Legal Opinion

Vanneter v. Crossman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1880PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Ingham. Eepleyin by Crossman and Whipple for a yoke of oxen belonging to one Watkins and held by Vanneter as constable under writs of attachment against Watkins, taken out first by Crossman and Whipple and afterwards by Mead & Fleming. It appears that the first attachment suit had been discontinued, and it is not shown that Yanneter was notified of that fact when the writ of replevin was taken out against him.

Read the full summary

Error to Ingham. Eepleyin by Crossman and Whipple for a yoke of oxen belonging to one Watkins and held by Vanneter as constable under writs of attachment against Watkins, taken out first by Crossman and Whipple and afterwards by Mead & Fleming. It appears that the first attachment suit had been discontinued, and it is not shown that Yanneter was notified of that fact when the writ of replevin was taken out against him. Whipple gave some evidence tending to show that he and his partner Cross-man had advanced the ¡money to pay for the oxen and that they had a lien on them for the amount until…

1Opinion of the CourtMarston, C. J.

We are not satisfied that this case ■differs materially from the shape in which it was presented before [39 Mich., 610] as to the notice to the officer of the discontinuance of the Crossman and Whipple attachment proceedings.

The court, however, was clearly in error in the charge given in reply to a question asked by one of the jurors.1 *467In order to estop Crossman and-Whipple it would not be at all necessary that the jury should find that the attachment proceedings were commenced by them with the intention on their part of causing the defendants Mead & Fleming to understand that they, Crossman…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dann v. CudneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
  2. Vanneter v. CrossmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Seymour Improvement Co. v. Viking Sprinkler Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. De Mill v. MoffatMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Granger v. FarrantMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Stebbins v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  5. Carstensen v. BallantyneUtah Supreme Court · 1912

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