Heenan v. Forest City Paint & Varnish Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Macomb; Tucker, J. Trover by Jolin Heenan against the Forest City Paint & Varnish Company and Clarence Dryer. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
The facts in this case, so far as material for an understanding of the points involved, are as follows: Frank E. Horning, a young man of 26 years, was engaged in the retail hardware business at the village of Lenox. He desired to enlarge his business, and in*550duced his father, James L. Horning, to put up a brick store building in said village for that purpose. James L. Horning had no connection with the business of his son, but was engaged in the manufacture of bale wire in a small way in the same village. The father purchased some lots for the proposed building, taking the title in the name of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Zucker v. KarpelesMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- First National Bank v. GuntermannMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Hoffman v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1900
3Cited by6 opinions
- Detroit Trust Co. v. Detroit City Service Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
- In the Matter of Federal's Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Debtor. Appeal of Matsushita Electric Corporation of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977
- Mishawaka Woolen Mfg. Co. v. WestveerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
- City Bank & Trust Co. v. HurdMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- In re Mission Fixture & Mantel Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.