Legal Opinion
Keidan v. Winegar
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided April 21, 1893PublishedCited by 14 opinions
Error to Kent. (Adsit, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
Plaintiff had judgment upon the following promissory note:
“$336.96-100. Grand Rapids, Mich., Dec. 22, 1887.
“Ninety days after date, I promise to pay:-to the order of Geo. Keidan three hundred thirty-six and 96-100 dollars at the Old National Bank of Grand Rapids, Mich., value received, with interest at the rate of eight per cent, per .annum until paid.
“W. S. Winegar, Agt.”
Defendant, with his plea, filed an affidavit setting forth—
“That the note, a copy of which is attached to the ■declaration in said cause, and served upon said deponent with a copy of said declaration, is not the note of this…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Metcalf v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Hubbard v. . GurneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Hicks v. HindeNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Tilden v. BarnardMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Stevens v. OaksMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by14 opinions
- Andersons, Inc. v. Horton Farms, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- Andersons, Inc. v. Horton Farms, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- McFarland v. ShawTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932
- Alex Woldert Co. v. Citizens' Bank of Ft. ValleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- State Bank of St. Johns v. McCabeMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.