Legal Opinion

Vincent v. Defield

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1895PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Berrien. (Coolidge, J.) Debt. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

The plaintiff having recovered in summary proceedings to regain the possession of land from his tenant, Defield, the defendants joined in an appeal bond, conditioned to pay all rent due or to become due up to the time when Alonzo Vincent should obtain possession of the premises, with costs of suit. A judgment in plaintiff’s favor was affirmed in 98 Mich. 84. The plaintiff thereupon brought an action upon the bond, and from a judgment in his favor the defendants have brought error. The questions in the case relate to the subject of damages.

The premises consisted of a ground floor room in a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Vincent v. DefieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Fogg v. HillSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1842

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Kendall v. UlandNebraska Supreme Court · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API