In eighth line from bottom of same page, Marsh should read J. J. Marsh. In fifth line from bottom of page 400, after the word Pick., 252 should read 253. In ninth line from the bottom of same page, 1 Sandf. should read 2 Sandf In fifteenth line on page 402, Laws Times should read Law Times. In the last line of same page, Eyer should read Fry. In seventh line from the bottom of page 403, Mans should read Maris. In twelfth line of page 407, Barb. should read Barr. On page 414, A. Gould should read E. Gould. In first line of first head note of page 420, the word illegal, and all that portion of the note appearing after the word policy, in the third line, should be omitted. On page 427, the title of the cause, instead of Valentine Crosswell v. The People, should be The People v. Valentine Cornwell, and in the first line after the head note, instead of Error to, read On exceptions from. In second line from bottom of page 433, will should read rule. In ninth line of same page, instead of Charles, read Chater. In ninth line from bottom of page 436, instead of Ashley, read Arkley. On page 446, in the title of the cause, instead of David C. Wattles and Isaiah Butler v. The People, read The People v. David C. Wattles and Another; and in the first line after the head notes, instead of Error to, read On exceptions from. In third line of page 452, instead of Dan., read Den. On page 482, the initial letter J., before Lockwood, should be T. In the last line on page 499, Parsons v. Russell should be omitted, and after 11 Mich., instead of 113, read 139. On page 511, in the title of the cause, instead of Annis and Another v. The People, read The People v. Annis and Another. In first line of page 512, instead of Error to, read On exceptions from. In twelfth line from bottom of page 515, instead of this, read the. In thirteenth line from bottom of same page, instead of proceeding, read prosecuting. In ninth line of page 517, instead of in, read is. On page 541, instead of James D. Conely, read John D. Conely, and on same page the name of D. Johnson should also appear as counsel for complainant. On page 543, the name of G. V. N. Lothrop should also appear as counsel for defendants. In next to last line on page 554, Russell should read Randall. OCTOBER TERM, 1864, AT DETROIT. John T. Symes, Administrator of the Estate of Erasmus G. Tucker, v. Alpheus Oliver. Damages in Trover: In an action of trover for the conversion of pine logs, which the defendant had unlawfully cut on the plaintiff's land, and taken off and sold; it not being shown that the logs were sold for more than their real value; - Held, That the plaintiff was entitled to recover, as damages, the amount for which the logs were sold by the defendant, with interest thereon from the date of the conversion. Heard October 11 and 12. Decided October 18. Case made after judgment, from Saginaw Circuit. In the Court below judgment was rendered for the defendant upon the merits. The facts, so far as necessary to an understanding of the legal questions, are stated in the opinion of the Court. Wm. H. Sweet and John Moore, for plaintiff. CHRISTIANCY J.: This is a case made after judgment for our decision upon the facts and the law. The action was trover for the conversion of pine logs cut on the lands of the deceased, (plaintiff's intestate,) and sold by defendant. · The defence set up was that the logs were cut under a license from plaintiff's intestate, and as his partner, and that the proceeds went into the account of the partnership which existed between the intestate and defendant 13 MICH, B. ERWIN 0. CLARK. in reference to other lands, and a saw-mill, of which they were tenants in common, and in reference to lumbering business. We have been unable to discover any evidence tending to show a license from the intestate; and there is a decisive preponderance of evidence. that the proceeds were not carried into the partnership account. The evidence clearly sustains the declaration, and shows that defendant, of his own wrong, and without license, cut the logs on the individual lands of the intestate to the amount of three hundred and forty-four thousand feet, which he sold for the sum of one thousand three hundred and sixty dollars. These logs being the property of the intestate at the time of the conversion, and the amount which defendant received for them not being shown to be more than their real value, (if, indeed, this were competent,) the plaintiff is entitled to recover this amount, with interest from the time of the conversion,- say from May 1st, 1855. The judgment of the Court below must be reversed, and a judgment judgment rendered in this Court in favor of the plaintiff for the above amount, with his costs in both Courts. The other Justices concurred. John G. Erwin v. Eliphalet M. Clark. Storage in Grain Elevator.- Bailment. When Trover will lie. - Defendant, being the proprietor of a grain elevator, received from plaintiff a quantity of wheat in store. The receipt which he gave provided that the wheat should be delivered on return of the receipt properly indorsed by the party to whose order it was, by its terms, deliverable, and on payment of charges; and that loss or damage by fire was at the owner's risk. Upon demand and refusal to deliver the quantity of wheat specified in the receipt, plaintiff' brought an action of Trover to recover its value. Proof was made of an usage, well known to |