Myres v. Yaple
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Oceana. (Russell, J.) Replevin. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. The action is in rem, and the contract note was offered in evidence for the purpose of showing that the title remained in the vendors.
Read the full summary
Error to Oceana. (Russell, J.) Replevin. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. The action is in rem, and the contract note was offered in evidence for the purpose of showing that the title remained in the vendors. This is competent: Ingersoll v. Barnes, 47 Mich. 104. On payment of the purchase price by plaintiff, who was only a surety, he was subrogated to the rights of the vendor's : West Michigan Savings Bank v. Howard, 52 Mich. 424. Had the debt been secured by a promissory note signed by plaintiff as surety, it would have been his duty, on default of payment by the…
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
The plaintiff brought replevin to recover possession of the buggy or carriage mentioned in the following contract:
*342“$90. Hart, September 4, 1882.
“ On or before tlie fourth day of May, 1883, I promise to pay to Bailey & Cahill ninety dollars, with interest at the rate of ten percent, (payable monthly), ten dollars per mouth, (payable at Hart).
In case the above note is not paid at maturity at the place the same is made payable, then and in such case, for and in consideration of the trouble and expense said Bailey & Cahill are put to by reason of their being obliged to force collection thereof,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bush v. WadsworthMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by12 opinions
- Atkinson v. JapinkMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- State Bank v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1918
- Barton v. GrosecloseIdaho Supreme Court · 1905
- Standard Steam Laundry v. DoleUtah Supreme Court · 1900
- Torp v. GulsethSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.