Legal Opinion

Mintz v. Hartz

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1914No. Docket No. 60Published

Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Summary proceedings by Samuel Mintz against John C. Hartz, the Hartz Clothing Company, Helen Duncan, and John Doe for the possession of certain real property. From a judgment for defendants, complainant appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for complainant. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.

This case is governed and controlled by that of Hartz v. Hilsendegen, ante, 129 (148 N. W. 433). Elizabeth Hilsendegen died January 26, 1913, and thereby her life interest in the property involved was terminated. On January 27, 1913, Mr. Mintz, the purchaser of the property, subject to the lease given by Elizabeth Hilsendegen, served on Mr. Hartz written notice of her death and of termination of tenancy and demanded possession. Thereupon Mr. Hartz, on January 28, 1913, filed his bill of complaint in the chancery case above referred to, and obtained an injunction against summary proceedings,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hartz v. HilsendegenMichigan Supreme Court · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API