Bowman v. Myers
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.
(after stating the facts). Plaintiff’s counsel do not contend that defendants’ failure to com ply with Act No. 164, Pub. Acts 1913, makes their contract with plaintiff invalid. They concede, and properly so, that the amendment to the act (Act No. 265, Pub. Acts 1919) permits defendants to assert their contract, provided, as was here done, the proper certificate was filed before suit was brought. What they contend is this: That the issuance of a license to them as brokers by the Michigan securities commission acting under Act No. 306, Pub. Acts 1919, without their compliance with another act,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Detroit City Railway v. MillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Francis v. BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- International Harvester Co. of America v. Eaton Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Wyandotte Electric Light Co. v. City of WyandotteMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Attorney General v. BruceMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.