Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

BELL v. DEWITT et al.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appellant, in his application for rehearing, contends that we erred in three particulars, to-wit: 1. In holding that the timber had not been cut by the Lake Superior Piling Company about 1912. 2. In holding that the hardwood timber was merchantable on June 20, 1902, the date of sale from Richard Brown to William L. Jay. 3. In not sustaining the plea of prescription of one year against the claim of the Lake Superior Piling Company.

As to the first two contentions, after a careful review of the record, we find no error committed by us.

As to the third contention, after a careful search of the record we fail to find wherein the plaintiff filed such a plea. Naturally, we did not and could not consider such a plea. The plea of prescription must be specially pleaded and the plea cannot be supplied, ex officio, by the Court.

Rehearing refused.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BELL v. DEWITT
(Nov 22, 1946)