Legal Opinion

Frohlich v. Aikman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1918No. Calendar No. 26,828Published

Petition by Edward Frohlich against William Ademan, Jr., revived against Henry I. Armstrong and another, executors, to reopen a case in chancery on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.

1Per curiam

In this case a decree dismissing plaintiff’s bill of complaint was entered upon an opinion filed March 29, 1917, 194 Mich. 569. Later a motion for rehearing was made and denied. Another petition is now filed by plaintiff in which he sets out the fact that on November 7, 1917, he met one George Scheffer in the city of Detroit, to whom he said:

“The Supreme Court beat me and held the .deed was not a mortgage

that thereupon said Scheffer said to plaintiff:

“I know that is not the fact, because Aikman him*65self told me that he loaned you the $2,500 and took the deed as security for the loan.”

Plaintiff…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Detroit Savings Bank v. TruesdailMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Frolich v. AikmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Sherwood v. Central Michigan Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1895

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

Powered by the Exa API