Legal Opinion

Fretz v. Murray

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 1898PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Case made from Kent; Adsit, J. Assumpsit by Harriet C. Fretz against Bernard Murray on a promissory note. Plaintiff had judgment for less than the amount claimed, and she assigns error.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

This action is brought upon a promissory note of $400, bearing interest at 10 per cent. The note is dated September 26, 1893, and due in three years after date. The cause was tried before the court without a jury, and the court found the following facts and law:

“This action is brought upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: * * * This note was given to secure a loan of $400 obtained by Mr. Murray from the plaintiff. Mr. Murray paid to the plaintiff, prior to the commencement of this suit, sums amounting to $135. * * * The defense relied upon is usury, and *303defendant insists…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Fowler v. Equitable Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Gill v. RiceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
  3. Gore v. . LewisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  4. Bateman v. BlakeMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Stanley v. WestropTexas Supreme Court · 1856

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Gladwin State Bank v. DowMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Vandervelde v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Union Guardian Trust Co. v. CrawfordMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Waldorf v. ZinbergMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Continental National Bank of Chicago v. FlemingMichigan Supreme Court · 1912

3 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