Legal Opinion

Stevens v. Debar

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 10, 1924No. Docket No. 54PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

(after stating the facts). Relief is not sought on the ground of mental incapacity of Mrs. DeBar although it is claimed that her mental and physical condition made her more susceptible to undue influence which it is charged was exercised in procuring the deed. A careful reading of the record, however, convinces us that plaintiff is not entitled to relief on the ground of undue influence and we proceed at once to the only question meriting discussion.

Mrs. DeBar’s interest in the premises was that of a vendee under a land contract, an equitable interest or title. The claim of plaintiff who…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hayes v. LivingstonMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Stevens v. WakemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Hammel v. First National BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Munch v. ShabelMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Craig v. CrossmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Barker v. KlinglerMichigan Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Stone v. CulverMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Colonial Theatrical Enterprises v. SageMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Snider v. SchafferMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Roll v. MartinNebraska Supreme Court · 1957

12 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