Cortland Manufacturing Co. v. Platt
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Berrien. (O’Hara, J.) Replevin. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Champlin, O. J.
Plaintiff brought replevin for certain wagons, poles, and seats.
*421The defendant George W. Platt had, prior to February 3, 1889, been engaged in the mercantile business at Benton Harbor, the principal line of his- business being hardware. He was also interested in the milling business at that place. He was assisted in his store by his son, Frank H. Platt,' who, during his father’s absence or inability to attend to business on account of sickness, exercised full control over the business. In 1887, George W. Platt drew money out of his hardware business to invest in the milling…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Duncan v. SeeleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by11 opinions
- Green v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
- People v. ScheppsMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
- People v. RobinsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972
- Monier v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- Gundlin v. Hamburg-American Packet Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.