Wheeler v. Meyer
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Gartner, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
John E. Guilloz and, Samuel J. Guilloz, as copartners, under the name of Guilloz Bros., had been in business as plumbers and steam fitters for some years. They were indebted to plaintiffs in the sum of $4,165, and December 27, 1888, to secure plaintiffs, gave to them a bill of sale of their entire assets, including accounts receivable, as well as tinners5 tools, steam-fitters5 tools and machines, pulleys, and belting, office furniture and fixtures, safe, engine, and boiler, horse, wagon, buggy, sleigh, and harnesses. On the morning of the next day, plaintiffs took possession of the stock and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wheeler v. MeyerMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Wheeler v. MeyerMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Wheeler v. MeyerMichigan Supreme Court · 1896