Legal Opinion

Parsons v. Kimmel

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 17, 1919No. Docket No. 79PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Eaton; Smith, J. Replevin by Romeyn C. Parsons against Bert Kimmel for the possession of a cow. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.

On June 11, 1915, plaintiff sold to defendant an automobile for $150, taking in part payment thereof a heifer or cow at an agreed price of $75. At the time of the transaction defendant executed to plaintiff a bill of sale for the animal in question. On the next day, plaintiff resold the cow to defendant on a title-retaining contract. Defendant neglected or refused to pay for the cow according to thé terms of the contract, whereupon plaintiff repossessed himself of the animal under a writ of replevin issued November 8, 1917. The animal in question had been given to defendant and his wife…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kindy v. GreenMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. CullatonMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Holman v. GilletteMichigan Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Schaupeter v. SchaupeterMichigan Supreme Court · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API