Crittenden v. Fiske
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to ‘Wayne. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
In this case the defendants in error, plaintiffs in the court below, have recovered on a guaranty by the plaintiff in error of purchases of merchandise by one Mrs. Coe. Two questions are made in the case — First, whether the guaranty was a continuous one; and second, whether the guarantor was entitled to notice of acceptance.
The plaintiffs below were merchants doing business in Chicago. Mrs. Coe, who had dealt with them before, was not in good credit, and they declined to sell to her on time without security. She proposed Crittenden, who resided in this State, as guarantor, and they thereupon…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Douglass and Others v. Reynolds and OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
- Gates v. . McKeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Boston & Sandwich Glass Co. v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Anderson v. BlakelySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Mygatt v. New York Protection InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Manry v. Waxelbaum Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Sheffield v. WhitfieldCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
- International Textbook Co. v. MabbottWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
- Bond v. John V. Farwell Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Columbus Sewer Pipe Co. v. GanserMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.