Legal Opinion

Keating v. Hicks

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 29, 1933No. Docket No. 29, Calendar No. 37,108PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

In this action at law for damages for fraud in the sale of shares of stock, defendant had directed verdict and judgment thereon. Plaintiff has appealed. The following from plaintiff’s notice of appeal:

“Plaintiff did not introduce testimony proving the falsity of the alleged misrepresentations for the reason that defendant’s answer to paragraph 4 failed to specifically deny the falsity of said misrepresentations and further failed to set forth the substance of the matters relied upon to support said denial. Thus defendant failed to comply with Court Rule No. 23, § 2 (1931). The case should…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. City Finance Co. v. BaldwinMichigan Supreme Court · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API