Underhill v. Muskegon Booming Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Underhill v. Muskegon Booming Co.

8 N.W. 100, 45 Mich. 496, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 765

DecidedJanuary 28, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 8 N.W. 100 (Underhill v. Muskegon Booming Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Underhill v. Muskegon Booming Co., 8 N.W. 100, 45 Mich. 496, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 765 (Mich. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, J.

This case in no respects differs from what it was when formerly before us. Underhill v. Muskegon Booming Co. 40 Mich. 660; Muskegon Boomimg Co. v. Underhill 43 Mich. 629. The plaintiff made out no case whatever, and judgment was properly rendered against him. The attempt in this way to protract litigation is a grievance to the defendant, but as no application is made for more than ordinary costs the judgment is affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Campbell, J.

This case in no respects differs from what it was when formerly before us. Underhill v. Muskegon Booming Co. 40 Mich. 660; Muskegon Boomimg Co. v. Underhill 43 Mich. 629. The plaintiff made out no case whatever, and judgment was properly rendered against him. The attempt in this way to protract litigation is a grievance to the defendant, but as no application is made for more than ordinary costs the judgment is affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.W. 100, 45 Mich. 496, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/underhill-v-muskegon-booming-co-mich-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack