Legal Opinion

Joy v. Pagel

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1939No. Docket No. 42, Calendar No. 40,151PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNorth, J.

Upon this record, as I view it, the judgment entered in the circuit court should be affirmed. I think the trial judge was right in holding that each of the four transactions out of which this litigation arises was a “single transaction.” In his opinion Mr. Justice Sharpe holds that in each there were two separate transactions; and citing some authorities, he holds that because it was not a single transaction, plaintiff is barred of recovery under the statute of frauds.

Obviously there can be no hard and fast rule because of which it must be said that every transaction of this character is a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Fitzpatrick v. . WoodruffNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  2. Johnston v. . TraskNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  3. Trenholm v. KloepperNebraska Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Morse v. DouglassAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  5. Beverly v. RichardsMichigan Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Madison National Bank v. LipinMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. Jenkins v. U.S.A. Foods, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1996
  3. Mitchell v. ThorneArizona Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Mitchell v. ThorneArizona Supreme Court · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API