Legal Opinion
Flood v. Butzbach
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 25, 1897PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Error to Berrien; Coolidge, J. Assumpsit by James H. Flood and Thomas P. Flood against George Butzbach and Claus Schütz for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for plaintiffs on verdict directed by the court, defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
September 21, 1895,. Daniel Cook gave plaintiffs a chattel mortgage upon a quantity of staves and other property. This mortgage was duly filed. It contained, in addition to the usual conditions of a chattel mortgage, the following clause:
“With the understanding that the said heading and staves, as they are finished, shall be shipped and sold in the best market that can be procured by the said Daniel Cook; but all such shipping, sale, and returns shall be in the name of James H. and Thomas P. Flood, and this lien shall be on all such heading and staves in or as above described.”
Cook sold to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carpenter v. GrahamMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Randall v. HigbeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Warner v. BeebeMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Fuller v. RhodesMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Tate v. TorcouttMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by4 opinions
- Caroline State Bank v. AndrewsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Berlein v. EddySupreme Court of Florida · 1925
- James River Bank v. HansenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
- Rogers & Hubbard Co. v. BeszkoMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1941