Zucker v. Karpeles
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Reilly, J.) Replevin. Defendants Heavenrich bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChampuin, C. J.
This is an action of replevin, brought to recover certain merchandise which the plaintiffs claim was purchased by defendant Karpeles, and possession thereof obtained through fraud.
The defendant Karpeles had been, and prior to November 16, 1889, was, a merchant in Detroit, and had been engaged in dealing in ready-made clothing for about six years in that city. During the month of July, 1889, an agent of the plaintiffs, who were doing business in the city of Cleveland under the name of Zucker, Kohn & Horwitz, solicited an order for goods from the defendant Karpeles. One of the plaintiffs, Mr.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wormley v. WormleySupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Nichols v. . PinnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Fosdick v. Van ArsdaleMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Dixon v. HillMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
- Garbutt v. Bank of Prairie du ChienWisconsin Supreme Court · 1867
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Ali Bazzi v. Sentinel Insurance CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 2018
- In the Matter of Federal's Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Debtor. Appeal of Matsushita Electric Corporation of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977
- Fish Bros. Wagon v. La Belle Wagon WorksWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- P. Cox Shoe Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Egan v. DotsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.