Legal Opinion

Hoil v. Rathbone

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1891PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Oakland. (Moore, J.) Assumpsit.. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Montgomery, J.. Action was brought in the court below upon a promissory note given by the defendant, payable, to the plaintiff or order. The defense set up was that the plaintiff was not the owner or holder of the note at the time the suit was begun, but that the same was owned and held by plaintiff’s wife, Eva Hoil, who is the defendant’s daughter. Trial was had before a jury, and they found specially—

1. That the note was never indorsed by Warren M. Hoil.

2. That the plaintiff was the owner of the note.

3. That, at the time of the commencement of the suit, *324the note was in the possession of Eva…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dean v. SpeakmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1844
  2. Price v. DunlapCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
  3. Branch Bank at Mobile v. TillmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
  4. Mckinney v. Estate of HamiltonMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Hopkins v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wuerth v. FrohlichMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Goslee v. RoweSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API