Pinch v. Hotaling
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Barry; Smith, J. Assumpsit by Benjamin W. Pinch against George W. Hotaling and Thomas H. Fitzgerald to recover money obtained by fraud and deceit. There was judgment for plaintiff for less than the amount claimed, and he brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
In 1903 the defendants were the owners of a hotel in Niles, called the •“ Michigan Inn,” subject to a mortgage of $10,000. The plaintiff was the owner of 375 acres of land in Barry county, and 80 acres in Carp Lake township, in Emmet county. An exchange of plaintiff’s property for that of defendant was effected. Plaintiff brought this action, basing it in the main upon section 10421, 3 Comp. Laws, authorizing an action of' assumpsit for fraud and deceit. The defendant replied, charging plaintiff with fraud and deceit in making representations relating to the Carp Lake land. On a trial be*523fore,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Simar v. . CanadayNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Hedin v. Minneapolis Medical & Surgical InstituteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Collins v. JacksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Maxted v. FowlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Wormsdorf v. Detroit City Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Mettetal v. HallMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Hammer v. MartinMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Gugel v. NeitzelMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Poloms v. PetersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Sutton v. BenjaminMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.