Legal Opinion

Bresnahan v. Nugent

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1893PublishedCited by 4 opinions

'Error to Kent. (Adsit, J.) Assumpsit. Both parties bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in 92 Mich: 76.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Daniel Nugent, sues to recover the value of property which was transferred to defendant, Emanuel, in the. life-time of Daniel. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment of $1,600, and both parties appeal. The same case has once been before the Court, and is found reported in *36092 Mich. 76. The questions presented upon the appeal of the plaintiff, as well as some of those presented by the defendant, were determined upon the former appeal. It has also been determined in other proceedings between the same parties, involving the same'transactions,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bresnahan v. NugentMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Nugent v. GoldsmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Tuttle v. WhiteMichigan Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hines v. DarlingMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Von Essen v. VosMichigan Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Bresnahan v. NugentMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Fink v. Superior Lamp & Shade Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API