Farwell v. Myers
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Cass. (Smith, J.) Claim filed under How. Stat. § 8747, allowed, and assigneeordered to recognize claim in paying dividends to creditors. Assignee brings error by order of circuit judge. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in 59 Mich. 179.
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
This is the same controversy, in a different form, which is reported in Farwell v. Myers, 59 Mich. 179.
In that case a claim was prosecuted under a general assignment for a balance insisted on as remaining due under a contract which was made by a purchaser with intent to defraud vendors, and to get goods without paying for them-*236The debtor made a general assignment, and the creditors replevied so much of ■ the goods as they could trace to the hands of the assignee. They then filed their claim as vendors for the price of so much of the property as they had not replevied. The circuit court held…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Farwell v. MyersMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by6 opinions
- Crook v. First National Bank of BarabooWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Farmers' National Bank v. FondaMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Reid, Murdoch & Co. v. FerrisMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Reid, Murdoch & Co. v. ParksMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- First National Bank v. SweetMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.