Barnhardt v. Hamel
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Manistee; Withey, J. Assumpsit by Elizabeth Earnhardt and another against Adolph Hamel and Adolph Kann, copartners as Hamel, Kann & Company, for fraud and deceit in the exchange of real- property. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtSteeee, J.
Plaintiffs recovered a verdict and judgment for $2,400 against defendants as damages for fraud claimed to have been practiced upon them by the latter in a land deal negotiated in April, 1914. At that time defendants were and had been for some years in the business of selling farm lands in the vicinity of Manistee and adjoining counties, with their headquarters and office in Manistee, Michigan.
Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, then owned and resided upon a small farm of 19% acres in Allen county, Indiana, located about 9 miles southwest of Fort Wayne, which they valued at $3,500.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Smith v. WerkheiserMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
- Yanelli v. LittlejohnMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Smith v. McDonaldMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Wegner v. HerkimerMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Jackson v. ArmstrongMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Achenbach v. MearsMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Paquin v. Van HoutumMichigan Supreme Court · 1955
- Poloms v. PetersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Grix v. Liquor Control CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
- Speath v. Merchants' Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.