Legal Opinion

Liddle v. Needham

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1878PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Error to St. Joseph. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.

Needham recovered in the circuit court on a claim -which grew out of a transaction between the parties in relation to the proposed transfer of a piece of land by Needham to Liddle’s son, and Liddle has brought error. The declaration consisted of a special count setting up an express agreement, together with the usual general counts in assumpsit.

The cause of action asserted in the special count is that in consideration that Needham promised to give to Liddle’s son, subject to the taxes of 1875, a warranty deed of certain land described, he, Liddle, promised to pay said taxes and give his note…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Scott v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
  2. Scott v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1874

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. In re Williams' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Wilkinson v. HeavenrichMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Stagg v. LawtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
  4. Bagaeff v. ProkopikMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Hollingshead v. MorrisMichigan Supreme Court · 1912

8 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