Brucker v. Welch

3 Citing cases

  1. Fisk v. Powell

    349 Mich. 604 (Mich. 1957)   Cited 11 times

    The evidence of fraud adduced by the plaintiffs was neither "convincing, clear nor satisfactory." Brucker v. Welch, 226 Mich. 535; Gardner v. Gardner, 311 Mich. 615; Grimshaw v. Aske, 332 Mich. 146; Broaden v. Doncea, 340 Mich. 564. The second question raised by the plaintiffs relates to imposition of the loss sustained when the farmhouse was destroyed by fire.

  2. Truckers Exch. Bank v. Conroy

    199 So. 301 (Miss. 1941)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that a jury should not be permitted to consider evidence where it is manifest that no reasonable man engaged in a search for truth, uninfluenced by proper motives or considerations would accept or act on the evidence

    Where fraud is charged, it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Martin v. Gill, 181 So. 849, 182 Miss. 810; Dowling v. White Lbr. Supply Co., 154 So. 703, 170 Miss. 267; N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Gill, 182 So. 109, 182 Miss. 815; McCain v. Cockran, 153 Miss. 237, 120 So. 823; Simonton v. Los Angeles Trust Savings Bank, 270 Pa. 672, 27 C.J. 44; Drawn v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 175 Cal. 21, 165 P. 5; Garey v. Morley Bros., 209 N.W. 116; Brooks v. Culver, 168 Mich. 436, 134 N.W. 470; Schiessler v. Pierce, 225 Mich. 91, 195 N.W. 804; Bruckler v. Welch, 226 Mich. 535, 198 N.W. 234; In re Hatten's Estate, 288 N.W. 279; Max L. Bloom Co. v. U.S. Casualty Co., 191 Wis. 524, 210 N.W. 689; Kuska v. Apel, 203 Wis. 389, 232 N.W. 593; Lange v. Heckel, 171 Wis. 59, 175 N.W. 788; Parker v. Hull, 71 Wis. 368, 37 N.W. 351, 5 Am. St. Rep. 224; Miloncsky v. Farmers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 200 Wis. 255, 227 N.W. 873; Smothers v. Cosgrove-Meehan Coal Co., 264 Ill. App. 488; McInturff v. Ins. Co. of North America, 248 Ill. 92, 99; Brown v. Robinson, 120 N.E. 694; Morton v. Thurber, 85 N.Y. 550; Guggenheimer v. Geissler, 81 N.Y. 293. The cross-examination of the plaintiff demonstrated that she could not be certain as to the contents of the written instruments.

  3. Garey v. Morley Brothers

    234 Mich. 675 (Mich. 1926)   Cited 18 times

    While it may be said that a preponderance of the proof is all that is required in civil cases, yet this court has repeatedly held that, to impeach the verity of a written instrument on the ground of fraud, more convincing proof must be submitted to create a preponderance than where the contract rests in parol. Brooks v. Culver, 168 Mich. 436; Schiessler v. Pierce, 225 Mich. 91; Brucker v. Welch, 226 Mich. 535. No less burden rests upon one who attacks the validity of a judgment by impeaching the officer's return of service. Clabaugh v. Wayne Circuit Judge, supra.