Keeler v. Ullrich

Michigan Supreme Court

Keeler v. Ullrich

32 Mich. 88, 1875 Mich. LEXIS 133

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 32 Mich. 88 (Keeler v. Ullrich) 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

Keeler v. Ullrich, 32 Mich. 88, 1875 Mich. LEXIS 133 (Mich. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Pbb Cubiam:

Ullrich replevied certain animals and a hay rake from Keeler and Taft. Their defense .consisted of a justification of the taking, upon the claim that as against his creditors the property belonged to one John Cawker, and that it was taken by Taft as constable, on an execution upon a justice’s judgment in favor of Keeler and against Cawker. To make out the justification, they gave evidence of the judgment, which was rendered in December, 1873, and also submitted evidence tending to show that Cawker sold to one Smith in October, 1871, and that Smith sold to Ullrich in July, 1873. These sales, it was insisted by Keeler and Taft, were fraudulent. There was no evidence, however, to show that Keeler was a creditor of Cawker at the time of either of these transactions, or that they were had in contemplation of any future indebtedness of ' Cawker, or that Keeler became Oawker’s creditor upon any faith that the property hi question belonged to Cawker. In short, there was no proof to place Keeler in a position to question the rectitude of these [89]*89bargains, and the circuit judge very properly so charged. A claim is made that the judgment set up by Keeler was bad, but it is not necessary to inquire about that.

The defense wholly failed upon the ground mentioned, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Pbb Cubiam:

Ullrich replevied certain animals and a hay rake from Keeler and Taft. Their defense .consisted of a justification of the taking, upon the claim that as against his creditors the property belonged to one John Cawker, and that it was taken by Taft as constable, on an execution upon a justice’s judgment in favor of Keeler and against Cawker. To make out the justification, they gave evidence of the judgment, which was rendered in December, 1873, and also submitted evidence tending to show that Cawker sold to one Smith in October, 1871, and that Smith sold to Ullrich in July, 1873. These sales, it was insisted by Keeler and Taft, were fraudulent. There was no evidence, however, to show that Keeler was a creditor of Cawker at the time of either of these transactions, or that they were had in contemplation of any future indebtedness of ' Cawker, or that Keeler became Oawker’s creditor upon any faith that the property hi question belonged to Cawker. In short, there was no proof to place Keeler in a position to question the rectitude of these [89]*89bargains, and the circuit judge very properly so charged. A claim is made that the judgment set up by Keeler was bad, but it is not necessary to inquire about that.

The defense wholly failed upon the ground mentioned, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Mich. 88, 1875 Mich. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keeler-v-ullrich-mich-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack