Legal Opinion

Pangborn v. Ruemenapp

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 1889PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to Huron. (Beach, J.) Replevin. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

This is an action in replevin, brought in the circuit court for the county of Huron, to recover the possession of a horse. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff.

The undisputed facts are as follows: Henry Pangborn, a brother of the plaintiff, held an auction sale of property belonging to Henry in November, 1887. Plaintiff took his horse up to the sale, but he Avas not sold at auction. After the auction on the same day Henry Pang-born sold the horse as his OAvn to the defendant, taking in payment therefor a promissory note for $150, dated November 8, 1887, and payable in one year, with interest at…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wilbur v. FloodMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Powers v. . BenedictNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
  3. Thompson v. PeckIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Farwell v. HanchettIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Stubly v. BeachboardMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Joslin v. NoretMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Skinner v. Michigan Hoop Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Riggs v. Hot SpringsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  4. Anderson v. Frischkorn Real Estate Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Reeder v. MooreMichigan Supreme Court · 1893

4 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