Legal Opinion

Churchill v. Rea

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1901PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Alpena; Kelley, J. Replevin by Worthy L. Churchill and Hobart D. Churchill against Robert Rea and the Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant Rea brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

This action of replevin for 89 logs was ■commenced in justice’s court. The logs were the property of the plaintiffs, were taken by defendant Rea, and shipped by defendant railway company, which had no other interest in them than that of carrier. They were in the actual possession of the railway. The affidavit stated that the logs were the property of plaintiffs, and were unlawfully detained from their possession by the defendants, naming them. The affidavit then stated that “ said Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company and Robert Rea are now lawfully entitled to the possession of said goods and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Freer v. WhiteMichigan Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Oliver-Electrical Manufacturing Co. v. I. O. Teigen Construction Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API