Michigan Supreme Court, 1894

Fuller v. Byrne

Michigan Supreme Court · Decided November 20, 1894 · Long, Other

102 Mich. 461; 60 N.W. 980; 1894 Mich. LEXIS 1058

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Sutton (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1917)
In re National Cash Register Co. (6th Cir. 1922)
Perkins v. Golden Girl (Mich. 1915)
Atkinson v. Japink (Mich. 1915)
Kilmer v. Moneyweight Scale Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1905)
Warner Elevator Manufacturing Co. v. Capitol Investment. Building & Loan Ass'n (Mich. 1901)
Canadian Typograph Co. v. Macgurn (Mich. 1899)
Pettyplace v. Groton Bridge & Manufacturing Co. (Mich. 1894)
Bolinger v. National Cash Register Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 1936)
Young v. Phillips (Mich. 1918)
Taylor v. Applebaum (Mich. 1908)
Bunday v. Columbus Machine Co. (Mich. 1906)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Long, J.

Defendant is sheriff of Gogebic county, and levied an execution upon, and took into his possession,' a piano which he found in the possession of Carl Marquardt. The execution was against Marquardt, and the sheriff levied upon the property as belonging to him. The plaintiffs in this suit are piano dealers, and had delivered the piano in question to Marquardt under a conditional contract of sale, which contained the following stipulation:

“The said instrument is and shall remain the property of said Estey & Camp until each and every of said amounts, and interest thereon, and any judgment rendered thereon, is'paid in full.”

This action is replevin brought by plaintiffs against Byrne, and the property was taken under the writ. On the trial it appeared that the plaintiffs, before the sheriff levied his execution, had brought suit against Marquardt, *462and obtained personal judgment for the amount due on the contract. It was therefore contended that plaintiffs had relinquished their claim. The court below directed judgment in favor of plaintiffs for six cents damages and costs of suit.

The court below was correct in so finding. The plaintiffs and Marquardt had entered into a contract by which the title .to the property was to remain in the vendors until the “amounts, and interest thereon, and any judgment rendered thereon, is paid in full.” Under this contract the vendors had the right to obtain judgment against the vendee for the amount due, and interest thereon, and the title was not to pass until such ju.dgmen-t was paid. There is no intention shown here to release the lien or pass the title. The mere fact of personal judgment was not, under the contract, to release the lien or pass title, until judgment paid.. See Kirkwood v. Hoxie, 95 Mich. 66, and cases there cited.

Judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.