Torrent v. Duluth Lumber Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota

Torrent v. Duluth Lumber Co.

32 F. 229, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota·Decided October 15, 1887·Published

Opinion

Nelson, J.

This is a petition for a rehearing and reargument of the case. In the opinion of the court heretofore delivered in this case (30 Fed. Rep. 830) the court (page 835) misquotes the testimony, viz.: “It has to have it on,” quoted from Robert Orm’s testimony, should read: “They all have to have something to hold the tooth-bar up to the log;” hut such misquotation does not change the opinion of the court.

[230] The petition for rehearing and reargument is denied; final decree ordered; accounting waived; appeal taken and allowed; bond on appeal fixed at $500.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nelson, J.

This is a petition for a rehearing and reargument of the case. In the opinion of the court heretofore delivered in this case (30 Fed. Rep. 830) the court (page 835) misquotes the testimony, viz.: “It has to have it on,” quoted from Robert Orm’s testimony, should read: “They all have to have something to hold the tooth-bar up to the log;” hut such misquotation does not change the opinion of the court.

[230] The petition for rehearing and reargument is denied; final decree ordered; accounting waived; appeal taken and allowed; bond on appeal fixed at $500.

Torrent v. Duluth Lumber Co., 32 F. 229, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744 (circtdmn 1887).

Pincite

32 F. 229 (Torrent v. Duluth Lumber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.