Sadlowski v. Meeron

220 N.W. 680, 243 Mich. 602, 1927 Mich. LEXIS 505

Michigan Supreme Court·Decided October 3, 1927·No. Docket No. 132, Calendar No. 33,067.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

ON REHEARING. (ON REHEARING.) On defendants' motion a rehearing was granted in this case. It has again been orally argued by counsel.

I have again read the record with care and examined the authorities relied on by counsel. It will serve no useful purpose to restate what was said in the former opinion. I still adhere to the views therein expressed.

The judgment should be affirmed.

FEAD, C.J., and NORTH, McDONALD, and POTTER, JJ., concurred with SHARPE, J. *Page 603

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

ON REHEARING. (ON REHEARING.) On defendants' motion a rehearing was granted in this case. It has again been orally argued by counsel.

The judgment should be affirmed.

FEAD, C.J., and NORTH, McDONALD, and POTTER, JJ., concurred with SHARPE, J. *Page 603

Sadlowski v. Meeron, 220 N.W. 680, 243 Mich. 602, 1927 Mich. LEXIS 505 (Mich. 1927).

Pincite

220 N.W. 680 (Sadlowski v. Meeron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Kinsler v. Simpson

240 N.W. 98 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1932)

Opinions

Related