Sebright v. Moore

Michigan Supreme Court

Sebright v. Moore

33 Mich. 92, 1875 Mich. LEXIS 256

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 2, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 33 Mich. 92 (Sebright v. Moore) 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

Sebright v. Moore, 33 Mich. 92, 1875 Mich. LEXIS 256 (Mich. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

First. It was for the jury to weigh the evidence, and if [94]*94they believed what Cooper and Gregory swore to, the proof went beyond what is necessary for an estoppel, and showed that' Sebright actually disclaimed ownership, affirmed that Hill was owner, and advised Cooper to levy on the cattle as Hill’s property. Assuming the truth of this testimony, as we must upon the point made, Sebright expressly consented to the levy, and to all the succeeding steps which appear to have been taken to bind the property for the attachment debt.

Second. The evidence given by these witnesses very plainly conduced to show that Hill was absolute owner at the time of the levy, and, with the other facts, justified the instruction concerning Hill’s right at the time of Sebright’s sale to him.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam:

First. It was for the jury to weigh the evidence, and if [94]*94they believed what Cooper and Gregory swore to, the proof went beyond what is necessary for an estoppel, and showed that' Sebright actually disclaimed ownership, affirmed that Hill was owner, and advised Cooper to levy on the cattle as Hill’s property. Assuming the truth of this testimony, as we must upon the point made, Sebright expressly consented to the levy, and to all the succeeding steps which appear to have been taken to bind the property for the attachment debt.

Second. The evidence given by these witnesses very plainly conduced to show that Hill was absolute owner at the time of the levy, and, with the other facts, justified the instruction concerning Hill’s right at the time of Sebright’s sale to him.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Mich. 92, 1875 Mich. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sebright-v-moore-mich-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack