Krupp v. Adams
This text of 82 N.W. 894 (Krupp v. Adams) 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.
Opinion
This cause is referred to in the case of Ernest v. Woodworth, ante, 1 (82 N. W. 661). That [216]*216case was in replevin for certain apples. In the present case, a bill was filed to restrain the defendants from selling the apples in controversy. The facts are sufficiently stated in the other case, except that it now appears in the •present case that the court on the hearing entered a final decree making the injunction perpetual, with costs in favor of complainants. Defendants have appealed. The other case having been affirmed, the decree here must be affirmed under the decision in that case. Complainants will recover costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
82 N.W. 894, 124 Mich. 215, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krupp-v-adams-mich-1900.