Legal Opinion

Barnes v. Peet

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 8, 1889PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Gratiot. (Hart, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

Plaintiff sued defendands in the circuit court for the county of Gratiot upon the following promissory note:

“ 1,000. Ithaca, Mich., July 10, 1888.
“One year after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of R. A. Peet one thousand dollars, at the banking office of Steel, Turck & Co., Ithaca, Mich., with interest at 8 per cent.
“K. P. Peet.
“D. O. Johnson.

Indorsed on back: “R. A. Peet.”

The defense on the trial of the case was substantially as follows: At the time the note in suit was made K. P. Peet was president, and Barnes the secretary and treasurer, of a mutual life insurance…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Manistee National Bank v. SeymourMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Hillman v. SchwenkMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Hillman v. SchwenkMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dunn v. National BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Horrigan v. WymanMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Reed v. McCreadyMichigan Supreme Court · 1912

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API