Legal Opinion

Walsh v. Martin

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1888PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to St. Clair. (Stevens, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

This action was brought before a justice of the peace of St. Clair county, to recover for the use and occupation of a certain store and lot in the city of Port Huron.

The declaration was upon the common counts in assumpsit—

“ For the use and occupation of a certain store and premises on the east side of Huron avenue in the city of Port Huron, being the three-story brick building now occupied by defendants.”

*30The defendants pleaded the general issue, and gave notice—

“That they were not, and never had been, tenants of the plaintiff, or occupied the store mentioned in his declaration under him or…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Indianapolis Manufacturing & Carpenters Union v. Cleveland, C., C., & I. Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1873
  2. Robinson v. PerrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1857
  3. Donkersley v. LevyMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Conkling v. TuttleMichigan Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Weintraub v. WeingartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  2. Easley Coal Co. v. Brush Creek Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Hough v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Gingrass v. MatherMichigan Supreme Court · 1901

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

Powered by the Exa API