Legal Opinion

Hooper v. Van Husan

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1895PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Donovan, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

On June 9, 1888, the plaintiff and defendant entered into six, land contracts, identical in their terms, each for the sale of a lot by defendant to plaintiff. The price of each lot was $650, — $100 at the date of execution, and the balance on or before July 1, 1893, in equal annual payments of $100, payable on' January 1 in each year, together with 7 per cent, interest, payable semi-annually on the 1st of January and July. The vendee was also to pay all taxes and assessments assessed after the execution of the contract, and was to have possession of the premises while not in default. In case…

2Cited by19 opinions

  1. Chapman v. Britton (In Re Britton)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 1984
  2. Barker v. KlinglerMichigan Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Lutz v. DutmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
  4. In Re CarrUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 1985
  5. CL Gransden & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941

14 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