Legal Opinion

Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict v. Bishop

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1894PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Reilly, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

The plaintiff, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York, brought suit by declaration, alleging that defendant became and was indebted to the firm of Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict for goods, etc., sold and delivered, and that said firm assigned this claim to the plaintiff. The defendant demurred on the sole ground that the declaration failed to state who are the persons or parties named in said declaration as the firm of Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict. The plaintiff joined in demurrer, and thereupon entered a motion for judgment on the demurrer on the ground…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bissell v. Spring Valley TownshipSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Smith v. CanfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
  3. Tefft v. McNoahMichigan Supreme Court · 1861

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict v. BishopMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Thomas Manufacturing Co. v. ErlandsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API