Atkinson v. Weidner
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Kendall v. BishopMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Hovey v. SebringMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Simon v. Home InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Kerrick v. StevensMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by5 opinions
- Sheldon v. MannMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Dearing v. . McKinnon Dash Hardware Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Brown v. SmedleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Atkinson v. WeidnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Fetters v. AtkinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1894