Legal Opinion

Goppelt v. Burgess

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1902No. Docket No. 115PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Error to Saginaw; Snow, J. Replevin by Martha Goppelt against William W. Burgess. From a judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.

Plaintiff, replevied a quantity of household goods which defendant, undersheriff of Saginaw county, had on February 27, 1901, seized under an execution against plaintiff’s husband. A large part of these goods belonged to plaintiff’s husband when he and plaintiff were married. Plaintiff claimed that her husband sold this property to her. The only witness who testified on this subject was the plaintiff herself. The court, in *29directing a verdict for the plaintiff, decided that the jury was bound to believe her testimony, and the only question before us is whether or not this decision is correct.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Druse v. WheelerMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Michigan Pipe Co. v. Michigan Fire & Marine InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Rose v. JacksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. People v. JacksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Ball-Barnhart-Putman Co. v. LaneMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Zart v. Singer Sewing Machine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Abbott v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
  5. American National Bank & Trust Co. v. ModdermanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972

8 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