Legal Opinion

Boyce v. Peterson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1891PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Eeplevin. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

This is an action of replevin for 250,000 feet of piece stuff lumber, alleged in the declaration to be of the value of $5,000. The defendant was the collecting officer of the village of North Muskegon, and by virtue of .the tax warrant had levied upon this property to collect the tax assessed against the plaintiff for the year 1889. Upon its seizure the plaintiff brought this suit, and obtained possession of the property. Upon the trial the following stipulation was filed:

“ 1. That plaintiff was the owner of the property described in the declaration in this cause at the time it was seized by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fay v. WoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Hill v. WrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Forster v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Sherman v. FisherMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Roberts v. DenioMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Town of Ketchikan v. ZimmermanDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1910

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

Powered by the Exa API