Legal Opinion

Hartford Iron Mining Co. v. Cambria Mining Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1892PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to Marquette. (Stone, J.) Trover. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

This is an action of trover to recover the value of iron ore. The plaintiff recovered, and the defendant brings error. The case has once before been considered by this Court, and is reported in 80 Mich. 491.

The land leased to plaintiff comprised the east half of lot 5, and lots 6 and 7, in section 36, township 48 N., range 27 W. The defendant was the lessee of the west half of lot 5, and the question chiefly considered on the former appeal was whether the true dividing line was one leaving an equal acreage on either side thereof, or one equidistant from the east and west corners. This…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Baker v. . HartNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Grubb v. BayardU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1851
  3. Busch v. NesterMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Hartford Iron Mining Co. v. Cambria Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Gillerson v. MansurSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1858

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Billie Williams v. Jader Fuel Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
  2. Kahle v. Crown Oil Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Durant Min. Co. v. Percy Consol. Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899
  4. Atlas Milling Co. v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
  5. Camp v. HortonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909

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

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

Powered by the Exa API