Arthur v. Caverly
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Huron. (Beach, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed, and judgment entered ' for plaintiff. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
Plaintiff owned certain village property, and defendant Redford Caverly was the owner of a farm. An agreement was entered into between plaintiff and Redford Caverly for an exchange, and the same was made. The defendant Susannah Caverly, wife of Redford, joined in the deed of the farm to plaintiff, and plaintiff conveyed the village property to Susannah Caverly. Plaintiff claims that Redford Caverly represented that there were but two mortgages on the farm, whereas there were three. The deed from the Caverlys was a warranty deed, excepting *83the two mortgages' from the warranty, bnt not the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Russel v. People's Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by6 opinions
- Agar v. StreeterMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Menard v. CampbellMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Detroit Chamber of Commerce v. GoodmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Sidway v. NicholSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Cooper v. BurnsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.