Legal Opinion

Raridan v. Bick

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1932No. Docket No. 138, Calendar No. 36,421PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFead, J.

In Miller v. Bick, 240 Mich. 608, is a statement of the facts of this case, only a few of which need to be repeated.

In 1923, defendant had a contract to’ construct a dam. Two of his subcontractors purchased some tractors and trailers from plaintiff Miller under instruments which, in form, were title-retaining contracts, but in law passed title with chattel mortgages back to plaintiff. In the fall, the subcontractors had financial troubles and were unable to pay their material and labor bills. Plaintiff, diligently but unsuccessfully, had sought payment of his claims, and in October sent J. M.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kintz v. GalvinMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Sheltrown v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Wulff v. BosslerMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Stanaback v. McFaddenMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Miller v. BickMichigan Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Roulo v. Automobile Club of Mich.Michigan Supreme Court · 1971
  2. South Looking Glass Drainage District Board v. Grand Trunk Western RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Strausser v. Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the WorldMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Freedman v. BurtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Carter v. MillerNebraska Supreme Court · 1935

2 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