Wipfler v. Detroit Pattern Works
Michigan Supreme Court
Cross-appeals from Wayne; Rohnert, J. Bill by Charles Wipfler against the Detroit Pattern Works, Lucy Wipfler, Charles E. Wipfler, and Louis Horn io establish his rights in defendant corporation. From ihe decree rendered, all parties appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
Defendant Lucy is the wife of complainant, and defendant Charles E. is their eldest son. In September, 1898, complainant commenced the manufac*678ture of patterns. This business was carried on under the name of the Detroit Pattern Works. The capital invested in that business was $1,050 in cash, the ownership of which is in dispute, and other property of inconsiderable value. In January, 1899, it was found that additional capital was needed, and defendant Lucy advanced $1,500, which she obtained by mortgaging land which had formerly been conveyed to her by complainant. This mortgage was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Camp's Appeal from ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869
- Guinan's Appeal from ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Hill v. StevensonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1873
- Peninsular Savings Bank v. WinemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
3Cited by2 opinions
- McNamara v. LangguthMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Fleming v. DaltonMichigan Supreme Court · 1918