Legal Opinion

McCoy v. Anderson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 1882PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Error to Osceola. Beplevin. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMarston, J.

Defendant Anderson as treasurer of the township of Burdell, Oceana county, seized certain property of plaintiffs in error to satisfy a tax assessed against them upon the roll of said township for the year 1878.’ The plaintiffs then brought Ühis action of replevin to recover possession of their property.

Upon the trial it was admitted that McCoy and Ayer were co-partners residing at Cadillac, Wexford county; that the tax referred to was on co-partnership personal property, viz., on logs and lumber, the latter being in a mill-yard at Tustin and the logs near there in the township of Burdell.

It…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. LeRoy v. East Saginaw City RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Putman v. Township of Fife LakeMichigan Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Morrow v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  2. Elmendorf v. City of San AntonioTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
  3. Williams v. City of SaginawMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Power v. KindschiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
  5. Wettlin v. JonesWyoming Supreme Court · 1925

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API