Bassett v. Armstrong
Michigan Supreme Court
Case reserved from St. Clair Circuit. The action was replevin. From the case as reserved, it ^appears that, on trial before a jury, the facts stated below having been given in evidence, upon the suggestion of the ■circuit judge presiding in said court that it was doubtful whether the plaintiff had such an immediate right to the .possession of the property replevied as to entitle him to maintain an action of replevin therefor, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit, with leave…
Read the full summary
Case reserved from St. Clair Circuit. The action was replevin. From the case as reserved, it ^appears that, on trial before a jury, the facts stated below having been given in evidence, upon the suggestion of the ■circuit judge presiding in said court that it was doubtful whether the plaintiff had such an immediate right to the .possession of the property replevied as to entitle him to maintain an action of replevin therefor, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit, with leave of the court to move to set the same aside. The facts so proved are as follows: That on the 27th day of March, 1857, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell J.:
The construction of the contract between the plaintiff and the firm of .Jenny & Pheljjs is the only matter necessary to be determined. It is very clear that Jenny & Phelps had, under that agreement, no proprietary interest in the logs or lumber. They had no claim of property except in the proceeds after sale. And, being mere agents of Bassett, with an interest which could never attach, even to the proceeds, until they should have completed their labor on the lumber, and made sales, it becomes entirely unnecessary to decide Avhat rights of possession they might have had against…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tandler v. SaundersMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Kuhn v. NewmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
- Warren v. GutchesMichigan Supreme Court · 1888