38 N.W. 292 (Mich. 1888), Sawyer v. McAdie

Citation:38 N.W. 292, 70 Mich. 386
Opinion Judge:MORSE, J.
Party Name:SAWYER v. MCADIE ET AL.
Judge Panel:SHERWOOD, C.J., and CHAMPLIN and CAMPBELL, JJ., concurred. LONG, J., did not sit.
Case Date:May 18, 1888
Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 292

38 N.W. 292 (Mich. 1888)

70 Mich. 386

SAWYER

v.

MCADIE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 18, 1888

Error to circuit court, Wexford county; SILAS S. FALLASS, Judge.

Replevin, by Eugene F. Sawyer, assignee of Cummer & Henderson, against William McAdie & Co. Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error.

MORSE, J.

This is an action in replevin to recover the possession of certain patterns and tools connected with and belonging to the business of the firm of Cummer & Henderson,[70 Mich. 387] who, previous to their failure, had carried on and operated shops in Cadillac, Mich., known as the "Michigan Iron-Works." In the fall of 1882, Henry D. Wallen, of Grand Rapids, Mich., sold to Cummer & Henderson each an undivided one-half interest in the land upon which the iron-works were situated, "with all the machinery, tools, stock, and fixtures thereon and connected with said shops and business." Contracts of purchase were executed by the parties, and deeds were to be made upon the making of certain future payments in full of said purchase. Wallen conveyed his interest in these contracts to his wife, Augusta C. Wallen. These contracts were not fulfilled on the part of Cummer & Henderson, and had been declared forfeited before the commencement of this suit. When the plaintiff, as assignee of Cummer & Henderson, took possession of their property, he concluded not to fulfill these contracts, and the question arose between him and Augusta C. Wallen as to what property should be returned to her. The assignment was made November 19, 1883. Soon after, it was agreed between plaintiff and Mrs. Wallen that all the heavy machinery attached to the building should go, with the real estate, to Mrs. Wallen. The assignee was permitted to retain the stock in hand. A dispute arose as to the ownership of the patterns and loose tools, files, wrenches, etc. Thereupon, on the 15th day of June, 1885, by a stipulation between the assignee and Mrs. Wallen, the question was submitted to the chancery side of the circuit court of Wexford county for determination; the parties agreeing to abide by the decision of the circuit judge. The matter was accordingly submitted, and on the 3d day

Page 293

of November, 1885, the circuit judge filed with the register in chancery an order adjudging that said patterns and loose tools were the property of the insolvent's estate, and did not belong to Mrs...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP