Hyde v. Shank
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Osceola. (Judkins, J.) Replevin. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in 77 Mich. 517.
1Opinion of the CourtG-rant, J.
Plaintiffs had verdict and judgment. The facts will be found sufficiently stated in 77 Mich. 517, when this case was first before the Court. There are eight assignments of error, but we shall consider only those which appear to be argued in the defendant’s brief.
1. The defense is that the mortgage was fraudulent as io creditors, and that, if not fraudulent, it was paid at the time the suit was commenced. Plaintiffs, the mortgagees, and Edgett, the mortgagor, had both testified to facts which clearly showed that the mortgage was given for a bona fide indebtedness, and without any intent to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hyde v. ShankMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- John Heidsik Co. v. RechterMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Lapeer County Road Commissioners v. MarkleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1932