Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Fry

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 5, 1931No. Docket Nos. 87, 88, Calendar Nos. 35,499, 35,500PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.

By stipulation these cases were heard and submitted upon the same testimony. They were tried by the court without a jury.

In November, 1923, the defendant caused a plat designated “Ridgefield” to be made of certain property owned by him in the city of Detroit. On November 23d of that year he entered into a land contract for the sale of lot 255 therein to the plaintiff Robertson, and three days later entered into a similar contract for the sale of lot 256 to the plaintiff Taylor. A down payment of $165 was made, and additional payments have been made by each of them to the amount of $1,017.40.

Th…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Plugger v. Township Board of OverysselMichigan Supreme Court · 1863
  2. Wright v. DickinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Ridgefield Land Co. v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Silfver v. DaenzerMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Farmer v. BestMichigan Supreme Court · 1929

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Taunt v. MoegleMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Julian G. McIntosh Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Impel Manufacturing Company, Bankrupt v. State Plumbing & Heating Supplies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API