Legal Opinion

Macumber v. White River Log & Booming Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1883PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Newaygo. (Fuller, J.) Oase. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, C. J.

The charge brought against the company, and which the plaintiff called upon it to answer, was for damming up the water by gates, booms, timbers, chains, ropes, pins, poles, logs and other appliances, and thereby flooding the plaintiff’s land. The circumstances of the wrong were laid as being acts of a direct and positive nature, and the instruments used were described in terms, with a single exception, where a general expression was introduced. But in that case the meaning would accord with the subject-matter (Broom’s Max. 575), and the construction would follow the rule that words of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. McDade v. PeopleMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Dunlop v. MunroeSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
  3. Brooks v. CookMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Hawkins v. Great Western R. R.Michigan Supreme Court · 1868
  5. American Transportation Co. v. MooreMichigan Supreme Court · 1858

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Jacobs v. E. Bement's SonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Coburn v. Muskegon Booming Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Rickels v. Log-Owners' Booming Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
  4. People's Gaslight & Coke Co. v. Chicago Gaslight & Coke Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1887
  5. Council of Hamtramck v. Hamtramck City ClerkMichigan Supreme Court · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API