Legal Opinion

Hoja v. Motoc

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1926No. Docket No. 84PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWiest, J.

Tom Peterson owned and operated a grocery and meat market. He owed plaintiff $1,000. Without complying with the bulk sales law (2 Comp. Laws 1915, § 6346 et seq.), Peterson sold the stock and fixtures to defendant Motoc for $1,350. Plaintiff, as creditor of Peterson, filed the bill herein to have Motoc declared receiver of the property for the benefit of Peterson’s creditors. Defendant Landry, as trustee in bankruptcy of Peterson, a bankrupt, intervened and asked that Motoc pay him the value of the property for the benefit of the creditors of the bank-, rupt. Motoc claimed that, a few days…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bowen v. QuigleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  2. J. L. Hudson Co. v. No-Name Hat Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Newcomb v. MontagueMichigan Supreme Court · 1919

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. McPartin v. ClarksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Patmos v. Grand Rapids Dairy Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API