Legal Opinion

Hemphill v. Orloff

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1927No. Docket No. 97PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

This action is brought on a note given by defendant, a married woman, to the Commercial Investment Trust, of which plaintiff is vice-president. No question of bona fide purchaser is involved, as the note was transferred to him for the purpose of bringing suit. Before taking up the case itself a preliminary question should be disposed of. Both parties asked without reservation for a directed verdict. Defendant’s counsel insist that this amounted to a request that the trial court find the facts. We recognize this as being the rule in the Federal courts, but it is not the rule of this court.…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Hecht v. MalleySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. International Textbook Co. v. PiggSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  3. Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
  4. Burk-Waggoner Oil Assn. v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  5. Lottery CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1903

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Carr v. Michigan Real Estate Insurance Trust (In Re Michigan Real Estate Insurance Trust)District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1988
  2. Michigan Trust Co. v. HerpolsheimerMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Stratford Arms Hotel Co. v. General Casualty & Surety Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Brocki v. American Express Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
  5. Burger King Corp. v. City of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API