Legal Opinion

Klingensmith v. James B. Clow & Sons

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1935No. Docket No. 23, Calendar No. 38,127PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

On Rehearing.

Edward M. Sharpe, J.

This case was heard at the January, 1935, term of this court and is reported in 270 Mich. 460, to which reference is made for the facts involved. We held in our former opinion that the written instrument was a chattel mortgage.

In this cause plaintiff became receiver of the H. J. Cousino Company by virtue of his appointment October 11, 1932, by the circuit court of Wayne county on the application of the Detroit Hume Pipe Company contained in its judgment creditors’ bill in said cause. The original obligation of the Cousino company to the Detroit Hume Pipe…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Detroit Trust Co. v. Detroit City Service Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Detroit Trust Co. v. Pontiac Savings BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  3. Charles Root & Co. v. HarlMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Peter Schuttler Co. v. GuntherMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Molsons Bank v. BermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1923

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. BridgeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1936
  2. Uhl v. Wexford CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API