Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jones v. Hicks

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1960No. Docket 97, Calendar 48,222PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1DissentBlack, J.

By operation of 11 USCA, § 110, plaintiff, as trustee, became vested with the title of one LaYoy, a bankrupt, to all of the kinds of property section 110 defines. Whether plaintiff succeeded under said section 110 to LaYoy’s original elective right to sue upon the presently declared cause is the question before us. The parties litigant agree that the question is determinable according to Michigan law, and this Court has so held (Cobleigh v. State Land Office Board, 305 Mich 434).

The stated question comes here on granted motion to dismiss. We therefore accept as true the material allegations…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Final v. BackusMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Rhoades v. SeidelMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Sweet v. ConverseMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Cochran Timber Co. v. FisherMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Vanderlinde v. Bankers Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1935

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Rutter v. KingMichigan Court of Appeals · 1974
  2. Alexander v. JenningsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Alexander v. JenningsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Kitchen v. Boyd (In re Newpower)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
  5. Masters Group International, Inc. v. Comerica BankMontana Supreme Court · 2015

18 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