Legal Opinion

Estelle v. Peacock

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1882PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Eaton. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.

Estelle sued Peacock upon a promissory note given for logs which Peacock had bought of Mm. The defence was a failure of consideration. The evidence tended to show that the logs were cut by Estelle on lands belonging to the estate of David R. Bradford, under pretence of a parol permission given by Bradford in his lifetime, and after being warned by the administrator not to cut them; that the administrator and heirs of Bradford, when they were informed of what had been done, notified Peacock not to pay Estelle for the logs, as they claimed them as the property of the estate and should require…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bachelder v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  2. McGiffin v. . BairdNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  3. Ware v. HoughtonMississippi Supreme Court · 1867
  4. Vibbard & Abbott v. JohnsonNew York Supreme Court · 1821
  5. Jennings v. SheldonMichigan Supreme Court · 1880

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Schmidt v. Louisville, Cincinnati & Lexington Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1896
  2. Bunke v. New York Telephone Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
  3. Rockwell v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
  4. McCastle v. ScanlonMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Carpenter v. CarpenterMichigan Supreme Court · 1904

3 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