Wray-Austin Machinery Co. v. Flower
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Wayne; Donovan, J. Bill by the Wray-Austin Machinery Company against Ellen H. Flower and William J. Wray for subrogation to the rights of defendant Wray in a certain lease from defendant Flower. From a decree for complainant, defendant Flower appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
The defendant Ellen H. Flower is the owner of premises known as 171,173, and 175 Woodbridge street west, in Detroit. The complainant is a Michigan corporation. The bill of complaint avers that complainant has existed for four years and more, during which period it has occupied for business purposes the lands and premises above described; that it succeeded a firm of the same name, composed of William J. Wray and one David E. Austin; that on September 15, 1897, defendant Wray leased the premises in question of defendant Flower for a term of five years at an annual rental of $600, payable…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Randall v. ChubbMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Stewart v. SpragueMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Smith v. Detroit Loan & Building Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Marvin v. HartzMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Williams v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
3Cited by11 opinions
- Davidson v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Backus v. WestOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- People's Mortgage Corp. v. WiltonMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- McPheeters v. BirkholzMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
- Hess v. HaasMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.