Legal Opinion

Hall v. Heck

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1892PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Reilly, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant Victoria Eckhardt brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

The defendants were partners in business-under the firm name of Heck, Hemel & Eckhardt, in the city of Detroit. They were engaged in the planing-mill business, and bought their lumber from the Parsons Lumber Company, with whom they commenced doing-business in December, 1888, and continued until July,. 1889. They had a running account for this lumber, on which they were in the habit of giving notes. Henry-Heck was the general manager and agent of the defendant firm. He signed all papers, did all business by express authority of the firm, and made its notes with the firm’s knowledge and…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Culligan v. AlpernMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Sibley v. ParsonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  3. State Ex Rel. Burnes National Bank v. DuncanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
  4. Tousignant v. Shafer Iron Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Smith & Cheney Co. v. SchmidtMichigan Supreme Court · 1905

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

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

Powered by the Exa API