Legal Opinion

Pratt v. Burhans

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1891PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Error to Shiawassee. (Newton, J.) Replevin. Defendant brings error. The-facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

Plaintiffs were partners in business inBinghamton, N. Y., under the firm name of the Binghampton Cigar Company. In November, 1889, Mr. Imhoff, one of the plaintiffs, went to Owosso, Mich., and entered *488into an arrangement with the Owosso Cigar Company, a copartnership composed of a Mr. Chase and a Mr. Totten, by which they agreed to send and deliver to them cigars. Mr. Imhoff testifies that plaintiffs agreed to furnish Chase and Totten all the goods they wanted; the title thereto to be retained in plaintiffs until paid for or sold, and, when sold, the accounts to belong to them. This was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Trout v. RumbleMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Eggart v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1898
  2. Edwards v. Baldwin Piano Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1920
  3. McIntyre v. LyonMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
  4. John Deere Plow Co. v. MowryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
  5. Pettyplace v. Groton Bridge & Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894

10 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