Legal Opinion

Babcock v. Hanselman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 21, 1885PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Sanilac. (Wixson, J.) Quo warranto. Informant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

An information in the nature of a quo warranto was filed in the circuit court for the county of Sanilac against Hanselman and seventeen others, by the prosecuting attorney of that county, requiring them to show by what warrant or authority they claimed to have, use and enjoy the liberties, privileges and franchises of a corporation by the name of “ The Mutual Eire Insurance Company of Sanilac, Huron and Tuscola counties.” Elbridge E. Bacon was made a party, charging him with being a receiver of the *28corporation. Bacon answered, setting up the acts of incorporation under the general* law, and…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Henry v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Frey v. MichieMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Vrooman v. MichieMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Attorney General v. Public Service CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. State v. MarketIndiana Court of Appeals · 1973

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