Robards v. Waterman
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Calhoun. (Hooker, J.) Eeplevin. Plaintiff brings error. The facts •are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
This case was tried before the court without a jury. The findings of fact are as follows:
1. Plaintiff and one David B. Swart were partners in trade, and owners, as such, of a stock of groceries, including the property mentioned in the writ of replevin issued in this cause; the plaintiff being a married woman, and *234her husband acting as her authorized agent in relation to the business.
2. On the 17th day of August, 1885, the said firm was indebted, for goods purchased, to two firms, and to secure said indebtedness the plaintiff, in the name of the firm, had delivered to said creditors two…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Harrison v. SterrySupreme Court of the United States · 1809
- Gates v. BennettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878
- Walker v. WhiteMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Nelson v. WheelockIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Harvey v. FordMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by5 opinions
- West Coast Grocery Co. v. StinsonWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- Rice v. City of MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
- Beckman v. NobleMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Walker v. Village of BrooklynMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- White v. SchabergMichigan Supreme Court · 1902