Legal Opinion

Percival v. Percival

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 9, 1885PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Calhoun. (Hooker, J.) Ejectment. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

The declaration in this case is, in form, a declaration to recover the undivided one-third of certain real estate, as dower, and contains, in addition to the ordinary averments, the following: “ For she says that said Erastus Percival, formerly her husband, was seized in fee of said premises during his coverture with the plaintiff; that she was divorced from said Percival, who is yet living, from the bonds of matrimony, for his misconduct on, to wit, the 19th day of September, A. D. 1878, and that since said divorce was had, and while she was so possessed,” etc. The defendants demurred to the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Davol v. HowlandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bowles v. HoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Orth v. OrthMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API