Legal Opinion

Morrill v. Bissell

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 1894PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Delta. (Stone, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant Murray K. Bissell brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

Plaintiff, doing business as C. A. Morrill & Co., commenced an action of assumpsit in the circuit court for the county of Delta upon an account for goods sold and delivered. The suit was by declaration upon the common counts. Annexed to the declaration was a statement of account, with an affidavit attached, stating that *413it was a true copy and statement of an open account against Frank Bissell and Murray K. Bissell, formerly copartners in business under the firm name of Bissell Bros.; that there was then due to said C. A. Morrill & Co., the purchasers of said account, over and above all legal…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Snell v. GregoryMichigan Supreme Court · 1877

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Thompson v. HarmonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
  3. Edwards v. Wheeler's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API