Bagaeff v. Prokopik
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Hosmer (George S.), J. Assumpsit in justice’s court by John BagaefE against Michael Prokopik on a promissory note. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for plaintiff on a directed verdict. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.
The plaintiff sued upon a promissory note for $500, dated July 26,1919, executed by defendant and due in 60 days after date. The defendant, having given notice thereof with his plea, established the fact that the note was given in settlement of a commission which defendant had orally promised to pay plaintiff for his services in effecting an exchange of certain real estate belonging to defendant. A verdict was directed for plaintiff. From the judgment entered thereon, the defendant appeals.
There is nothing upon the face of the note which in any way impugns its validity. Prima facie it is…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Scott v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Muir v. KaneWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Anderson v. BestSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Hall v. SouleMichigan Supreme Court · 1863
- Stout v. HumphreySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1903
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Scott-Douglas Corp. v. Greyhound Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1973
- In Re Rudell EstateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2009
- Crawford v. KennedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Park Falls State Bank v. FordyceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- White v. Panama Lumber & Shingle Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.