Boyer v. Soules
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Eaton. (Smith, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
Plaintiff’s claim is that about the 1st. of July, 1886, David E. Hollenbeck and wife were engaged in. the mercantile business in Eaton county, under the name of D. E. Hollenbeck & Co. This firm sold out its *33entire stock of goods to William M. Crane. The defendant, Soules, assisted Crane in making the purchase by loaning him money to the amount of $8,000, taking Crane’s note therefor, and a chattel mortgage on the entire stock of goods as security for the amount. At the time of the sale of the goods to Crane, the firm of D. E. Hollenbeck & Co. was indebted to Allan Shelden & Co., of Detroit,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Calkins v. ChandlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Chapin v. MerrillNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Barry v. . RansomNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Bice v. Marquette Opera-House Building Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rose v. WollenbergOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Sowles v. WilcoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Cokely v. Kelly-Mitchell Construction Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1971
- Feiler v. RosenbloomCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1980