Goozen v. Phillips

Michigan Supreme Court

Goozen v. Phillips

12 N.W. 889, 49 Mich. 7, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 467

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 21, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 12 N.W. 889 (Goozen v. Phillips) 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

Goozen v. Phillips, 12 N.W. 889, 49 Mich. 7, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 467 (Mich. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooley, J.

This is replevin for property described as “one pool table, consisting of six pockets, four legs, cues and triangles,” which the defendant as constable levied upon by virtue of an execution against the plaintiff. The only question in the case is whether the plaintiff was entitled to hold the property, exempt from execution, as tools, implements, materials, stock or apparatus, to enable him to carry on his occupation or business.

The occupation or business of the plaintiff at the time the levy was made is shown to have been that of a saloon-keeper. A saloon is supposed to be a place where persons who call for them are supplied with refreshments; and unless a pool table has a place among the tools, implements, stock or apparatus, necessary or convenient to be used in the supply of refreshments to customers, we know of no ground for holding it exempt under the statute. The circuit judge has found the facts, and has not found that the pool table has any necessary or proper connection with the saloon business. It follows that the judgment which was given for the defendant must be affirmed with costs.

Graves, O. J. and Campbell, J. concurred.

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

Cooley, J.

This is replevin for property described as “one pool table, consisting of six pockets, four legs, cues and triangles,” which the defendant as constable levied upon by virtue of an execution against the plaintiff. The only question in the case is whether the plaintiff was entitled to hold the property, exempt from execution, as tools, implements, materials, stock or apparatus, to enable him to carry on his occupation or business.

The occupation or business of the plaintiff at the time the levy was made is shown to have been that of a saloon-keeper. A saloon is supposed to be a place where persons who call for them are supplied with refreshments; and unless a pool table has a place among the tools, implements, stock or apparatus, necessary or convenient to be used in the supply of refreshments to customers, we know of no ground for holding it exempt under the statute. The circuit judge has found the facts, and has not found that the pool table has any necessary or proper connection with the saloon business. It follows that the judgment which was given for the defendant must be affirmed with costs.

Graves, O. J. and Campbell, J. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.W. 889, 49 Mich. 7, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goozen-v-phillips-mich-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack