Legal Opinion
Hindman v. Friedrich
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 22, 1910No. Docket No. 117PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Error to Kent; McDonald, J. Assumpsit by Ambrose 0. Hindman against Otto Fried-rich for rent due. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed to the circuit court. A judgment for plaintiff, on a trial by the court without a jury, is reviewed by defendant on writ of error.
1Opinion of the Court
Moore, J..
This case was commenced in justice’s court to recover rent which plaintiff claimed was due him. An appeal was taken to the circuit court, where it was tried before the judge, who made findings of fact .and of law.
“ Fact.
“(1) In December, 1907, defendant rented from plaintiff certain premises in Grand Rapids for residence purposes at eighteen dollars per month, payable monthly in advance, for no specified term. Defendant moved into the premises December 15, 1907, and vacated June 15, 1908.
“ (2) About March, 1908, defendant complained that the property was not worth the rent agreed…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Lamoreaux v. CrevelingMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Walrath v. CampbellMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Chatterton v. ParrottMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Cragin v. GardnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Peabody v. McAvoyMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nelson v. StewartMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Holcomb v. SayersMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
- McNall v. Mitchell's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1914