Michigan Reports: Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of Michigan, Volume 27
George C. Gibbs, Randolph Manning, Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Elijah W. Meddaugh, Hoyt Post, William Jennison, Hovey K. Clarke, John Adams Brooks, Marquis B. Eaton, Henry Allen Chaney, James M. Reasoner, William Dudley Fuller, Richard W. Cooper, Herschel Bouton Lazell
Phelphs & Stevens, printers, 1874 - Law reports, digests, etc
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
admission agreed agreement alleged amount appears assumpsit attorney authority bill Blaci bona fide purchaser bond Branch county certiorari charge Christiancy circuit court circuit judge city counselor claimed commissioner common counts Comp complainant construed contract costs damages debt Decided April declaration decree deed defendant in error Detroit East Saginaw equity evidence execution fact favor foreclosure fraud Giaves ground Heard April held Holmes hundred dollars intended interest issue judgment jurisdiction jury Justices concurred liable lien logs lumber Lyon mandamus ment mortgage notice objection owner paid parties payable payment person plaintiff in error pleading possession Practice in Circuit Practice in Supreme premises presumption proceedings Proctor Promissory Notes proof prosecution provision purchase question Quo Warranto reason recover refused register of deeds remedy rent replevin rule statute suit taxes testimony tion trial trover vendor verdict void warrant Wayne Circuit witness writ
Page 201 - It was a necessary ground of the decision in that case, that a party may be ignorant of the law. The rule is, that ignorance of the law shall not excuse a man, or relieve him from the consequences of a crime, or from liability upon a contract. There are many cases where the giving up a doubtful point of law has been held to be a good consideration for a promise to pay money.
Page 233 - States, as and for the true and faithful performance of all and every of the covenants and agreements above mentioned, the parties to these presents bind themselves each unto the other in the penal sum of Dollars, as fixed and liquidated damages to be paid by the failing party.
Page 431 - ... any false representation by the assured of the condition, situation or occupancy of the property, or any omission to make known every fact material to the risk, or an overvaluation, or any misrepresentation whatever, either in a written application or otherwise...
Page 201 - As to the certainty of the law mentioned by Mr. Dunning, it would be very hard upon the profession if the law was so certain that everybody knew it ; the misfortune is that it is so uncertain that it costs much money to know what it is, even in the last resort.
Page 72 - That no action shall be brought whereby to charge any person upon or by reason of any representation or assurance made or given concerning or relating to the character, conduct, credit, ability, trade, or dealings of any other person, to the intent or purpose that such other person may obtain credit, money, or goods upon, unless such representation or assurance be made in writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith.
Page 201 - В. 719, Maule, J., correctly explains the rule of law. He says: ' There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law ; it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so.
Page 618 - Where anything remains to be done to the goods for the purpose of ascertaining the price, as by weighing, measuring, or testing the goods, where the price is to depend on the quantity or quality of the goods, the performance of these things...
Page 494 - In witness whereof the parties above named have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written...
Page 303 - The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
Page 219 - Such an engagement brings the parties necessarily into very intimate and confidential relations, and the advantage taken of those relations by the seducer is as plain a breach of trust in all its essential features as any advantage gained by a trustee, or guardian, or confidential adviser, who cheats a confiding ward, or beneficiary, or client, into a losing bargain. It only differs from ordinary breaches of trust in being more heinous.