Hickey v. Hinsdale
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne Circuit. The action was replevin, by Hinsdale against Hickey and Bigelow, who justified under an execution against Hinsdale, by virtue of which Hickey, acting as constable, and by direction of Bigelow, levied on the property replevied, which consisted mainly of household furniture.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne Circuit. The action was replevin, by Hinsdale against Hickey and Bigelow, who justified under an execution against Hinsdale, by virtue of which Hickey, acting as constable, and by direction of Bigelow, levied on the property replevied, which consisted mainly of household furniture. The execution was issued upon a judgment in favor of McBride, Robinson and Hoover, against Hinsdale as garnishee of Samuel Chamberlain, rendered March 1, 1858, for^$249 58. On the trial, the defendants, as a part of their case, offered in evidence a paper in the words and figures following, to wit: “…
1Opinion of the Court
Christiancy, J.:
There was no error in holding that the agreement signed by Hinsdale was not a valid contract, and could not, therefore, operate as an estoppel against him. But the Court held it was admissible “for some purposes;” and we think it was admissible as a parol admission of the facts recited in it, and open to explanation and contradiction as such.
But, as we understand the finding of facts, we think the Court erred in holding the plaintiff below entitled to maintain the action of replevin for the goods in question, as they seem to have been already in his possession at the time the…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Aber v. BrattonMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Sexton v. McDowdMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Cary v. HewittMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Troy Laundry Machinery Co. v. Carbon City Laundry Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1921
- Clark v. WestMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.