Legal Opinion

Riley v. Conner

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1890PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Genesee. (Newton, J.) Replevin. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

This is an action of replevin to recover a team of horses and rig, consisting of buggy, harness, and *498other things. The plaintiff had verdict and judgment against the defendants Conner and Dilley. Verdict of not guilty was rendered as to Wilson, by direction of the court.

Dilley and one George D. Wilson were in the livery business at Mint, under the firm name of E. G. Dilley & Co. March 19, 1888, they sold their entire stock to Eiley for $2,125, Eiley paying $25 down, and giving back a mortgage running to Dilley & Co. for $2,100, the balance of the purchase money, and also to secure the payment…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Dann v. CudneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. DoeMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Lorimer v. LorimerMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Dikeman v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

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

Powered by the Exa API