Legal Opinion

Vincent v. Brant

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 1894PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Berrien. (O’Hara, J.) Forcible entry. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

This is an action for a forcible entry. The locus in quo is a room in the Hotel Benton, at Benton Harbor. Vincent was lessee of the hotel from Brant, and sublet the room in question to Iman & Whiteman for a billiard- room. Brant brought proceedings against Iman & Whiteman before a circuit court commissioner to recover possession of the room, and obtained a judgment. An appeal was taken from this judgment in the name of Iman & Whiteman, but it was in fact taken by Vincent, who furnished the bond. The evidence on this trial tended to show that while this appeal was pending -- a secret…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McCartney v. AuerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
  2. Steinhauser v. KuhnMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Newton v. DoyleMichigan Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Beck's Service Stations, Inc. v. Sun Oil Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API