Bullard v. Avery

Michigan Supreme Court

Bullard v. Avery

86 N.W. 144, 126 Mich. 711, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 819

DecidedMay 21, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 86 N.W. 144 (Bullard v. Avery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bullard v. Avery, 86 N.W. 144, 126 Mich. 711, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 819 (Mich. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Montgomery, C. J.

The sole question for decision by the circuit was whether the indebtedness of the garnishee defendants was due to Sanford C. Avery or to his wife, [712]*712the claimant in this case. The indebtedness was for beans grown on a farm the title to which was in Mrs. Avery under a deed duly recorded some years before the transaction took place. The testimony tends to show that Mrs. Avery had made inquiries of the garnishee defendants as to the price of the beans, and that her husband took the beans to market. In making the sale nothing was said by him as to the ownership of the beans, either way. Before he received the pay for them the writ of garnishment was served. The circuit judge was of the opinion that the testimony was all one way, and directed a verdict for the claimant.

We think this conclusion was right. The record of the deed was notice of title. Hedstrom v. Kingsbury, 40 Mich. 636; Campbell v. Remaly, 112 Mich. 214 (70 N. W. 432, 67 Am. St. Rep. 393 ). The only evidence of any holding out of Sanford C. Avery as owner of the personal property consisted of testimony that he acted for claimant in making sales.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Montgomery, C. J.

The sole question for decision by the circuit was whether the indebtedness of the garnishee defendants was due to Sanford C. Avery or to his wife, [712]*712the claimant in this case. The indebtedness was for beans grown on a farm the title to which was in Mrs. Avery under a deed duly recorded some years before the transaction took place. The testimony tends to show that Mrs. Avery had made inquiries of the garnishee defendants as to the price of the beans, and that her husband took the beans to market. In making the sale nothing was said by him as to the ownership of the beans, either way. Before he received the pay for them the writ of garnishment was served. The circuit judge was of the opinion that the testimony was all one way, and directed a verdict for the claimant.

We think this conclusion was right. The record of the deed was notice of title. Hedstrom v. Kingsbury, 40 Mich. 636; Campbell v. Remaly, 112 Mich. 214 (70 N. W. 432, 67 Am. St. Rep. 393 ). The only evidence of any holding out of Sanford C. Avery as owner of the personal property consisted of testimony that he acted for claimant in making sales.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.W. 144, 126 Mich. 711, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullard-v-avery-mich-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack