Legal Opinion
Hudson v. McKale
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 22, 1895PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Error to Ingham; Person, J. Replevin by Lester S. Hudson against William H. McKale for goods seized on attachment as the property of a third party. From a judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the 'court, defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
Plaintiff was, prior to the 15th day of August, 1892, the owner of the stock and fixtures in a saloon in the city of Lansing. On that day he made a conditional sale of the property to one O. M. Webb. The contract provided that the title to the property should remain in the plaintiff until the purchase price was paid. One-half the consideration was paid down, and the rest was to be paid in installments. The contract, which was signed by both parties, contained the following provisions:
“ Said second party does severally agree to pay said first party the full and true sum of four thousand…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fearey v. CummingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Blanchard v. CookeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Cooper v. BrockMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Crippen v. JacobsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Waite v. MathewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mishawaka Woolen Mfg. Co. v. WestveerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
- Lingle v. Owosso Sugar Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Shapiro v. Hoffman's Dairy Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1952