Ross v. Miner
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Jennison, J.) Eeplevin. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in the opinion reported in 64 Mich. 204.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
The controversy in this case, and the principal facts relating thereto, are set out in the opinion filed when: the cause was first brought before us. See 64 Mich. 204.
Another trial has taken place since then in the circuit, upon which trial the Hon. William Jennison directed a verdict for the defendants. He also shut out testimony tending to show the dealings of the defendants Miner and Agnew while in business at Detroit,' and before they made a general assignment for the benefit of their creditors.
Plaintiffs sold certain teas on the sixteenth of October and twenty-fourth of November, 1884,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ross v. MinerMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
3Cited by9 opinions
- Penn Mut. Life Ins. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Mudsill Min. Co. v. WatrousCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1894
- Haines v. HaydenMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Morgan v. AndrewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- McNaughton v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.