Legal Opinion

Murray v. Near

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1895Published

Appeal from lugham; Person, J. Bill by Henry J. Donnelly against William F. Near and others to determine the respective rights of the parties in an hotel built by them, and to wind up the affairs of the concern. Complainant died pending the suit, and it was revived in the name of his administrator, Michael J. Murray. From a decree in favor of complainant, defendant Near appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

The rights of the parties to the contract involved were substantially settled in Near v. Donnelly, 80 Mich. 130. Pursuant to that decision the case was remanded, and referred to a commissioner, who reported to the court; and upon the coming in of the report the court decreed that Near was entitled to, and had an equitable lien upon, an undivided 5-18 of the property, and that the interest then due was $870.52. This Donnelly subsequently paid. The hotel business having become unprofitable, Mr. Donnelly discontinued the business, and filed the bill in this cause to determine the rights and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Near v. DonnellyMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Near v. DonnellyMichigan Supreme Court · 1892

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

Powered by the Exa API