Fay v. Wood
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Russell, J.) Ejectment. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion and head-notes.
1Opinion of the Court
Chahplin, J..Ejectment to recover possession of lots 5 and 6 of Mills and Furlong’s addition to the city of Muskegon, which plaintiff claims in fee.
To prove title, plaintiff offered in evidence a patent from the State of Michigan to Samuel R. Sanford, Thomas Mills, •and James Mills. The patent contained a recital that Charles Carmichael had purchased and paid in full for the land, and received a certificate therefor, which certificate had been duly assigned to Samuel R. Sanford, Thomas Mills, and James Mills. The date of the patent is December 19, 1861. The certificate was dated May 9, 1855,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Case v. DeanMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Hoyt v. City of East SaginawMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
- Stockle v. SilsbeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Peninsula Iron & Lumber Co. v. Township of Crystal FallsMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Clark v. HallMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Cake v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- In Re BAIL BOND FORFEITUREMichigan Supreme Court · 2014
- Mercy Hospital v. Crippled Children CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1954
- State ex rel. Wight v. Park City School District No. 12Utah Supreme Court · 1913
- Rural High-school District No. 93 v. RaubSupreme Court of Kansas · 1918
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.