Legal Opinion

Houser v. Carmody

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1912No. Docket No. 18PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Error to Berrien; Des Yoignes, J. Assumpsit by Mary Houser against Thomas Carmody for breach of promise of marriage. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMcAlvay, J.

This was an action for damages for

breach of promise to marry and seduction, in which plaintiff recovered a substantial judgment. The case is before us for review upon writ of error.

The proofs show without dispute that plaintiff was an unmarried woman about 27 years old, employed as a telephone operator at Watervliet, Berrien county, and lived *124with her brother-in-law’s family; that defendant was an unmarried man of considerable property, 45 years old, who owned and conducted a drug store separated from the place where the plaintiff lived by an alley; that defendant lived in apartments over…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Canfield v. City of JacksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Sheahan v. BarryMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
  3. Burke v. Bay City Traction & Electric Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Goddard v. WestcottMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Fishleigh v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Reynolds v. W. T. Grant Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. City of Kalamazoo v. Standard Paper Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Kralick v. ShuttleworthIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Webert v. MaserMichigan Supreme Court · 1929

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

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

Powered by the Exa API