Curtis v. Flint & Pere Marquette Railway Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Saginaw circuit. cited Golbxirn v. Pome-roy, 44 JST. II., 19; Stent v. Hunt, 8 I£ll, S. 0., 223; Richardson v. Smith, 8 Johns., 439 ; Robertson v. Lynch, 18 Johns., 456; Miller v. Watson, 4 Wend., 267; Ladue v. Seymour, 24 Wend., 59 ; Butterfield v. Selig-man, 17 Mich., 95; Gooding v. Hingston, 20 Mich., 489.
1Opinion of the Court
Cooley, J:
In a suit in assurnpsit on the common money counts, the plaintiff below, — defendant in error, — sought to recover of the defendant below the amount of a tax claimed to have been paid for Mm. To show that the payment was made for the use of the defendant, a contract under seal was put in evidence, by which it appeared that defendant had sold to plaintiff the land on which the tax was levied; that he agreed by the contract to pay the tax, but had neglected to do so, and plaintiff had therefore paid it for its own protection. The defendant objected to the evidence, and requested *292of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Butterfield v. SeligmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Gooding v. HingstonMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fry v. TalbottCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1907
- Garcia v. McCord Gasket Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1993