Legal Opinion

Gow v. McFarren

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1909No. Docket No. 121Published

Error to Kalkaska; Chittenden, J. Replevin by James Gow and John Campbell, copartners as Gow & Campbell against J. Marvin McFarren. A judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court is reviewed by plaintiffs on writ of error.

1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.

The opinion of the court upon the original hearing of this case will be found reported at 156 Mich. 362 (120 N. W. 800). We there determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to a directed verdict, upon the ground that the title to the logs assessed had not passed to plaintiffs at time of assessment. Emphasis is now placed *281upon the fact that, at two of the sidings where the logs were found and assessed, plaintiffs’ agent had rented for a nominal sum grounds upon which, as well as upon the railroad right of way, the logs were stored awaiting loading by the vendors or their agents. It is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Forster v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Scott v. WhelanMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Boyce v. StevensMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Gow v. McFarrenMichigan Supreme Court · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API