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

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

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.

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

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