Legal Opinion

Strobridge Lithographing Co. v. Randall

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1889PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Reilly, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff and defendant Randall bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

In this ease both the plaintiff and the defendant James A. Eandall come into this Court on writ of error. Neither is satisfied with the judgment in the court below, and both are anxious for a new trial

The plaintiff sued the defendants, who composed at one time the firm of Brooks & Dickson, in assumpsit, upon notes made by Brooks and Dickson, before Eandall became a member of the firm. Some of these notes were renewed, and some extended, while Eandall belonged to the copartnership. A statement of the plaintiff, introduced during the trial, showed $4,140.85 principal and interest due on the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Robinson v. GodfreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1852
  2. Whitsett v. ClaytonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1880
  3. Seligman v. PinetMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dettloff v. Hammond, Standish & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Flanders Co. v. Canners' Exchange Subscribers at Warner Inter-Insurance BureauMichigan Supreme Court · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API