Legal Opinion

Hake v. Buell

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 1883PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Kent. (Montgomery, J.) Trover. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

Hake sued Buell in trover as assignee of one Charles Scheidt for an amount of liquors and other saloon stock, which plaintiff claimed and defendant admitted were purchased by defendant of Scheldt’s wife during his absence. Scheidt had been keeping a saloon in Nashville, Barry county, and in December, 1881, left that place for a while, the saloon having been closed previously by reason of some trouble with the local authorities. The stock appears to have been worth not far from $700, there being however a dispute as to the true value. Buell bought it of Mrs. Scheidt for a consideration of not…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hintz v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  2. LaFayette County Bank v. Metcalf, Moore & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1890
  3. Walley v. Deseret National BankUtah Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Wiest v. LuyendykMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Hicks v. SteelMichigan Supreme Court · 1901

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

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

Powered by the Exa API