Legal Opinion

Cockerline v. Fisher

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1905No. Docket No. 136PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Oakland; Smith, J. Trespass quare clausum fregit by William Cockerline against Maxwell M. Fisher. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

William Cockerline, the plaintiff, became the tenant of Maxwell M. Fisher under a contract dated February 1, 1899. The plaintiff covenanted and agreed to pay to defendant two-thirds of the income of said farm, unless otherwise specified, to be paid as follows, to wit:

“When hay, grain, potatoes, hogs, wool or any other marketable product is sold, the toll is to be deducted, and two-thirds of the balance paid to the party of the first part. Two-thirds of the milk and one-half of the eggs and increase of poultry is to be turned over to party of the first part.”

November 3,1900, Mr. Fisher gave…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Van Rensselaer v. . SnyderNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
  2. Van Rensselaer v. . BallNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
  3. McSloy v. RyanMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Smith v. Detroit Loan & Building Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Rowlands v. VoechtingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. First National Bank v. HenryNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Bachinsky v. Federal Coal & Coke Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Pelavin v. MisnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API