Legal Opinion

Mattice v. Brinkman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1889PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Case. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

The facts in this case appear to be that the plaintiff, for about four years previous to March 1, 1888, had been renting and using as a barber-shop certain premises of the defendant, paying him for such use and rental the .sum of $10 per month. On that day the plaintiff paid the rent up to February 2o, 1888, in full, and took a receipt for the payment. The plaintiff testifies that he had heard that the defendant wanted to turn the premises into a dining-hall, and he asked defendant about it at that time, and wanted to know what he intended to do, saying: “If I am to go out of this place, I…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gibbons v. FarwellMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Thayer v. SherlockMichigan Supreme Court · 1856

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Dow-Arneson Co. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  2. Eisenhart v. OrdeanColorado Court of Appeals · 1893
  3. Shaffer v. WaltherWashington Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Pappas v. General Market Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Clark v. Grand Rapids Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928

1 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