Mooney v. Davis
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Reilly, J.) Replevin for leather claimed to have been fraudulently purchased. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.
Until March 10, 1886, the defendants did business in Detroit, as Dudley, Davis & O. They were engaged in the wholesale leather and findings business. On that day Dudley succeeded this company, and took its business as such successor, and under the name of the Standard Leather Company carried it on until January 7, 1888, when he made a general assignment to his former partner, E. J. Davis.
The plaintiffs were engaged in the tanning and harness leather business at Columbus, Indiana, in August, 1887. Mooney & Co. received an order from Dudley in July previous for some leather, and on making…
2Cited by18 opinions
- People v. AdamsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- People v. GoldsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- McDonald v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Brown v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1905
- People v. NeelyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.