Fisher v. Beach, Hinson & Co.
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Russell, J.
This was an action of trover, for the recovery of a horse. The evidence demanded a finding that the defendant, while a member of a partnership which was succeeded by the plaintiffs and which formerly owned the horse sued for, had exchanged the horse for another horse, which the partnership accepted and used as its own, and that when the plaintiffs came into possession of its assets, the partnership had parted *255 with the title to the horse sued- for. The evidence demanded .a verdict in favor of the defendant. The mortgage introduced in evidence, and in which the horse sued for was described, was irrelevant, because the uncontradicted evidence showed that the exchange of horses was not made until after the mortgage was executed. Judgment reversed.
Decided August 25, 1913. Trover; from city court of Douglas — Judge McDonald presiding. September 28, 1912. Rogers & Heath, J. W. Quincey, for plaintiff in error. V. E. Padgett, M. D. Dickerson, contra.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.