Legal Opinion

Mead v. Glidden

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 17, 1890PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Eaton. (Hooker, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

There is but little controversy about the facts in this case. They are substantially set forth in the brief of plaintiff’s counsel as follows:

In the year 1881 one A. Markson was doing business in the city of Eaton Rapids, this State, as a clothier. He became embarrassed financially, and sold out his entire stock and business to his brother-in-law, Nathan J. Wolfe. This sale was immediately attacked by some of Markson’s creditors as fraudulent. The stock was ■attached, John M. Corbin acting as attorney for the creditors. Wolfe replevied the goods attached, by a writ •of replevin from the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Frederick v. Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Wolfe v. FrederickMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Shedd v. American Maize Products Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Johnson v. Patmon, Young & Kirk, PCMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Goodrich v. Hackley-Phelps-Bonnell Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905

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

Powered by the Exa API