Wetmore v. Moloney
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Cheboygan; Shepherd, J. Assumpsit by John H. Wetmore, administrator of the' estate of Henry A. Wetmore, deceased, against James F. Moloney and John Cosgrove, upon a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Moloney brings error. On May 1, 1893, defendant Cosgrove, desiring to enter upon the business of keeping a saloon, borrowed from plaintiff’s intestate $500 with which to pay the taxes thereon, and gave the note in suit.
Read the full summary
Error to Cheboygan; Shepherd, J. Assumpsit by John H. Wetmore, administrator of the' estate of Henry A. Wetmore, deceased, against James F. Moloney and John Cosgrove, upon a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Moloney brings error. On May 1, 1893, defendant Cosgrove, desiring to enter upon the business of keeping a saloon, borrowed from plaintiff’s intestate $500 with which to pay the taxes thereon, and gave the note in suit. Defendant Moloney was a joint maker with Cosgrove. Various payments were made, and at the trial there was due the sum of $352.59, for which…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). 1. Error is assigned upon the refusal of the court to give certain requests propounded by the defendant. To such refusals no exception was taken. They cannot, therefore, be considered. Thorn v. Maurer, 85 Mich. 569 (48 N. W. 640); Peterson v. Toner, 80 Mich. 350 (45 N. W. 346).
2. The bill of sale contained the following language: " It is understood that this instrument conveys an absolute title to said Howard Wetmore of the property herein described.” The testimony on the part of the plaintiff is positive that this bill of sale was given as security. It was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Peterson v. TonerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Thorn v. MaurerMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wolf v. RussellIndiana Court of Appeals · 1914