Legal Opinion

Rott v. Steffens

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 10, 1924No. Calendar 31,149PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

{after stating the facts). In the answer of defendants the defense of laches was not set up; neither the owner of the land nor the defendants have been harmed by the delay; and public policy requires a disposition of the case on the merits. Defendants contend-that the provisions of the new charter apply to sales made under the old charter and that if we should so hold no constitutional rights of plaintiff would be invaded. Plaintiff on the other hand insists that the sale to his assignors constituted a contract which would be impaired by the new legislation if held applicable to sales made…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Barnitz v. BeverlySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Vance v. VanceSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  3. Forqueran v. DonnallyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Merrill v. DearingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
  5. Cargill v. PowerMichigan Supreme Court · 1850

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Wood v. LovettSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Hershey v. ColeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  3. Detroit Trust Co. v. Stormfeltz-Loveley Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1932
  4. State Ex Rel. Federal Land Bank v. StephensWashington Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Stiglitz v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1927

1 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