Legal Opinion

Neely v. Rood

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1884PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Error to Marquette. (Grant, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

Plaintiff brought assumpsit, his declaration containing only the common counts. It appears that on the 31st day of December, 1881, plaintiff gave to one John E.Ward *135his check on the First National Bank of Marquette, Mich., for $469, payable to the order of John E. Ward, county treasurer, for the purpose of having Ward pay to the Auditor General, at Lansing, certain back taxes upon lands owned by plaintiff, amounting to $468.3S. John E. Ward, at this time, was county treasurer of Marquette county, but the check was not received by him in his official capacity, nor was it any part of his…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cook v. TullisSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  2. Bank of Commerce v. RussellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1873
  3. Mason v. WaiteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1822
  4. In re JanewayDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1870
  5. Rusk v. NewellIllinois Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Nonotuck Silk Co. v. FlandersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Standard Oil Co. of Ky. v. HawkinsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1896
  3. McClure v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1893
  4. In re RansfordCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
  5. Evangelical Synod of North America v. SohoeneichSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898

12 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