Legal Opinion
Dow Law Bank v. Godfrey
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided May 7, 1901PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Error to Berrien; Coolidge, J. Assumpsit by the Dow Law Bank against Charles H. Godfrey on certain promissory notes. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, C. J.
This action is based upon two-promissory notes — one for $2,000, and one for $1,000— given in July, 1895. The notes are in the same form, the first one being as follows:
“$2,000.00 Fort Valley, Ga., July 18, 1895.
“ Thirty days after date, I promise to pay to the Dow Law Bank, or order, two thousand and no one-hundredths dollars, for value received, payable at said bank, with interest from maturity at the rate of eight per cent, per annum, with all costs of collection, including ten per cent, attorney’s fees.
“And each of us, whether maker, security, or indorser on this note, hereby waives and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wetherwax v. PaineMichigan Supreme Court · 1853
- Hemmenway v. StoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Rothschild v. GrixMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Van Alstyne v. Van SlyckNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Maiden v. WebsterIndiana Supreme Court · 1868
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stewart v. McIntoshAppellate Court of Illinois · 1937
- Continental Illinois Bank & Trust Co. v. ClementMichigan Supreme Court · 1932