attachment under “log lien law.” Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChampun, J.
On the third day of March, 1884, plaintiff entered into a written contract with defendants to break, run, drive and deliver in the Au Gres Boom Company’s limits, a certain lot of pine saw-logs, cedar posts, and telegraph poles, situated on the bank of the west branch of the Au Gres river, the work to begin as soon as the stage of water in the spring of 1884 will permit of its being done, and to be finished as soon as possible. Plaintiff agreed to take a clean rear, and use every endeavor to get the drive down in good season. The defendants agreed to pay twenty-five cents for each thousand…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sodini v. WinterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1870
- Hall v. Tittabawassee Boom Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Begole v. McKenzieMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Haifley v. HaynesMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Holmes v. ShandsMississippi Supreme Court · 1854
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Grand Rapids Chair Co. v. RunnelsMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Central Trust Co. v. George Lueders & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- Gallagher v. CampodonicoAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1931
- Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad v. Wayne Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- State v. GregorySupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.