Peake v. Fuller
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The facts in this case are like the facts in Peake v. Yule, ante, 675 ( 82 N. W. 514 ), and that case is controlling of the present, except one other question is here raised. It is claimed by the defendant that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. We think *685 not.' That question is controlled by the case of Wardle v. Hudson, 96 Mich. 432 ( 55 N. W. 992 ). The statute did not begin to run until the time the assessment was made. See Smith v. Bell, 107 Pa. St. 352.
The judgment must be affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.