Hood v. Judkins
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Mecosta. (Fuller, J.) Replevin. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion and head-notes.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
This is an action of replevin, brought by the plaintiffs, who are copartners, doing business under the style of Hood, Gale & Co., Hood living in Jackson and Gale in Big Rapids. The office of the firm was in Big Rapids.
The suit is brought against the defendant, who was treasurer of the township of Green, Mecosta county, to recover possession of property seized by him to enforce the payment of a tax upon personal property assessed against the plaintiffs in the year 1884.
The main question at issue on the trial was as to the locality where certain property ought to have been taxed.
It appears…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- LeRoy v. East Saginaw City RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
- Putman v. Township of Fife LakeMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Hill v. WrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Loud v. City of CharlestownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Monroe v. GreenhoeMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Carothers v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1945
- Winkley v. NewtonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
- Curtiss v. WittMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Forster v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Northwestern Cooperage & Lumber Co. v. ScottMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.