Legal Opinion
Upham v. Clute
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided May 21, 1895PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Case made from Calhoun. (Smith, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant assigns error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
Plaintiff recovered a judgment of *351$15.15 and costs on a trial in the circuit before the court without a jury. Special findings of fact and law were made, and the only question which we consider it necessary to review is whether the findings support the judgment.
The facts found are that on the 26th of October, 1891, one Charles I. Martin made the following order on defendant:
“C. H. Glute:
“Please pay G. B. Canney, agent for Charles Upham’s place in Marshall, $21, and I will allow you the same on settlement. You are now owing me about $40, before paying this order.
“ Charles I. Martin.”
The court…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Comstock v. NortonMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Hughes v. FisherSupreme Court of Colorado · 1887
- Pfaff v. CummingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Sturges v. Fourth National BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Mitts v. McMorranMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ballen Friedman v. Bank of KremlinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Erickson v. InmanOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- People's Savings Bank v. Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 1925