Hommel v. Devinney
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Wayne. Bill and Cross-bill to remove cloud from title. Decree was granted in favor of the complainant in the original bill, and the cross-bill was dismissed. Devinney, being defendant in the original bill and complainant in the cross-bill, appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtMarston, J.
Mary Ann Hommel filed a bill of complaint setting forth therein, that she was in the actual possession and held the legal title to certain described lands; that she derived her title thereto by conveyance from her father William Hommel and Mary Eve his wife, dated June 16th, 1857, recorded November 25th, 1867. The bill sets forth that the defendant, Devinney, is attempting to disturb complainant in her possession; that he has set up a claim of title to the premises in opposition to that of complainant, claiming under a conveyance from some of the heirs of William Hommel, dated June 7, 1867,…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Smith v. . United States Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Roberts v. MosierSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Loser v. Plainfield Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Wakefield v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Allen v. CadwellMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.