Legal Opinion

Brown v. Dunckel

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1881PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Error to Ingham. Replevin. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.

This case began in justice’s court where Dunckel replevied from Brown a horse which he claimed as owner. Brown defended in the right of Roehm & Davison for whom he was agent. Upon trial on appeal in the circuit court it was shown that one Malone was formerly the owner of the horse; that on April 20, 1879, Malone was indebted to Roehm & Davison, and gave them his promissory note for $200, payable -with interest six months from date; that on November 21, 1879, this note remained unpaid and Malone was also indebted to Roehm & Davison on account; the sum with the amount of the note being in all…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hotchin v. SecorMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Burchard v. FrazerMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Sage v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1864

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Savings & Loan Society v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Haggerty v. MacGregorMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
  3. Wilson v. PickeringMontana Supreme Court · 1903
  4. People Ex Rel. P. Koenig Coal Co. v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Willows v. RosenstienIdaho Supreme Court · 1897

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