Stickel v. Steel
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
In August, 1877, Stickel bought of the copartnership of E. T. Steel & Co. a bill of goods amounting to $269.43 at a credit of four months from September *35115, following. On the same clay and at the same place he bought another bill of goods of the same parties, at a credit of four months from October 1 following. Neither bill was paid for when the credit expired, and after both had fallen due, suit was brought in justice’s court on the first bill, and judgment recovered. Another suit was then brought on the second bill. In that suit Stickel relied upon the first judgment as a bar. His position…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Guernsey v. CarverNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Borngesser v. HarrisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Bunnel v. PintoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
3Cited by14 opinions
- A. Krolik & Co. v. OssowskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Kruce v. Lakeside Biscuit Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Reid, Murdoch & Co. v. FerrisMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- State Ex Rel. Shawver v. CastoWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1952
- Angell v. PruynMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.