Legal Opinion

Goldberg v. Cities Service Oil Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 6, 1936No. Docket No. 3, 4, Calendar No. 38,109, 38,100PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBitshnell, J.

The first case is an action at law to recover a balance claimed to be due upon the purchase price of real estate; the second is. a chancery action to reform the instrument upon which the plaintiff at law relied. By agreement, the testimony in the chancery cause was introduced in the law action with slight additions. The parties in the two eases are the same.

The oil company obtained’ a decree for reformation and a judgment for no cause of action. The appeal in each case is covered by the same record.

In 1927, Goldberg, desiring to erect a gasoline filling station, entered into certain…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Vary v. SheaMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  2. Lee State Bank v. McElhenyMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. AllenMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Dean v. CrallMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Long v. BibblerMichigan Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Ford Motor Company v. City of WoodhavenMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Rentenbach Engineering Co., Construction Division v. General Realty Ltd.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1985
  3. Prudential Ins. Co. Of America v. StricklandCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1951
  4. Schwaderer v. Huron-Clinton Metropolitan AuthorityMichigan Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Progressive Mutual Insurance v. TaylorMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971

12 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