Croze v. St. Mary's Canal Mineral Land Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Houghton; Streeter, J. Trover by Joseph Croze against the St. Mary’s Canal Mineral Land Company. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, C. J.
Plaintiff, as the assignee of a cause of action originally belonging to one Will C. Baudin, brought this action for the conversion of certain timber, and recovered verdict and judgment in the lower court. Defendant asks us to reverse that judgment.
The material facts are as follows: December 27, 1900, Baudin executed and delivered to defendant a chattel mortgage covering the timber in question to secure the payment of an indebtedness of $4,480. In the mortgage the timber was described as “all the logs and timber now *516cut or that may he cut by the said party of the first part [upon certain…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- City of Grand Rapids v. PowersMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Crofoot v. . BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Williams v. HatchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1862
- Marseilles Manufacturing Co. v. PerryNebraska Supreme Court · 1901
- Foster v. Lumbermen's Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1888
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Flanders v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1916
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Barney.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Croze v. St. Mary's Canal Mineral Land Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908
- Sutley v. Polk County State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Austin v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.