Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Conflict Of Laws - Mistake Of Foreign Law As Mistake Of Fact
Conflict Of Laws - Mistake Of Foreign Law As Mistake Of Fact
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff sued in Ohio to set aside a deed of Ohio land given by the plaintiff, a resident of that state, in exchange for Texas lands deeded by the defendant who was also a resident of Ohio, for mistake as to defendant's title to the Texas land resulting from a Texas statute of which both parties were ignorant at the time of the transaction. Held, a mistake of foreign law is a mistake of fact authorizing equitable relief. Miller v. Bieghler, 123 Ohio St. 227, 174 N.E. 774 (1931).
Crimes - Burglary - Structures Subject To
Crimes - Burglary - Structures Subject To
Michigan Law Review
The defendant broke and entered a frame poultry house. Held, the indictment for burglary was sufficient under the statute denouncing the breaking and entering of uninhabited dwelling houses or other buildings. Stover v. State, 37 Ohio App. 213, 174 N.E. 613 (1930).
Bailment - Contest Between A Garage Man Claiming A Lien For Repairs And A Prior Chattel Mortgagee
Bailment - Contest Between A Garage Man Claiming A Lien For Repairs And A Prior Chattel Mortgagee
Michigan Law Review
K purchased an automobile, giving his note secured by a chattel mortgage on the car. P purchased the note. Subsequently, K took the car to the garage of D for repairs. D made the necessary repairs and held the car under claim of a lien. The note was defaulted and P replevied the car. Held, the mortgagor could not contract a debt giving rise to a lien superior to that of the mortgage without the consent of the mortgagee; hence, P recovered. Cleveland Auto Top & Trimming Co. v. American Finance Co. (Ohio 1931) 177 N.E. 217.
Easements-Creation By Implied Reservation
Easements-Creation By Implied Reservation
Michigan Law Review
The owner oi a tract of land subdivided it into five lots and saved a twelve-foot strip for a driveway along the rear of each, making the lots accessible from a side street. The plaintiff and the defendant were purchasers of two of these lots. Some time after the sale of the defendant acquired all the original owner's interest in the driveway by a quitclaim deed and immediately began to erect a garage on the drive, thus preventing the plaintiff from using it. Held, that an easement arose by implied grant and that the plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to …