Ohio Ex Rel. Superintendent of Banks v. Eubank
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtButzel, J.
The problem before us is the validity of a judgment confessed in Ohio by virtue of a purported warrant of attorney. The judgment must be respected if the warrant of attorney conferred the necessary jurisdiction on the Ohio court!} First National Bank of Athens v. Garland, 109 Mich. 515 (33 L. R. A. 83, 63 Am. St. Rep. 597) ;* Acme Food Company v. Kirsch, 166 Mich. 433 (38 L. R. A. [N. S.] 814); Jones v. Turner, 249 Mich. 403; Gordon v. Heller, 271 Mich. 240; Carroll v. Gore, 106 Fla. 582 (143 South. 633, 89 A. L. R. 1495, 1503). Compare Eg ley v. L. B. Bennett & Co., 196 Ind. 50 (145 N. E.…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Burton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Kutsche v. FordMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Holder v. AultmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Carroll v. GoreSupreme Court of Florida · 1932
- Bell v. PackardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1879
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- W. H. Barber Co. v. HughesIndiana Supreme Court · 1945
- Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co. v. Holly's, Inc. (In Re Holly's, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 1992
- William P. Wells D/B/A Recmart, Cross-Appellant v. 10-X Manufacturing Company, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Vanderbush Sheet Metal Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1981
- McDade v. MoynihanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.