Legal Opinion
In re Higgs
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided December 2, 1954No. 10748PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PICARD, District Judge.
This is a reclamation petition brought by H. Hirschfield Sons Co. based upon the claimed validity of a chattel mortgage. The equities preponderate in favor of petitioner. The law, however, does not.
Findings of Fact
Here are the facts. In early 1952 Arthur E. Higgs and Jane C. Higgs, doing business as the Jany Ceramic Fashions, made arrangements to borrow $8,-000 from petitioner H. Hirschfield Sons Co. to take care of current bills. Petitioner advanced them this amount in three installments, June 23rd ($3,000), July 10th ($2,500) and July 11th ($2,-500), 1952. On the last…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Moore v. BaySupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Fearey v. CummingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- In Re Lustron Corp. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Lustron CorpCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- In re Dismal Swamp Contracting Co.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1905
- Deane v. Fidelity Corporation of MichiganDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1949
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Harper v. Borden CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1961
- Glassman v. HertzbergCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1958
- In re Consolidated Oil Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1956
- In re RileyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1956
- In re of Valley City Furniture Co.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.