Sweeney v. Lustfield
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Iron; Stone, J. Assumpsit by Edward Sweeney against Adolph Lust-field upon a bond to stay execution on a justice’s judgment. From a judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, defendant brings, error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
Plaintiff, on the 21st of March, 1893, recovered a judgment against the Deer River Lumber Company (composed of Benjamin F. Davenport and Fred Esau, copartners) for $188.71 and costs. The defendant, on the 27th of March, 1893, entered into an undertaking, *697as surety, for the stay of execution on said judgment, which is set out at length in Lustfield v. Ball, 103 Mich. 17. The present action is brought on that undertaking. In Lustfield v. Ball, supra,, we held that the undertaking was in compliance with section 6963, 2 How. Stat. It is now contended that the declaration counts on this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hayes v. City of West Bay CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Fuller v. Mayor of JacksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad v. SouthwickMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Lustfield v. BallMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by3 opinions
- Susich v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1940
- Anderson v. MattMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- In re DownsMichigan Supreme Court · 1907