Legal Opinion

Preston v. Huntington

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 6, 1887PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Berrien. (Smith, J.) Assumpsit for rent. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

This suit was brought against the defendants jointly, to recover a certain amount of rent claimed to be due upon a certain written lease executed by and between Ann L. Preston, Wallace A. Preston, and Fowler J. Preston, of the first part, and defendants Henry B. Huntington and Frank H. Platt, of the second part. This lease was under the hands and seals of the parties.

*140On the same day and year the lease was executed, George W. Platt, Jr., the other defendant, upon the back of the same, under his hand and seal, executed the following instrument:

“ In consideration of the letting of the premises…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Smith v. SheldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Watson v. BeaboutIndiana Supreme Court · 1862
  3. McLott ex rel. Marvin v. SaverySupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
  4. Scott v. SwainSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Stephens v. ElverWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Backus v. ArcherMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Bowen v. ClarkeOregon Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Dodge v. ChapmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Boston Box Co. v. RosenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API