Legal Opinion

Hughes v. Daniells

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1891PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Clinton. (Daboll, J.) Beplevin. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

This is an action of replevin, brought in the circuit court for the county of Clinton. The plaintiff replevied the property under the writ, and, on the trial before the court and jury, had verdict by direction of the court. Upon judgment being entered on the verdict, defendants bring the case to this Court by writ of error.-

It appears that the defendants on April 1, 1889, were the owners of a ñouring-mill situate in that county, and on that day made a lease of the mill to on,e Quincy A. Hughes for one year next ensuing. By the terms of the lease, the party of the second part was to be at…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Allen v. HartfieldIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Hale v. HolmesMichigan Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. City of Detroit v. Detroit & Howell Plank Road Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Benham v. Columbia Canal Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API