Legal Opinion

Freese v. Arnold

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1894PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to St. Joseph. (Loveridge, J.) Replevin. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

The plaintiff was a 'cropper of defendant’s land. By the terms of his written contract, the wheat was to be divided at the machine, the defendant to receive alternate half bushels. Ten hundred and fifty-six bushels of wheat was divided. By mutual assent this provision was not followed, and a division was made in another way, by which the plaintiff claims that the defendant received 50 bushels, machine measure, more than his share. He demanded 25 bushels, and was refused, whereupon he brought replevin.

It was proper to admit testimony tending to show the method of dividing the wheat, and that…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Crapo v. SeyboldMichigan Supreme Court · 1877

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Town v. JepsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Rogers v. KrumreiMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Schultz v. DennisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Opsomere v. OpsomereMichigan Supreme Court · 1910

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

Powered by the Exa API