Farr v. Nordman
Michigan Supreme Court
1DissentSmith, J.
We have here no minor tragedy. A family is losing its home. The' 'sovereign power is exercising a doctrine abhorred by equity, that of forfeiture. We speak not in condemnation. The statutes so permit. Possibly there is no other recourse available. That is not for our consideration. But we do have for consideration the validity of its exercise. When an officer of the government, as here, a stranger to the title, undertakes to sell that, which he owns not, we scrutinize his acts with a jealous eye. He has no rights except those vested in him by scrupulous adherence to statute made and provided.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Colby v. City of MedfordOregon Supreme Court · 1917
- State Ex Rel. Sparling v. HitsmanMontana Supreme Court · 1935
- Henry v. McKayWashington Supreme Court · 1931
- Loew's Inc. v. ByramCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Palmer v. State Land Office BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.