Eureka Iron & Steel Works v. Bresnahan
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Russell, J.) Trover for chattel-mortgaged property. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChampuin, J.
Plaintiff brought trover for certain chattels. The declaration is in the usual form.
The defendants pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that«Bre.snahan, as sheriff of the county of Muskegon, seized and levied upon the goods and chattels named in the plaint*492iff’s declaration by virtue of five certain writs of attachment issued out of the circuit court for the county of Muskegon against the goods and chattels of the Woodard Manufacturing Comp my, and in favor of certain plaintiffs therein, and particularly describing each of said attachment writs; that judgmeats were recovered in each of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Earl v. Camp & StoneNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- People ex rel. Farrington v. BristolMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Adams v. NiemannMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Crawford v. HoeftMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- State Bank v. ChapelleMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Dunlap v. ByersMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Rickman v. RickmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Thomas v. WattMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Gallick v. BordeauxMontana Supreme Court · 1899
- Fluegel v. HenschelNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.