Legal Opinion

Richards v. Fuller

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1878PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Kent.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.

Plaintiff in error was sued by defendants in error as endorsees of a promissory note given to Warren S. Hale and transferred by him to them. The defense is that the consideration for the note was the sale of certain logs, which Hale warranted to hold out to a specified quantity and quality of each of the several kinds sold, including cherry, ash, basswood, walnut, butternut, maple, beech and elm; and that the lumber did not hold out as warranted, and that plaintiffs below were not such holders as to be discharged from that defense.

On the trial evidence was introduced tending to make out this…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Deuel v. HigginsMichigan Supreme Court · 1861
  2. Richards v. FullerMichigan Supreme Court · 1877

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. AnsteyMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Marcott v. Marquette, Houghton & Ontonagon RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Lovejoy v. MichelsMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Wood v. Standard Drug Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  5. People v. AnsteyMichigan Supreme Court · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API