Clark v. Lowe
71 N.W. 638, 113 Mich. 352, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 783
Opinion
(after stating the facts). The defendant contends that the agreement was set forth in the deed, and that this agreement cannot be varied by parol. We think the case is ruled by Bowker v. Johnson, 17 Mich. 42, and Ford v. Savage, 111 Mich. 144.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Clark v. Lowe, 71 N.W. 638, 113 Mich. 352, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 783 (Mich. 1897).
71 N.W. 638 (Clark v. Lowe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hagan v. Moch
229 N.W. 629 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1930)
Eckler v. Alden
84 N.W. 141 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1900)