Legal Opinion

Tuomista v. Moilanen

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1945No. Docket No. 27, Calendar No. 42,601PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWiest, J.

September 23,1937, plaintiff sold to defendant a beer garden and its equipment, transferred to Mm tbe liquor license, received some down payment and a series of promissory notes, secured by a purchase-money chattel mortgage upon the equipment. Payment of notes being in default, plaintiff, under the chattel mortgage, sued out a writ of replevin for the equipment covered thereby. The writ was not executed because, after its i'ssue, there was some effort toward an adjustment between the parties. There was, however, no adjustment and, October 8,1941, plaintiff brought this suit at law in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bateman v. Grand Rapids & Indiana RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Thurber v. JewettMichigan Supreme Court · 1854
  3. Simpson v. MurphyMichigan Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hill v. Michigan National BankMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. Gaval v. WojtowyczMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
  3. Charles P Harris v. Fidelity National Title Insurance CompanyMichigan Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. Kim Bradley v. Westfield Insurance CompanyMichigan Court of Appeals · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API