This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Anderson (P) claimed to have cut logs from a certain piece of real property and to have hauled them to a mill. Gouldberg (D) acquired them from the mill. P did not own the property from which the logs were cut, and did not have any kind of agreement with the owner. D claimed that the logs were cut from property owned by a logging company and that they took the logs at the direction of the company. The lower court found that, even if P was a trespasser on the land from which he claimed to have taken the logs, he would have good title as against all but the true owner. The question as to which piece of land the logs were taken from went to the jury, which found in P's favor. D appeals.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.