Legal Opinion

Sullivan v. Deiter

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1891PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to G-ogebie. (Daboll, J., presiding.') Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChampuin, C. J.

The plaintiff, Sullivan, showed to the defendant Oopps a mining location in the vicinity of Marenisco, Mich., and entered into an arrangement with him, by which Oopps secured a mining option, and he and Sullivan went upon it, and worked together in developing it, as far as it was possible for them to do, and also expended some money, Copps paying out rather more than Sullivan. Copps then wrote to Mr. Deiter, of Chicago, to come up and examine the location, with a view of getting him interested in the option. He came up, and looked over the location, and was satisfied with the prospect, and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bond v. Pontiac, Oxford & Port Austin RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Howard v. First Presbyterian Church & Society of PontiacMichigan Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hayes v. ColemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
  2. People v. CahoonMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  3. People v. LieskaMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  4. LeBlanc v. LentiniMichigan Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Tacoma Eastern Railroad v. SmithgallWashington Supreme Court · 1910

2 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