Davis v. Davis

Michigan Supreme Court

Davis v. Davis

58 N.W. 651, 100 Mich. 162, 1894 Mich. LEXIS 776

DecidedApril 17, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 58 N.W. 651 (Davis v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Davis, 58 N.W. 651, 100 Mich. 162, 1894 Mich. LEXIS 776 (Mich. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Long, J.

This case was heard at the October term, 1893, of this Court, and is reported in 97 Mich. 419. It seems that some misunderstanding has arisen as to what was conceded on the part of counsel for the defendants. It was said in the former opinion that the portion of the charge set out was conceded by counsel to be erroneous, but claimed to have been cured by other portions of the charge. Motion for rehearing was made and granted, and the cause has been again argued upon that point by both sides.

¥e are now satisfied that there was no error in that portion of the charge. The representation referred to by the learned circuit judge was in reference to the title to the territory. The defendants claimed to have relied upon the representation that the plaintiffs had a perfect title, and purchased the cans in the belief that they would have the exclusive right to the territory. The representations as to title were material, and, if the court had so instructed the jury, it would' not have been error. Therefore the fact that the jury were instructed that they should determine whether the defendants deemed them to be material did not in any manner prejudice the plaintiffs* rights.

The judgment must be affirmed.'

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Long, J.

This case was heard at the October term, 1893, of this Court, and is reported in 97 Mich. 419. It seems that some misunderstanding has arisen as to what was conceded on the part of counsel for the defendants. It was said in the former opinion that the portion of the charge set out was conceded by counsel to be erroneous, but claimed to have been cured by other portions of the charge. Motion for rehearing was made and granted, and the cause has been again argued upon that point by both sides.

¥e are now satisfied that there was no error in that portion of the charge. The representation referred to by the learned circuit judge was in reference to the title to the territory. The defendants claimed to have relied upon the representation that the plaintiffs had a perfect title, and purchased the cans in the belief that they would have the exclusive right to the territory. The representations as to title were material, and, if the court had so instructed the jury, it would' not have been error. Therefore the fact that the jury were instructed that they should determine whether the defendants deemed them to be material did not in any manner prejudice the plaintiffs* rights.

The judgment must be affirmed.'

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.W. 651, 100 Mich. 162, 1894 Mich. LEXIS 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-davis-mich-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack