Harris v. Hopkins
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. Replevin. Defendant brings error. A gift is valid if the intent to make it is clear, and if there is anything from which delivery is inferable, Ellis v. Secor 31 Mich. 185; Wallace v. Hams 32 Mich. 380; Latham v. Udell 38 Mich. 238; Davis v. Zimmerman 40 Mich. 24; Crittenden v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co. 41 Mich. 442.
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
Defendant in error sued Mary Harris in replevin before Alexander G. Comstock, a justice of the peace of Wayne county, to recover certain furniture which he claimed as belonging to the estate of decedent, and which Mary Harris claimed as belonging to Myron and Harvey Blaun, by gift'from decedent. The justice found there had been a valid gift. The case was taken on certiorari to the Wayne circuit court, where the justice’s judgment was reversed. It now comes up on error from the circuit court.
The justice returns that he was satisfied there had been an actual gift and delivery by decedent to…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hamilton v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Schollmier v. SchoendelenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1889
- Garrison v. Union Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Molenda v. SimonsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
- Fletcher v. FletcherSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.