Legal Opinion

Coburn v. Muskegon Booming Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1888PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Montcalm. (Smith, J.) Case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.

This action was brought in the circuit court for the county of Montcalm to recover damages which plaintiff alleges he has sustained in consequence of the defendant having prevented the free passage of logs down the Big Muskegon river, by putting in and maintaining a boom across the river, and causing a jam, and preventing the plaintiff from putting into the river logs which he had contracted to deliver afloat therein before July 1, 1882.

The record shows that October 10, 1881, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with B. H. Boys & Co., of the city of Greenville, whereby he was to cut, haul,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. PeopleMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Lucas v. WattlesMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Macumber v. White River Log & Booming Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. HW Nelson Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941
  2. Banish v. City of HamtramckMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
  3. Ford Motor Co. v. Bradley Transp. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1949
  4. Herrmann v. GleasonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
  5. Whitlock v. Barham & DuncanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926

3 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