Legal Opinion

Dibble v. Harrow

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 4, 1933No. Docket No. 88, Calendar No. 36,567PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

Plaintiffs sued to recover instalments due on a land contract, and had summary judgment, from which defendant has appealed. The interest of plaintiffs is questioned. The declaration is that plaintiffs, who, with Euphemia Rennie, signed the contract as vendors, have succeeded to the interest of Mrs. Rennie, now deceased, hy order of assignment of the probate court. An affidavit contains a like recital. In one instance plaintiffs’ interest is stated to be by inheritance. But, on the-record, this statement creates no issue, and it is here construed as meaning the same as the averment of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dirr v. HitchmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Langley v. KirkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Heath v. GlosterMichigan Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. J. M. Hamilton Co. v. BattsonMontana Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Singer v. Hoffman Cake Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Stryker v. MarschnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API