Legal Opinion
First National Bank of Paw Paw v. Walker
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 21, 1897PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Error to Van Burén; Yaple, J., presiding. Assumpsit by tbe First National Bank of Paw Paw against Peter Walker and others upon a promissory note. From a judgment in favor of part of the defendants, plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, C. J.
On November 21, 1896, judgment was entered in the Van Burén circuit on findings of fact and law by the court, as follows:
“(1) The plaintiff is, and during the period covered by the transactions in this case has been, a corporation duly *435and legally existing under the laws of the United States.
“(2) On and previous to the month of June, 1891, the Cleveland Bay Horse Company was a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Michigan.
“(3) On or about June 27, 1891, the Cleveland Bay Horse Company borrowed of the plaintiff the sum of $4,000, and gave its note therefor. George E. Breck, G.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cragin v. GardnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Saginaw, Tuscola & Huron Railroad v. ChappellMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Merrill v. NewtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hoffman v. SilverthornMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Security Bank & Trust Co. v. FosterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Danbury Trust & Savings Bank v. WeberSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Lasley v. PrestonMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Leach v. WhitbeckMichigan Supreme Court · 1908