TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Haskell v. Ayres

Nathaniel B. Haskell and another v. Frederick L. Ayres and others

Haskell v. Ayres, 32 Mich. 93 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 30, 1875
Judges
Gueiah
Citations
32 Mich. 931875 Mich. LEXIS 136
Headnotes
Contract: Timber: Logs. A contract for the sale of all the pine timber-on certain lands specified at a given price per thousand feet, to be removed -within three years from the date of the contract, confers no authority to -cut and remove the same after the expiration of the time-specified, and conveys no title to logs thereafter cut on said lands by third persons.
Summary
Brror to Huron Circuit. Defendants in error sued plaintiffs in error in trover for ■certain logs cut on lands formerly belonging to one Kingsley. 'To prove their title they introduced in evidence a written ■contract, whereby Kingsley sold to them all the merchantable pine timber on said lands at a dollar per thousand feet, board measure, to be removed within three years from the ■date of the contract; and also proved title to the lands in Kingsley at the time the contract was made. It appeared also that Kingsley afterwards deeded the lands, reserving the pine timber and the right of way to take off the same. The logs in question were cut on said premises by third persons after the expiration of the three years, and were purchased of them by defendants below. The judgment below was in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants brought error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gueiah

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PeR Gueiah:

This case is clearly governed by Richards v. Tozer, 27 Mich., 451 , and Johnson v. Moore, 28 Mich., 3 , and it is only necessary to apply the principles there stated.

The judgment must be reversed, -with costs, and a new trial ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1886–1887: 11896–1897: 11902–1903: 21906–1907: 11912–1913: 21928–1929: 118862026peak 1902 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hodges v. Buell95 N.W. 1078 (Mich. 1903)
  2. Adkins v. Huff52 S.E. 773 (W. Va. 1906)
  3. Macomber v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern Railroad32 L.R.A. 102 (Mich. 1896)
  4. Null v. Elliott43 S.E. 173 (W. Va. 1902)
  5. Kerschensteiner v. Northern Michigan Land Co.221 N.W. 322 (Mich. 1928)
  6. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Hamilton153 S.W. 1194 (Tex. App. 1913)

Most recent

  1. Kerschensteiner v. Northern Michigan Land Co.221 N.W. 322 (Mich. 1928)
  2. Mahar v. Grand Rapids Terminal Railway Co.140 N.W. 535 (Mich. 1913)
  3. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Hamilton153 S.W. 1194 (Tex. App. 1913)
  4. Adkins v. Huff52 S.E. 773 (W. Va. 1906)
  5. Hodges v. Buell95 N.W. 1078 (Mich. 1903)
  6. Null v. Elliott43 S.E. 173 (W. Va. 1902)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Johnson v. Moore, 28 Mich. 3 (1873) 24
Richards v. Tozer, 27 Mich. 451 (1873) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list