Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ivory v. Lamoreaux

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1928No. Docket No. 24Published

1DissentFellows, J.

I am persuaded that under the provisions of the negotiable instruments law the note in question is negotiable. Section 3 of the act (2 Comp. Laws 1915, § 6042) provides:

“An instrument, to be negotiable, must conform to the following requirements: * * *

■ “Second, It must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a certain sum of money.”

Section 5 of the act (2 Comp. Laws 1915, § 6044) provides:

_ “An unqualified order or promise to pay is unconditional within the meaning of this act, though coupled with: * * *

“Second, A statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument.”

The…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Chicago Railway Equipment Co. v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  2. Citizens Nat. Bank v. BuckheitAlabama Court of Appeals · 1916
  3. Costelo v. CrowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
  4. Strand Amusement Co. v. FoxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  5. Shelling State Bank v. ClasenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916

22 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