Fowler v. Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Fowler v. Circuit Judge

1 McGrath 393, 105 McGrath 90

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 16, 1895

DocketNo. 14741

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 393 (Fowler v. Circuit Judge) 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

Fowler v. Circuit Judge, 1 McGrath 393, 105 McGrath 90 (Mich. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

To vacate an order permitting plaintiffs in a replevin suit to> discontinue.

Granted April 16, 1895, with costs against Saunders.

Rehearing denied July 2, 1895, with costs.

George W. Saunders claimed certain livery stock under a chattel mortgage given to one Blake and assigned to George W-Saunders. Closs held a second and H. & J. a third mortgage. Closs and H. & J. claiming that the mortgage assigned to. Saunders had been paid but was not discharged, join, and under their, mortgages place relator in possession to foreclose, agreeing that the proceeds, after paying expenses, may be applied pro rata to the payment of their respective claims. Saunders, who is. the father of the mortgagor, surrendered the property to Closs, his son-in-law, and Closs goes through the form of a foreclosure of his mortgage, selling the property. Relator insists that the property was taken from his possession and that he held not for Closs alone, but for Closs and H. & J., and that he is entitled to judgment.

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

To vacate an order permitting plaintiffs in a replevin suit to> discontinue.

Granted April 16, 1895, with costs against Saunders.

Rehearing denied July 2, 1895, with costs.

George W. Saunders claimed certain livery stock under a chattel mortgage given to one Blake and assigned to George W-Saunders. Closs held a second and H. & J. a third mortgage. Closs and H. & J. claiming that the mortgage assigned to. Saunders had been paid but was not discharged, join, and under their, mortgages place relator in possession to foreclose, agreeing that the proceeds, after paying expenses, may be applied pro rata to the payment of their respective claims. Saunders, who is. the father of the mortgagor, surrendered the property to Closs, his son-in-law, and Closs goes through the form of a foreclosure of his mortgage, selling the property. Relator insists that the property was taken from his possession and that he held not for Closs alone, but for Closs and H. & J., and that he is entitled to judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 393, 105 McGrath 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-v-circuit-judge-mich-1895.