Legal Opinion

Penny v. Croul

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1891PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Error to "Wayne. (Brevoort, J.) Assumpsiti Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinions.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

I am satisfied that the defendant, Jerome Croul, was a competent witness in this case.

It was admitted upon the argument by plaintiff’s counsel, as it conclusively appears from the record, that the defendant had not converted the bonds in question in this suit to his own individual use, but that he took possession of them for the estate of Chauncey Hurlbut, deceased, and has always held them for- said estate. It appears that on his first step as executor of Chauncey Hurlbut’s estate he inventoried these bonds as the property of such estate, and has ever since accounted to the probate court of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Howard v. PatrickMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Wood v. LaneMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Bachelder v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Wright v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
  5. Youngs v. CunninghamMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Simoneau v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Doty's Adm'r v. Doty's GuardianCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
  3. In Matter of the Estate of Lambie v. McMillan (Mich. 10-2-1893)Michigan Supreme Court · 1893
  4. O'Neil v. GreenwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Lorimer v. LorimerMichigan Supreme Court · 1900

12 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