Legal Opinion

Lautenshlager v. Lautenshlager

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1890PublishedCited by 29 opinions

Error to Monroe. (Kiune, J.) Appeal from the probate of two instruments, in form warranty deeds, but claimed by the proponents to be a will. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCahill, J.

This case was commenced in the probate *288court of Monroe county on the petition of Samuel L. Lautenshlager and Elizabeth Ann Van Houten, asking for the probating, as the will of Charles Lautenshlager, deceased, of two instruments in writing in the form of deeds. In that court these instruments were admitted to probate. The contestant, John L. Lautenshlager, one of the sons and heirs at law of the testator, appealed to the circuit court, where, on a hearing before the circuit judge without a jury, the order of the probate court was affirmed. At the request of appellant the court filed a written…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Morrell v. DickeyNew York Court of Chancery · 1814
  2. Schofield v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Brown v. BellMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Bigley v. SouveyMichigan Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Heaston v. KriegIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Clay v. LaytonMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Geisel v. BurgMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Bromley v. MitchellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
  5. Lorimer v. LorimerMichigan Supreme Court · 1900

24 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