Legal Opinion

Whiting v. Ohlert

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 1884PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Chambers, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

This was an action by a tenant against his landlord for disturbance in his enjoyment. The main dispute was concerning the validity of the lease. The testimony tended to show an agreement by parol in April for a year’s tenancy from the beginning of May. The court below held that an agreement by parol for a full term of a jear, to begin in the future, was void under the Statute of Frauds. That statute provides that all contracts for the leasing for more than one year of lands shall be void unless in writing. Comp; L. § 4694. [How. St. § 6181.] ' The only other provision supposed to be involved…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Becar v. . FluesNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  2. Trull v. . GrangerNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
  3. Young v. . DakeNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
  4. Tillman v. FullerMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
  5. Wood v. . HubbellNew York Court of Appeals · 1853

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hayes v. ArringtonTennessee Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Caplis v. MonroeMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Hand v. OsgoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Waldo v. JacobsMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Rooks v. BoothMichigan Supreme Court · 1910

4 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