Legal Opinion

Comstock v. Horton

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1926No. Docket No. 122PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

(after stating the facts). There is no justification for any criticism of Mr. Townsend. He had been attorney for Mr. Comstock for many years. There was grave danger that the assets of the bank would be dissipated, grave danger that many suits would be started, grave danger that Mr. Com-stock would be called upon to make up a large deficit unless prompt action was taken to conserve the assets. Mrs. Comstock was on the ground, presumably knew the situation, and joined in the request to her husband to wire Mr. Townsend authority to institute the proceedings. This he did. The original bill was…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Earle v. GroveMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. German American Seminary v. KieferMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Tyler v. PeattMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Weatherby v. Kent Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Wabash Railway Co. v. MarshallMichigan Supreme Court · 1923

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Gillen v. Wakefield State BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  2. McKenzie County v. CasadyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Detroit Creamery Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  4. McBride v. Wayne Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  5. King v. ComstockMichigan Supreme Court · 1928

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API