Dickey v. Waldo
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Allegan.. (Buck, J., presiding.) Trover. Defendant brings error. On February 21, 1885, the plaintiffs- and one Schultz entered into the following contract: “Articles of agreement, made this 21st day of February, A. D. 1885, between John Schmitz, of the township of Saugatuck, Allegan county, Michigan, of the first part, and John W. Dickey and Addison Lurvey, of Douglas, county and State aforesaid, of the second part, witnessetli as follows: “ The said party of the…
Read the full summary
Error to Allegan.. (Buck, J., presiding.) Trover. Defendant brings error. On February 21, 1885, the plaintiffs- and one Schultz entered into the following contract: “Articles of agreement, made this 21st day of February, A. D. 1885, between John Schmitz, of the township of Saugatuck, Allegan county, Michigan, of the first part, and John W. Dickey and Addison Lurvey, of Douglas, county and State aforesaid, of the second part, witnessetli as follows: “ The said party of the first part is the owner of the W. ½ of the E. ½ of the S. W. ¼ of section 25, township of Saugatuck, aforesaid; and,…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
The contract and the findings of the court in this case are found in the statement.
This contract and the judgment should be sustained unless there are some inexorable rules of.law which stand in the way. Two rules are invoked to defeat the plaintiffs' action:
1. That the land upon which the peach trees were planted was a homestead; that Schultz' wife did not sign the contract; that it interfered with the homestead right, and was therefore void.
'2. That the crop which the plaintiffs agreed to take in payment for the trees was not in esse at the time, and therefore not the subject of sale.
1. We…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Butt v. EllettSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Smith v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Andrew v. . NewcombNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Arques v. WassonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- Conderman v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1863
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1920
- Michigan Sugar Co. v. FalkenhagenMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
- Hamilton v. KlinkeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Pearson v. LaffertyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1917
- Bacon v. MirauSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.