Dages v. Brake
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Sanilac; Beach, J. Replevin by John W. Dages and William H. Andrews, survivors of themselves and John Dages, deceased, co-partners as Dages, Andrews & Co., against Forest B. Brake. From an order quashing the writ, plaintiffs bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The plaintiffs’ writ of replevin contained the following description of articles constituting the subject of the action, and, with a few slight inaccuracies, the articles described in the affidavit attached to the writ and the declaration 'were the same.
*65Number. Pairs.
39 6'Woman’s Dong. Polish 3-J to 6’s at §1.50______§9 00
681 13 Child’s Dong. Pol. 8* to 18 at .75______ 9 00
411 12 pair Misses’ Dong. Pol. 13’s to 2’s at .90...... 10 80
—And other similar items. A portion of the goods only were taken under the writ, as shown by the inventory. After the declaration was filed, the defendant made a…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Barry v. CoombeSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Collender v. . DinsmoreNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Barton v. AndersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- De Lavallette v. . WendtNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- United States Express Co. v. KeeferIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Griffin v. ErskineSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- State v. WhiteneckIndiana Supreme Court · 1911