Legal Opinion · Dissent

Vining v. Millar

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1896PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Wayne; Lillibridge, J. Replevin by James B. Vining and Donald Ferguson against Charles Millar and another for property seized under a chattel mortgage. From a judgment for plaintiffs on verdict directed by the court, defendants bring error.

1DissentGrant, J.

The following statement of facts is taken from the brief in behalf of the plaintiffs, and is correct:

“ On October 11th, the plaintiffs, who were residents of Canada, advanced to one George Leroy, a resident of Illinois, at Detroit, Michigan, $1,600, and took from him a chattel mortgage covering a one-half interest in three trotting horses, which interest was then owned by Leroy. The other one-half interest in two of the horses was owned by the plaintiffs, and in the third horse by another person, not a party to this suit. The plaintiffs and Leroy, at or about the execution of the mortgage,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Montgomery v. WightMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Waite v. MathewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Corbett v. LittlefieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Boydson v. GoodrichMichigan Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Vining v. MillarMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Vining v. MillarMichigan Supreme Court · 1899

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

Powered by the Exa API