Case Name: William McLaughlin v. Emil Lange et al.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1879-10-30
Citations: 42 Mich. 81
Docket Number: 
Parties: William McLaughlin v. Emil Lange et al.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
William McLaughlin v. Emil Lange et al.
Sale between members of the same family — Change of possession.
The evidence necessary to show a change in the possession of property transferred by an uncle to his nephews living together on the same premises would be different from that otherwise needed;' and where there is uncertainty, it is for the jury to determine from the evidence whether the change was effected.
Error to Muskegon.
Submitted (let. 15.
Decided Oct. 30.
Replevin by Emil and Robert Lange, composing the firm of Lange Brothers, against McLaughlin for certain horses, trucks, harness, etc., which .defendant, who was deputy sheriff, held under an execution against their uncle, from whom plaintiffs' claimed to have bought the property. Plaintiffs recovered and defendant brings error.
Smith, Nims, Hoyt & Erwin for plaintiff in error.
Stephenson é McLaughlin for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Campbell, C. J.
The controversy in this case arose concerning the validity against creditors of a sale of certain horses and teams by an uncle to his nephews. They lived together on the same' premises, and the change of possession which is necessary under the statute to avoid á disputable presumption of fraud would be shown by different evidence than under other' circumstances. The testimony was very positive in favor of such a change, but there were suspicious facts bearing on it. From the condensed form in which it is very properly set forth in the bill of exceptions, it is not clear there was not further testimony, while on the other hand there were several circumstances which might possibly be urged to the jury as bearing on the general probability of the story of the witnesses. Under these circumstances we think the court had no right to take the question from " the jury. The case is within Molitor v. Robinson, 40 Mich., 200.
The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial granted.
The other Justices concurred.