Legal Opinion
Pinkham v. Cockell
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided November 1, 1889PublishedCited by 7 opinions
Error to Oceana. (Dickerman, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
Plaintiff sued defendant in the Oceana circuit court, and recovered on the following instrument:
“ $1,235.00. Six months after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the First National Bank of Boise City, Idaho, in favor of E. Pinkham or order, the sum of twelve hundred and thirty-five dollars, with interest at eight per cent, per annum. Harvey Cockell.
“ Chicago, Dec. 11, 1885.”
The declaration, in a special count, set up this paper, and averred—
“ That the E. Pinkham mentioned in said written promise is the plaintiff in this suit, and that, to wit, on the day and year and at the place…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Violet v. RoseNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Berkery v. ReillyMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Talbott v. HedgeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
- Beloit v. GreenIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
- Duggan v. Washougal Land & Logging Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.