State Ex Rel. Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v. Martin
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtReid, J.
The bill of chancery in this case was filed to abate a nuisance claimed to have been committed by defendants, namely, owning, maintaining and operating the automobile described in the bill of complaint for the purposes of gambling. Defendant Andrew Martin’s brief recites that he owned the automobile in question but the title stood in the name of the two defendants. This suit was brought under Act No. 389, Pub. Acts 1925 (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 9093 et seq. [Stat. Ann. § 18.901 et seq.]), for a determination that the automobile of defendants is a nuisance, and for sale of the automobile. The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. WardMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
- People v. GuertinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Cook v. HastingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
3Cited by12 opinions
- People v. AstaMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
- State v. ZitoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
- Township of Garfield v. YoungMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
- MICHIGAN Ex Rel WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR v. BENNISMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Hammitt v. StraleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.