Legal Opinion

Church v. Clapp

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 27, 1881PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Kalamazoo. Assumpsit. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.

Clapp sued the plaintiffs in error upon a promissory note. Their defence was that the note was the *258property of one Huntington, to whom they had made payment by giving a new note therefor after it fell due. The evidence tended to show that Huntington had owned this note with others, and had exchanged them with a Miss or Mrs. McCracken for the ownership of or an interest in two notes of $1000 each made by one Smith; that Smith contested his liability on the notes and instituted suit in equity against Huntington which put in issue the right to collect them; that Huntington answered in the suit,…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. McMahen v. McMahenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  2. Pape v. HartwigIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899
  3. Cooper v. Merchants' & Munufacturers' National BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API