Humiston, Keeling & Co. v. Bridgman
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Berrien; Collingwood, J., presiding. Bill by Humiston, Keeling & Company against George C. Bridgman and others to enforce the provisions of the “Sales in Bulk Law.” From an order overruling the pleas in abatement of defendants Bridgman and Yore, said defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtKui-in, C. J.
We have previously considered one feature of this litigation when the case was before us upon the question of the equity jurisdiction. It is reported in 181 Mich. 629 (148 N. W. 266), and the facts contained in the bill of complaint are quite fully set forth in the opinion reversing the order of the lower court sustaining a demurrer to the bill and the *84contention that the bill made a case for the appointment of a receiver. For a proper understanding of the case it is necessary to restate some of the material facts, which are taken from the previous opinion:
“The complainant, a wholesale…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mintz v. JacobMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Humiston, Keeling & Co. v. YoreMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by10 opinions
- Williams, Et Ux. v. RobineauSupreme Court of Florida · 1936
- Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. MonsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Rutter v. KingMichigan Court of Appeals · 1974
- Willard v. ShekellMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- Washburn v. PeckMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.