Busch v. Fisher
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Marquette. (Grant, J.) Debt on replevin bond. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1.In support of the right of the defendants to show that the plaint- . iffs had no interest, or at most hut a part interest, in the property at the time the replevin suit was commenced, and that they had no right of possession, except on account of their having replevied it and given bond, and, further, that the defendants, or some of them, had, at the time of…
Read the full summary
Error to Marquette. (Grant, J.) Debt on replevin bond. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1.In support of the right of the defendants to show that the plaint- . iffs had no interest, or at most hut a part interest, in the property at the time the replevin suit was commenced, and that they had no right of possession, except on account of their having replevied it and given bond, and, further, that the defendants, or some of them, had, at the time of the commencement of the replevin suit; “a part ownership or other valuable interest in said property,” counsel cited…
1Opinion of the CourtOhamplin, J.
This is an action of debt upon a replevin bond. The plea was the general issue, with a notice of special matter of defense, as follows :
“Take notice that under the general issue the defendants will prove that before the action of replevin mentioned in the plaintiffs’ declaration was commenced, another action of replevin had been commenced by the said William O. Busch, as plaintiff, against the said Nester and Fisher and George L. Burtis, defendants, for the recovery of the same property; that in said suit said property was taken and delivered to said plaintiff by the sheriff of said county.
“…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Busch v. NesterMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Fisher v. BuschMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
3Cited by2 opinions
- People of State of Colorado v. HutchinsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
- Busch v. FisherMichigan Supreme Court · 1891