Lillibridge v. Walsh
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent. (Adsit, J.) Replevin. Defendant brings error. Tbe facts are stated in the opinion, and in 97 Mich. 459.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, C. J.
When this case was here before, in 97 Mich. 459, it was expressly held that property otherwise exempt from execution, but subject, under the statute, to execution for the purchase price, might be seized in the hands of third persons, where the transfer was not bona fide, but was made for the purpose of defeating the statutory right of the vendor, and this, although the notice provided for in the statute had not been filed prior to the transfer; in other words, that the notice was necessary to preserve the vendor’s rights against bona fide purchasers, *154and not as against fraudulent transfers.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lillibridge v. WalshMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Boyle v. WalshMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Gottesman v. ChipmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1900