Seymour v. Malcolm McDonald Lumber Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United. States for the Southern Division of the Western District of Michigan. At Law. Action by the Malcolm McDonald Lumber Company against Richard A. Seymour on an acceptance. A verdict for plaintiff was directed by the court, and judgment 'for plaintiff was entered thereon. Defendant brings error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United. States for the Southern Division of the Western District of Michigan. At Law. Action by the Malcolm McDonald Lumber Company against Richard A. Seymour on an acceptance. A verdict for plaintiff was directed by the court, and judgment 'for plaintiff was entered thereon. Defendant brings error. Statement by SWAN, District Judge: This is an action of assumpsit brought upon defendant’s acceptance of the following instrument, viz.: “$3,250. Manistee, Michigan, August 21, 1889. “At sight pay to the order of myself thirty-two hundred and fifty dollars,…
1Opinion of the Court
SWAN, District Judge,
(after stating the facts.) Although the' court below directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the ground that no defense cognizable at law" had been shown to the acceptance, the defendant is still at liberty to show either that there was sufficient evidence to go to the .jury, or that questions of law apparent upon the record would control the case in opposition to the direction. It is claimed here not only that lite evidence adduced by the defendant and received by the court required the submission of ihe cause io the jury, but also that the court excluded competent and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Philadelphia & Trenton Railroad v. StimpsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1840
- United States v. Bank of the MetropolisSupreme Court of the United States · 1841
- Gumbel v. PitkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Hendrick v. LindsaySupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Burnes v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- McKnight v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
- Hildebrand v. United ArtisansOregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904