In November 1888, D purchases two horses, harness, buggy, robes, and whip from Seaman. Seaman hired one of the horses, harness, and the other property from P at Traverse City, to drive to Frankfurt. Seaman drove them to Grand Rapids and sold them to D. D had known Seaman and had no occasion to doubt his statement that he owned the property. P traced the property to D's possession. D had sold the horse but still had the other property. While attempting to recover his property after explaining to D what had happened, P stated that if the remaining items were returned to P, as between P and D, they would be square. P took the property away and still sued D. The judge instructed the jury that the matter depended on whether D conceded that the property belonged to P; if so there was no consideration for the settlement and if not the settlement would be binding. The judgment went to D and P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.