Legal Opinion

Hume v. Village of Fruitport

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1928No. Docket No. 129PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

Of Act No. 236, Local Acts 1891, we quote the title and a section:

“An act to incorporate the village of Fruitport, in the county of Muskegon.
“Section 1. The people of the State of Michigan enact, That the following described territory in the counties of Muskegon and Ottawa, Michigan, to-wit: All of sections thirty-five and thirty-six in township nine north, range sixteen west, in Muskegon county, and that part of section two in township eight north, range sixteen west, in Ottawa county, located north and east of Stahl bayou, and north and west of Spring lake, said last mentioned tract…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commerce-Guardian Trust & Savings Bank v. StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
  2. State Ex Rel. Foot v. BurrMontana Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Wilcox v. PaddockMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Jasnowski v. Judge of Recorder's CourtMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1897

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bankhead v. Mayor of River RougeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
  2. Bankhead v. Mayor of River RougeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. Esling v. City National Bank & Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API