Legal Opinion

Atkinson v. Weidner

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1890PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Brevoort, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

Plaintiff sued in the Wayne circuit court upon a promissory note of which the following is a copy:

“Detroit, December 12, 1884.
“ On demand, we jointly promise to pay to W. F. Atkinson or order six thousand one hundred and thirty-six dollars and fifty-eight cents. Value received.
“$6,136.58. Adolph Hoeeman.
“ Catherine Hoeeman.
“Paul Weidner.
“Gustav Fetters.”

The defenses claimed on the trial were:

I. That defendants did not understand that the paper signed by them was a promissory note.

2. That there was a contemporaneous parol agreement that the note should not be payable according to its terms.

3.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kendall v. BishopMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Hovey v. SebringMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
  3. Simon v. Home InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Kerrick v. StevensMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sheldon v. MannMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Dearing v. . McKinnon Dash Hardware Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
  3. Brown v. SmedleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Atkinson v. WeidnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Fetters v. AtkinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

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

Powered by the Exa API