Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota/Torrent v. Duluth Lumber Co.

Torrent v. Duluth Lumber Co.

32 F. 229, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
DecidedOctober 15, 1887
StatusPublished

This text of 32 F. 229 (Torrent v. Duluth Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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]*230The 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 F. 229, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torrent-v-duluth-lumber-co-circtdmn-1887.