Legal Opinion

Vining v. Millar

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1898PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Wayne; Erazer, J. Replevin by James B. Yining and Donald Ferguson against Charles Millar and David W. Fox. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

This case has been here before, and is reported in 109 Mich. 205, where there is a full statement of the case as it was made in the first trial. Some new features are involved in this hearing, and, in addition to the statement of facts contained in the reported case, it is necessary to state further what occurred. On the second trial it was claimed by plaintiffs that when Yining fell sick,.and was unable to remain with the horses personally, Stilson was put in charge of the horses, and was to have the same authority that Yining, up to that time, had exercised. Construing the testimony in the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. People's Savings Bank v. BatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Fearey v. CummingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Charles Root & Co. v. HarlMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Crippen v. JacobsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Kohl v. LynnMichigan Supreme Court · 1876

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Esper v. BurnsMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  2. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. NussLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1939
  3. Lingle v. Owosso Sugar Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Vining v. MillarMichigan Supreme Court · 1899

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

Powered by the Exa API