Hyma v. Lee
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCarr, J.
Plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages, claiming that they had been injured by misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, on the part of defendant Lee. Motion to dismiss the declaration was filed on the ground that plaintiffs’ pleading was insufficient to allege a cause of action against either defendant. The motion was granted, the court being of the opinion that plaintiffs had not charged actionable fraud. Prom the order entered plaintiffs have appealed.
In determining the issue before us we have in mind the general rule that all material facts properly pleaded must be accepted as true.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Candler v. HeighoMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Stoney Creek Woolen Co. v. SmalleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Weber v. WeberMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- First National Bank v. SteelMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Marvin v. Solventol Chemical Products, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Fassihi v. Sommers, Schwartz, Silver, Schwartz & Tyler, PCMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
- Hollowell v. Career Decisions, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
- Jaffa v. ShacketMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- National Bank of Detroit v. Whitehead & Kales Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1981
- Dahlmann v. Sulcus Hospitality Technologies, Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.