Legal Opinion
Stever v. Brown
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided January 3, 1899PublishedCited by 6 opinions
Error to Muskegon; Russell, J. Replevin by A. E. and H. H. Stever against Horace Brown. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
An action of replevin was brought in justice’s court upon an affidavit made by Henry H. Stever. It alleged that:
“Henry H. Stever, one of the firm of A. E. and H. H. Stever, copartners, being sworn, says that one bicycle, * * * of the personal goods and chattels of the said firm of A. E. and H. H. Stever, is unlawfully detained * * * by Horace Brown, and that said A. E. and H. H. Stever are now lawfully entitled to the possession of the said goods and chattels. And deponent further says that said goods and chattels have not been taken for any tax * * * against the goods and chattels of said A.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Barber v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Emerson v. Detroit Steel & Spring Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Dailey v. KennedyMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Schofield v. JenningsIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Fewlass v. AbbottMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Miller v. Chapman ContractingMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
- Salem Springs, LLC v. Salem TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
- Kalamazoo Trust Co. v. MerrillMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- E. S. Knowles & Son v. CavanaughMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Miller v. Chapman ContractingMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.