Legal Opinion

Schlossman v. Rouse

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1917No. Docket No. 33PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from Muskegon; Sullivan, J. Bill by Paul J. Schlossman and others against Howard M. Rouse for a reformation of a land contract. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal.

1Opinion of the CourtKuhn, C. J.

The bill of complaint in this case was filed for the purpose of obtaining reformation of a land contract made between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The plaintiffs have appealed from a decree dismissing the bill. It was made to appear that in. *400August, 1916, the plaintiffs were negotiating for the purchase of lot No. 10, block 310, of the city of Muskegon. On this lot there stood at that time a three-story brick building, which, with a similar building on lot No. 11, adjoining it on the west, formed the “Mason Block,” apparently a single building fronting on Western avenue. There were six…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Miles v. ShreveMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Burns v. CaskeyMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Eberle v. HeatonMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Stapleton v. SchafferMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  5. West v. MahaneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Retan v. ClarkMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Emery v. ClarkMichigan Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Baas v. ZinkeMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Holda v. GlickMichigan Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Barryton State Savings Bank v. DurkeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1949

2 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