Legal Opinion

Fechheimer v. Peirce

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1888PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Error to Kent. (Montgomery, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant Elia G. Peirce brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant, a married woman, on a note for $1,200, purporting to be signed by defendant, and by her husband, Le Grand Peirce, as surety. Defendant claims that she never made the note on her own account, but that it was given for a debt of her husband.

The facts, as claimed by plaintiff, were that one Ainberg, plaintiff’s agent, was applied to by Le Grand Peirce, defendant’s husband, for a loan of $1,200, who offered to give his own note, with his wife as security; that Amberg said he would not do this, but would make a loan to defendant, with her husband as security; that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kenton Insurance v. McClellanMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Morrison v. BerryMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Newcomb v. AndrewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  4. Holmes v. BronsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Sherwood v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Grand Island Banking Co. v. WrightNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Judd v. JuddMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Burns v. CooperCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
  4. Three Rivers National Bank v. GilchristMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Bowles v. TrappIndiana Supreme Court · 1894

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API