Legal Opinion

Merrinane v. Miller

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 1907No. Docket No. 41PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Jackson; Parkinson, J. Case by Nettie Merrinane against James Fred Miller, a saloon keeper, and his bondsmen, under the civil damage act. There was judgment for plaintiff for an insufficient amount, and she brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtBlair, J.

Plaintiff, the wife of John Merrinane, brought this action, in accordance with the provisions of the civil damage act, to recover damages of defendant, a saloon keeper, and his different bondsmen for three successive years, occasioned by sales of liquor to her husband. Plaintiff and her husband, then recently married, moved to Grass Lake, in Jackson county, where defendant was conducting his business, in November, 1902. They were married in June, 1901, and lived at Chelsea till their removal to Grass Lake. Plaintiff’s husband was a telegrapher in the employ of the Michigan Central Railroad…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Davis v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Peacock v. OaksMichigan Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Merrinane v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Lockard v. Van AlstyneMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Baker v. MohlMichigan Supreme Court · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API