Legal Opinion

De Mill v. Moffat

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1882PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from St. Clair. Ejectment. Plaintiffs bring error.

1Opinion of the Court

Graves, O. J.

A tract of land now situated within the city of Port Huron has been for many years a subject of litigation, and some of the contentions have been brought to this Court. See Hunt v. Thorn 2 Mich. 213; Hoffman v. Harrington 28 Mich. 90; De Mill v. Port Huron Dry Dock Co. 30 Mich. 38; Walsh v. Varney 38 Mich. 73, and other cases. The present controversy relates to a small portion of the same land and the cases referred to will furnish all necessary historical information.

The action is ejectment. It was begun May 20, 1873, by Henrietta De Mill, Harriet J. Comstock and Nancy Kim-ball,…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Van Renesselaer v. KearneySupreme Court of the United States · 1851
  2. Demarest v. WynkoopNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
  3. Trenton Banking Company v. . DuncanNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  4. Morrill v. Mackman.Michigan Supreme Court · 1872
  5. Hayes v. LivingstonMichigan Supreme Court · 1876

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Ex parte WhitwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Clark v. DillmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. King v. MerrittMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Marquette County Savings Bank v. KoivistoMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Bell v. ToddMichigan Supreme Court · 1883

9 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