Legal Opinion
Wright v. Dickinson
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided November 10, 1887PublishedCited by 45 opinions
Error to Allegan. (Arnold, J.) Assumpsit to recover money paid on land contracts. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in Dickinson v. Wright, 56 Mich. 42.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
Plaintiff declared against the defendants upon the common counis in assumpsit, and filed therewith a bill of particulars as follows:
“Sirs: Please to take notice that the following is a bill of particulars of the plaintiff’s demand in this cause, and for the recovery of which this action is brought, to wit:
“The plaintiff’s hill of particulars is for moneys paid on a certain land contract made by Chase H. Dickinson and William P. Dickinson and the plaintiff above named, of which Exhibit ‘B’ hereto annexed is a true copy; and plaintiff’s claim is that the land described in said contract was not,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brown v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- McNair v. GilbertNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Dickinson v. WrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Davis v. FreemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
- Cicotte v. County of WayneMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Menefee v. OxnamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Todd v. BettingenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Cox v. GroseSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
- Bellefeuille v. MedeirosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
- Mesh v. CitrinMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.