Peek v. Roe

Michigan Supreme Court

Peek v. Roe

67 N.W. 1080, 110 Mich. 52, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 641

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 30, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 67 N.W. 1080 (Peek v. Roe) 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

Peek v. Roe, 67 N.W. 1080, 110 Mich. 52, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 641 (Mich. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The main point in the case is ruled by Kirkwood v. Finegan, 95 Mich. 543, and Flaherty v. Moran, 81 Mich. 52 (21 Am. St. Rep. 510). The principal defense appears to be that the defendants are not shown to be the parties responsible for the erection and maintenance of the fence. Defendant Jennie Roe lives in the house, as does also her father. Defendant Charles Roe, Jr., is the owner of an undivided interest as the heir of his mother, of whose estate he is the administrator. We think the evidence sufficient to show that both defendants are responsible for the maintenance of the fence. Charles, in reply to a letter, written in behalf of the complainant, requesting a change in the height of the fence, wrote, “Whenever you get ready to move on our ‘works,’ we shall be ready to receive you.”

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The main point in the case is ruled by Kirkwood v. Finegan, 95 Mich. 543, and Flaherty v. Moran, 81 Mich. 52 (21 Am. St. Rep. 510). The principal defense appears to be that the defendants are not shown to be the parties responsible for the erection and maintenance of the fence. Defendant Jennie Roe lives in the house, as does also her father. Defendant Charles Roe, Jr., is the owner of an undivided interest as the heir of his mother, of whose estate he is the administrator. We think the evidence sufficient to show that both defendants are responsible for the maintenance of the fence. Charles, in reply to a letter, written in behalf of the complainant, requesting a change in the height of the fence, wrote, “Whenever you get ready to move on our ‘works,’ we shall be ready to receive you.”

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 N.W. 1080, 110 Mich. 52, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peek-v-roe-mich-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack