Legal Opinion

Whitney v. Hyde

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 1892PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to St. Clair. (Canfield, J.) Replevin. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

This is an action of replevin, brought to recover a piano which had been sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant Almond Hyde, who delivered it as a .gift to defendant Otho F. Hyde, who in turn sold it to ■one John P. Niggeman, to be delivered to the defendant railway company for shipment to Niggeman. It was so delivered and in the possession of the railway company when this suit was brought.

The plaintiffs claimed at the trial that the defendant Almond Hyde purchased the piano fraudulently, with intent not to pay for it. The jury found against the plaintiffs on this issue, and, the defendants…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pearl v. GarlockMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Davidson v. GunsollyMichigan Supreme Court · 1850
  3. Steele v. MattesonMichigan Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Boucher v. TrembleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Salter v. SutherlandMichigan Supreme Court · 1901

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API