Legal Opinion

Bumpus v. Bumpus

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1884PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from Washtenaw. (Joslyn, J.) Specific performance. Defendants appeal.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, C. J.

The bill in this case is filed to enforce the specific performance of an alleged parol contract. Its allegations are as follows:

That in the year 1859 the defendant Samuel R. Bumpus, who is the father of complainant, was the owner of a farm in the township of Van Burén, which he still holds and occupies as a homestead. That complainant became of the age of legal majority in February, 1859 ; that he had a younger brother, whose name is Myron M. Bumpus; that the father of complainant, and the other defendant, who is complainant’s mother, were desirous that he should remain with them, carry on…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. O. & W. Thum Co. v. TloczynskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Babbitt v. BumpusMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Butler v. KemmererSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  4. Shetney v. ShetneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Rape v. LyerlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975

6 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