Kindy v. Green
| Citation | 32 Mich. 310 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Decision Date | 18 June 1875 |
| Parties | Samuel Kindy v. Irwin Green and another |
Heard June 18, 1875
Error to Kalamazoo Circuit.
This was an action of replevin, brought by Green and McIntyre against Kindy, for an undivided one-half of a portable saw-mill, which interest they claimed to have purchased of him, the other undivided interest belonging to a third party. The cause was tried by a jury and verdict rendered for the plaintiffs. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that replevin would not lie for an undivided interest in property in its nature indivisible, and his motion having been denied and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs for the value of the property, assessed at one thousand one hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-six cents, he brought error.
Judgment reversed, with costs of both courts.
O. T. Tuthill, for plaintiff in error, was stopped by the court.
No counsel appeared for defendants in error.
The Court held that replevin would not lie for an undivided interest in a chattel where the execution of the writ will operate to deprive a co-tenant whose title is undisputed of his right of possession.
Judgment reversed, with costs of both courts.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pulliam v. Burlingame
...Coke on Littleton, p. 200, note a; Russell v. Allen, 13 N. Y. 173; Davis v. Lattich, 46 N. Y. 397; Prentice v. Lobb, 12 Conn. 330; Kindy v. Green, 32 Mich. 310; Fraus v. Young, 24 Ia. 375; Grim v. Wicker, 80 N. C. 343; Hewlett v. Owens, 50 Cal. 475; Lindlay on Part., vol. 1, p. 65; Freeman ......
-
Phipps v. Taylor
...or severed from the entire lots or piles, but included an undivided portion of each. In such case, replevin will not lie. Kindy v. Green, 32 Mich. 310; Price Talley's Adm'r, 18 Ala. 21; Parsons v. Boyd, 20 Ala. 112; Kimball v. Thompson, 4 Cush. 441; Hart v. Fitzgerald, 2 Mass. 509; Lacy v. ......
-
Sutherland v. Carter
...cited under note 5; Caswell v. Districh, 15 Wend. 378; Crouse v. Derbyshire, 10 Mich. 479;Fiquet v. Allison, 12 Mich. 328;Kindy v. Green, 32 Mich. 310. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.(The other justices...
-
Sutherland v. Carter
...cited under note 5; Caswell v. Districh, 15 Wend. 378; Crouse v. Derbyshire, 10 Mich. 479; Fiquet v. Allison, 12 Mich. 328; Kindy v. Green, 32 Mich. 310. judgment must be affirmed, with costs. (The other justices concurred.) ...