Scriven v. Moote
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Clinton Circuit. This is replevin brought by Scriven for some wheat which was growing on premises before owned and then occupied by Moote, when Scriven purchased the premises on a chancery foreclosure sale, through which the latter claims to have derived title to the crop.
Read the full summary
Error to Clinton Circuit. This is replevin brought by Scriven for some wheat which was growing on premises before owned and then occupied by Moote, when Scriven purchased the premises on a chancery foreclosure sale, through which the latter claims to have derived title to the crop. Scriven held' title to the lands before the foreclosure sale, through an' execution sale, and Moote claimed to have had an oral arrangement with him prior to such sale whereby he was to reconvey his title to Moote on repayment of his advances and interest; and after the foreclosure sale he filed a bill to redeem.…
1Opinion of the Court
Marston, J:
At the time this case was argued and submitted, my impressions were that Moote might, under his oral arrangement with Scriven, made previous to the foreclosure sale in April, 1874, have some claim to the wheat in question, sowed under such arrangement and previous to such sale. An examination of the record, and of the decision of this court, in Moote v. Scriven, 33 Mich., 500, upon the validity and effect of such oral agreements and of the sale of April, 1874, convinces me that defendant can have no such claim.
In the case referred to, it was held that there was not only no evidence…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Moote v. ScrivenMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by8 opinions
- Beckman v. SikesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
- Goodwin v. SmithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892
- Smith v. HagueSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Wootton v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1899
- Ruggles v. First National BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.