Legal Opinion

Higgins v. Hampshire Products, Inc.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1948No. Docket No. 48, Calendar No. 43,851PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtButzel, J.

This suit was properly brought in Washtenaw county. The village of Milan is situated partly in Monroe county and partly in Washtenaw county. Defendants claim that it is common knowledge at least in Milan, Michigan, that the street address of defendant Hampshire Products, Inc., as well as the location of its office, is in Monroe county, and that it is inconceivable that plaintiffs after doing business with defendants for many months did not have this knowledge. †‡*Our attention has not been called to any law or custom by which a county line can be determined by a careful observer in the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Orloff v. Morehead Manfg. Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1935
  2. People ex rel. Knickerbocker Press v. BarkerNew York Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Detroit Transportation Co. v. Board of AssessorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Hutcheson Manufacturing Co. v. ChandlerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  5. Dime Savings Bank v. FletcherMichigan Supreme Court · 1909

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Taylor v. Ottawa Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Brennan v. Minneapolis Society for the Blind, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  3. Ramsey Financial Corp. v. HauglandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  4. State Ex Rel. Willamette National Lumber Co. v. Circuit CourtOregon Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Radio Electronics Supply Co. v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1964

7 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