Legal Opinion

Mann v. White River Log & Booming Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1881PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Muskegon. Assumpsit on common and special counts. Plaintiff' brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant for not delivering part of a quantity of logs which the company had in charge to deliver at White Lake, after running them down from their place of reception on White river. As the case was passed upon by the jury they necessarily found that there had been no fault or negligence in defendant, and the only question before us is whether defendant was a common carrier, and liable at all events, except for the risks of a public enemy or inevitable casualty.

The duty undertaken by the defendant was in accordance with its stautory power to drive, run, raft and boom logs in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Fitch v. NewberryMichigan Supreme Court · 1843

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Coup v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Menominee River Boom Co. v. Augustus Spies Lumber & Cedar Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Chesley v. Mississippi & Rum River Room Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
  4. Johnson v. EvelethSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1899
  5. The James JacksonDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1881

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

Powered by the Exa API