Legal Opinion

Tredway v. Antisdel

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1891PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Bay. (Cobb, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

This suit was commenced December 11, 1888, by filing a declaration upon the common counts. Attached to the declaration was a notice that plaintiff would give in evidence a certain promissory note, a copy of which is as follows:

“5,000. ■ Bay City, Mich., June 1, 1887.
“One year from date I promise to pay to the order of Mrs. Julia Pickering five thousand dollars, value received, at Sec. Nat. Bank, with interest at 7 per cent., semiannually.
“J. F. Antisdel.”

Defendant demanded a bill of particulars. The bill of particulars furnished was as follows:

“To amount paid by plaintiff June 13, 1888, for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rothschild v. GrixMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  2. McClatchie v. DurhamMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Stanley v. McElrathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Peninsular Savings Bank v. HosieMichigan Supreme Court · 1897

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API