Legal Opinion

Velthouse v. Alderink

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1908No. Docket No. 76PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Ottawa; Padgham, J. Case by Fanny Velthouse, by next friend, against Henry Alderink for seduction. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

The plaintiff, in an action in which she counted on section 10418, 3 Comp. Laws, recovered a judgment of $1,350 against the defendant, and the case has been brought here for review on error. But a single question was raised. The point was made at the close of the testimony of the plaintiff and again in the request to charge, and, in the language of the bill of exceptions, is stated as follows:

“The defendant, by his attorney, requested the court to instruct the jury in substance that the action was one *218on the case for seduction, and brought under section 10418 of the Compiled Laws of 1897;…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. White v. MurtlandIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Kennedy v. SheaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
  3. Marshall v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Lavery v. CrookeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  5. Watson v. WatsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1884

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Carbary v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Tillotson v. . CurrinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  3. Hirdes v. Ottawa Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Monahan v. ClemonsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926
  5. Verwers v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1914

3 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