Reeder v. Moore
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Eeplevin. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, C. J.
Plaintiffs brought replevin against Jerome B. Moore, his wife and son, for a quantity of shoes claimed by them to have been purchased from them by Moore through misrepresentation as to his financial condition. At the time of the replevin the son was in charge of the goods, and- the mother had a mortgage or bill of sale upon them. The plaintiffs assert that the son was the agent of the father, while defendants claim'that he was the agent of the mother, and that the goods were in her possession.
We are asked to reverse the judgment upon the ground that no demand was made for the property before…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pangborn v. RuemenappMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Garland v. ChattleNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Koch v. LyonMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- M'Farlan v. TownsendNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Cronly v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1835
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sievertsen v. Paxton-Eckman Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Harris v. CrawleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Freeman v. ShawMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Pearson v. WallaceMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Dages v. BrakeMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.