Legal Opinion

Chesebrough v. Pingree

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1888PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Reilly, J.) Assumpsit for rent. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

This is an action of assumpsit, brought to recover rent under a written lease dated May 1, 1886, made by plaintiff to defendants, of certain property in Detroit. The plaintiffs declaration is upon the common counts in assum/psit and the covenants of the lease. Plea, general issue and affidavit denying the execution of the lease. At the trial the court directed a verdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed. Defendants bring error.

The defendants are partners under the firm name of Pingree & Smith, manufacturers of shoes. They had occupied the premises for a number of years prior to the making…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Whiting v. ButlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Campau v. LaffertyMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Hooper v. FarnsworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. HeikensTennessee Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Fine Arts Corp. v. Kuchins Furniture Manfg. Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Atlas v. Gunsberg Packing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Bowen v. ClemensMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Oliver v. OlmsteadMichigan Supreme Court · 1897

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

Powered by the Exa API