Legal Opinion

Angeloff v. Smith

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1931No. Docket No. 16, Calendar No. 34,525PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFead, J.

This is a bill for partition of a lot in Detroit. Defendants, by cross-bill, claimed plaintiff was barred by laches from asserting title, and they had decree. The charge of laches is that plaintiff stood by for many years and saw her former husband, Vasile Huja, and grantees through him dealing with the property and made no claim of title.

The oral testimony is quite uncertain and fragmentary and the record evidence, therefore, is of particular weight. May 22, 1917, plaintiff, then 17 years of age, and Huja, then her husband, took title to the lot by the entireties. The deed was duly recorded…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Epstean v. MintzMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Putnam v. TinklerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Dragoo v. DragooMichigan Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Attorney General v. Powerpick Player's Club of Michigan, LLCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. Knight v. Northpointe BankMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Dunn v. MinnemaMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Taylor v. S. S. Kresge Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Bonninghausen v. HansenMichigan Supreme Court · 1943

11 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