Buhl Iron Works v. Teuton
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Jcnnison, J.) Replevin. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
The plaintiff and defendants were unsecured creditors of the Detroit Tag & Transit Company.
The plaintiff is a corporation, and the defendants are copartners doing business under the firm name of Teuton, McWilliams & Co.
The indebtedness to the plaintiff was evidenced by two promissory notes, due on the sixth and eighth of January, 1886, respectively, for $1,000, and payable at the Detroit National Bank.
The plaintiff claims that on the eighth of January, 1886, it purchased the property in dispute, — consisting of one 12-inch rotary steam-pump, built by the Silsby Manufacturing Company ; seven…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cooper v. BrockMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Carpenter v. GrahamMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Hodges v. HurdIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
- Nash v. ElyNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Goodwin v. KellyNew York Supreme Court · 1864
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Detroit Trust Co. v. Detroit City Service Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
- People ex rel. Esper v. BurnsMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Klingensmith v. James B. Clow & SonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
- In re HuxollCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
- Baker v. ParkhurstMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.