Legal Opinion

Gray v. Hill

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1895PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from Wayne. (Moore, J., presiding.) Bill to foreclose a land contract. Defendants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

One Dagobert Juiff, being owner in fee -of the premises involved in this suit, subject to three mortgages, aggregating about $3,500, sold the same by land contract, on March 25, 1890, to L’Hommedieu and others for $18,000. Of this $3,000 was paid down, $5,000 was to be paid on or before the expiration of 5 years, and $1.0,000 on or before the expiration of 10 years; from the date of the contract. Juiff died early in 1892, leaving heirs. On September 10, 1892, L’Hommedieu and his associates entered into a contract with one Thuner, agreeing to sell and convey the premises to him, in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fitzhugh v. MaxwellMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. NicholsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Barnard v. HuffMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Lutz v. DutmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Cady v. TaggartMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Lyons v. ChaffeeOregon Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Midland County Savings Bank v. T. C. Prouty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909

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