Legal Opinion

Stirling v. Heintzman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1880PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Wayne. Replevin. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

This case comes up on certiorari to review a judgment of a justice of the peace, affirmed by the circuit court for the county of Wayne, and brought into this court by writ of error.

The original action was replevin brought to recover possession of a piano averred in the affidavit to belong to Messrs. Heintzman & Co., of Toronto, Ontario. The affidavit was made by John D. Standish, who set forth that he acted as their agent. A bond was given in which they were -described as principals, as “Messrs. *450Heintzman & Co. of Toronto,” Standish and Charles H. Freeman being described and signing as…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Voigt Brewery Co. v. PacificoMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
  2. In re CarpenterCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1901
  3. Hogendobler v. LyonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873

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

Powered by the Exa API