Legal Opinion

Havens v. Church

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1895PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Gratiot. (Daboll, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

The findings of fact are as follows:

“ On the 24th day of May, 1880, Albinus Pierce owned certain land in Gratiot county, on which there was a mortgage of about 8350, running to George Holden. On the said 24th day of May he sold the said land to Mrs. Ellen Ackmoody, by warranty deed; the trade being fully completed, and the papers recorded, on the 15th of December, following.

“ On the said 15th day of December, 1880, Ellen Ack*137moody applied to Nathan Church, the defendant in this action, who was at that time conducting a real-estate, abstract, and loan office in Ithaca, to get a loan of $1,350…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kimball v. KimballMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Shoemaker v. HinzeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Jones v. HendersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Co., Ltd., of Zurich v. Safe-T-Kros Drug Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1930
  3. Pitcher v. Rogers' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Shepard v. Kent Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1896

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

Powered by the Exa API