Legal Opinion

Closser v. Abraham

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1938No. Docket No. 59, Calendar No. 39,767PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChandler, J.

The issue presented by this appeal is, Was it necessary that plaintiff deposit the amount of money set forth in the notice for reconveyance with the clerk of the court before filing an action in ejectment where the land had been sold on State tax land deed?

Justice Bushnell’s opinion answers this question in the affirmative. I am not in accord with his determination thereof. The solution to the foregoing issue is derived from the following excerpt from 1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 3466 (Stat. Ann. § 7.119), effective September 28, 1907:

“In case of such failure to give required notice for reconveyance…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. McVannel v. Pure Oil Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Closser v. McBrideMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Powell v. PierceMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  4. White v. DunsmoreMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Dunn v. PapenfusMichigan Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ritter v. CorkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Safety Investment Corp. v. State Land Office BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Halabu v. BehnkeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Halabu v. BehnkeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. Hawkins v. VoisineMichigan Supreme Court · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API