Legal Opinion

Crozier v. Partrick

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1894PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Trover. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

The plaintiff brought trover for certain sheep, which the parties seem to concede were at one time in the defendant’s possession. The only question raised *350Beems to be that no demand for the sheep and refusal had been proved upon the trial. The proof upon that subject is as follows:

have been acquainted with the plaintiff, Edith L. Crozier, for a year or more, and during that time have acted as her agent in the matter , of a deal she had with Mr. Partrick, the defendant, in relation to some sheep.

“Q. Did you ever, as her agent, make a written or oral demand on Mr. Partrick for those sheep?
“A.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Daggett v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Hake v. BuellMichigan Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Moon v. Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Knowles v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API