Legal Opinion

Younger v. Caroselli

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 1930No. Docket No. 116, Calendar No. 35,092PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtButzel, J.

Alfred L. Caroselli, an interior decorator and also a music teacher, desired to have a house and garage built for himself’ and his wife, Lillian, the defendants, cross-plaintiffs, and appellees in this case. He had purchased on land contract lot numbered 913 of the East Detroit Development Subdivision No. 2. George W. Younger, a building contractor of over 30 years’ experience, and his wife are the plaintiffs, cross-defendants and appellants herein. Among the very large number of houses with garages he had erected in the city of Detroit, there was one almost opposite lot No. 913 that…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Elterman v. . HymanNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. Gillen v. Wakefield State BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Witte v. HobolthMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Ihrke v. Continental Life Insurance & Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
  5. German Bundesheim Society v. SchmidtMichigan Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Stephenson v. GoldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
  2. W. H. Barber Co. v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
  3. Hatch v. HatchMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Beacock v. Peoples Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API