Legal Opinion

Gutsch v. McIlhargey

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1888PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Error to Huron. (Beach, J.) Beplevin. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

This was an action of replevin for a small frame house. Defendant Bacon, as receiver of an insurance company, obtained a judgment against Herman Gutsch, the husband of plaintiff, and delivered the execution for service *378to defendant Mcllhargey, who, as is claimed, by Bacon’s directions, levied it upon the house in question. The building was used by Mr. Gutsch as a shoemaker’s shop, and Mr. Mcllhargey allowed him, pending the levy, to continue to-work there.

On the trial the title of plaintiff was shown in part by her husband, who testified to getting the building done by her directions, and…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. Stephenson v. GoldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Kenney v. RanneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Southwestern Surety Insurance v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
  4. McAfee v. Bankers Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
  5. In Re DawleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1926

6 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