Elliott v. Hart

Hart brought replevin against Mrs. Elliott and Charles C. Curtis for a building, and was allowed to recover, and she alleges that errors were committed. The building being personal property and capable of being moved from one locality to another the declaration and other proceedings in order to identify it described it as being on lot seven of block six of the city of Lansing, and in speaking in this manner about the place where the building stood, the time referred to when it was so situated was the time when the proceedings were instituted. The meaning is the same as though in each instance…