Legal Opinion

Maitland v. Slutsky

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1937No. Docket No. 71, Calendar No. 39,668PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFead, C. J.

For some 14 years Ben Slutsky, for a time with a partner and later alone, owned and conducted the Port Huron Rendering Company, operating generally through the thumb district. The business telephone was in the home and was attended by Slutsky’s wife, Fay, and daughter, Pearl, who thus had contact with farmers and telephone operators, of value to the business, particularly by way of obtaining free carcasses.

In 1934 Slutsky lost his business real estate through foreclosure of real estate mortgage and his machinery and equipment through foreclosure of chattel mortgage.

In October, 1934, the Star…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Bank v. St. Louis Dispatch Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. People Ex Rel. A.J. Johnson Co. v. . RobertsNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
  3. Tennant v. DunlopSupreme Court of Virginia · 1899
  4. Arctic Dairy Co. v. WinansMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Grand Rapids Trust Co. v. Haney School Furniture Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1922

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Colandrea v. ColandreaCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  2. Scd Chemical Distributors, Inc v. MedleyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Lewis v. TrinkleinMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Scd Chemical Distributors, Inc v. MedleyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API