Legal Opinion

Cornelissens v. Driscoll

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1891PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Kent. (Adsit, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, C. J.

This action is brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant damages for being ousted from certain leasehold premises which he held from the defendant, by the act of the defendant and his vendee.

Objections are taken to the declaration, which contains the common counts, and also a special count upon the lease, which is in the following words:

“ Grand Eapids, October 7, 1889.
“This contract between James Driscoll, of the first part, and Felix Oornelissens, of the second, the party of the first part agrees to lease to the party of the second part, heirs or assigns, all oE his farm lying…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Prochaska v. FoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1904

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

Powered by the Exa API