Humiston, Keeling & Co. v. Yore
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Berrien; Perkins, J., presiding. Bill by Humiston, Keeling & Company against Catherine Yore, George C. Bridgman and others to enforce the provisions of the “Sales in Bulk Law.” From a decree for defendants, complainant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtKuhn, J.
The facts set forth in the bill of complaint in substance are as follows: The complainant, a wholesale druggist, between June 30 and December 16, 1906, sold goods to the defendant John A. Inman, who was a retail druggist in Benton Harbor, amounting in value to $390.04, which have never been paid for. On or about December 17, 1906, Inman sold his entire stock of goods and fixtures, of the actual value of $3,000, to the defendant Catherine Yore for the sum of $300, and she agreed that she would assume and agree to pay Inman’s debts in connection with the store, which she was informed amounted…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carpenter v. BellTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
- Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1896
- Walker v. SchultzMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Coffey v. McGaheyMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bayley v. FriedbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
- Humiston, Keeling & Co. v. BridgmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Touris v. KarantzalisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Dorgan v. BirneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Nickerson v. NickersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.