Hopkins v. O'Neil
This text of 9 N.W. 448 (Hopkins v. O'Neil) 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.
Opinion
We are of opinion that the declaration in this case was sufficient in substance. The part omitted, and which was contained in Carter v. Glass 44 Mich. 154, adds nothing to the substantial averments. This whole matter has so recently been fully discussed in this court and the distinctions pointed out, that any extended remarks in the present case are wholly unnecessary. Carter v. Glass 44 Mich. 154; Briggs v. Milburn 40 Mich. 512; Norton v. Colgrove 41 Mich. 544.
The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 N.W. 448, 46 Mich. 403, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-oneil-mich-1881.