Legal Opinion

Lee v. Burrell

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 1883PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Alpena. (Emerick, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCaMpbell, J.

Lee sued Burrell for failure to perform a-contract whereby he agreed to pay certain joint debts, and to have a mortgage discharged. On the trial these enumerated debts were shown to have passed into judgment, and the mortgage to have passed into decree. There was also evidence of sales of property in each of the cases.

Objection was made to some general questions concerning-the extent of the joint obligations, but inasmuch as the-recovery was confined to the three debts which had passed into judgment or decree, and as to these it is not claimed the proof was deficient, those questions are of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pratt v. BatesMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  2. Hall v. NashMichigan Supreme Court · 1862

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Heins v. ByersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  2. Hoey v. EbertMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Hoey v. EbertMichigan Supreme Court · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API