Bulen v. Granger
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Jennison, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. The court erred in permitting the due-bill to be taken to the jury-room: In re Foster’s Will, 34 Mich. 21; Kalamazoo Novelty Manufacturing Co. v, McAlister, 36 Id. 327; Chadwich v. Chadwich, 52 Id. 545. The taking of the due-bill to the jury-room was discretionary with the court: Canning v. Harlan, 50 Mich. 320.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
Action was commenced before a justice of the peace to recover an alleged balance due upon the following written instrument:
“Detroit, May 16, 1882.
“Deceived of Mrs. Millie M. Granger $475, to be paid when store No. 20 Monroe avenue is sold, or money borrowed on the same. - J. H. Granger.
“Witness: A. Miller, Manager.”
The declaration was in writing, and was quite general in its terms. It set forth that on the eleventh day of July, A. D. 1882, at the city of Detroit, the defendant was indebted to Millie M. Granger in the sum of $239, for money then and there loaned by said Millie M. Granger to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In re the Appeal from the Probate of the Will of FosterMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Canning v. HarlanMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Kalamazoo Novelty Manufacturing Co. v. McAlisterMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Bulen v. GrangerMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Hamilton v. LangleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by8 opinions
- Socha v. PassinoMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
- Detzur v. B. Stroh Brewing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Farrell v. HazeMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- People v. OnestoMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
- Silverstone v. London Assurance Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.