Legal Opinion

McNutt v. Dix

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 21, 1890PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Error to Berrien. (O’Hara, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCahill, J.

The plaintiff, as the daughter and one of the heirs at law of Margaret Hastings, deceased, owned an undivided one-fifth interest in 80 acres of land in Berrien county, in this State. She resided at Frederick-town, Ohio. Her brothers and sisters resided in this State. One of her brothers, John. Hastings, was proposing to buy the claims of the others interested in the estate, and, with that purpose in view, had bought one share, being one-fifth, for $300, and had contracted for and subsequently concluded a purchase of another share at $450. He had also written to the plaintiff in regard to…

2Cited by19 opinions

  1. Stephenson v. GoldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Mersky v. Multiple Listing Bureau of Olympia, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Ackerson v. ElliottWashington Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Nabours v. McCordTexas Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Blabon v. HayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929

14 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