Legal Opinion

Randall v. Higbee

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 12, 1877PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Superior Court of Grand Rapids. Assumpsit. The facts are in the opinion.

1Per curiam

The plaintiffs had a mortgage on a stock of goods which had not been put on record. The defendant being a creditor of the mortgagor, took by arrangement with him or his wife, sufficient of the goods to satisfy his demand, sold a part of them and retained the remainder. Plaintiffs, claiming that defendant at the time of taking the goods, had knowledge of their mortgage, brought suit against him in assumpsit on the common counts.

This suit cannot be maintained. The goods did not belong to plaintiffs; they had only a lien upon them. If defendant, with knowledge of their lien, has wrongfully done…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People ex rel. Farrington v. BristolMichigan Supreme Court · 1876

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Upton v. HumeOregon Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Sanford v. Duluth & Dakota Elevator Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Harris v. GrantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
  4. Bollen v. Wilson Creek Union Grain & Trading Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Warner v. BeebeMichigan Supreme Court · 1882

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API