Morehouse v. Baker
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Mecosta. Assumpsit. Defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
The questions which arise in this case are questions of recoupment.
On May 12, 1881, Morehouse brought suit against Baker & Murray on a promissory note for $436.45, dated' March 2, 1881, payable to plaintiff sixty days after date. The *337defence was, a former suit by these defendants against Morehouse in which, as they claim, the note should have been made use of by way of defence.
It appeal's by the evidence, and by defendant’s offers of evidence — which, for the purposes of a review, must be deemed susceptible of support — that on February 28, 1880, the parties entered into a written contract, a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Dunham v. . BowerNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Hartford Fire Ins. v. DavenportMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Ward v. FellersMichigan Supreme Court · 1854
- McKinney v. SpringerIndiana Supreme Court · 1851
- Hazen v. ReedMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- McCoig Materials, LLC v. Galui Construction, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2012
- City of Grand Rapids, Mich. v. McCurdyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Helwig v. LascowskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Hathaway v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1920
- Haldeman v. BerryMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.