Legal Opinion

Clute v. Everhart

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1904No. Docket No. 127PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Cass; Carr, J. Replevin by John Clute against Charles Everhart. Erom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

The statement of facts contained in the brief of plaintiff in error (defendant below) alleges that Clute, the plaintiff below, filed an affidavit for the replevin *6of some turkeys, of the value of $15, with a justice of the peace, on the 11th of November, 1902, but that a proper-bond was not filed at that time. The writ was issued,. but no return was made. On the return day, November 17th, the defendant moved to dismiss the writ. This was. done, and the justice made an order that the property replevied be returned to the defendant. The turkeys taken, viz., nine, were not returned, but remained…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Improved-Match Co. v. Michigan Mutual Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Dailey v. KennedyMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Manhard v. SchottMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  4. Pearl v. GarlockMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Treadwell v. PaddockMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. McCall v. Van DusenMichigan Supreme Court · 1905

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

Powered by the Exa API