Legal Opinion

Frenzel v. Hayes

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1928No. Docket No. 175PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

(after stating the facts). 1. Plaintiff seeks to here enforce her individual rights, her rights as guardian of Marjorie, and her rights as administratrix of Morgan’s estate. She has the right to enforce her interest as widow of Morgan, and she may, as guardian, file a bill for partition. Gillmett v. Tourcott, 213 Mich. 617. The bill is, therefore, maintainable and we need not discuss whether an administrator alone may maintain such a bill. Defendants’ counsel now insist that no demand for partition was made before filing the bill, and that certain prerequisites were not complied with. It is…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Page v. WebsterMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Moran v. MoranMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Fenton v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Chaffee v. RaymondMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Hoffman v. BeardMichigan Supreme Court · 1870

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Adams v. AdamsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. Thompson v. DooreMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Falkner v. FalknerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
  4. Forler v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Gold v. Wall, Sr.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2024

3 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