Legal Opinion
Randall v. Baird
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided June 16, 1887PublishedCited by 1 opinion
Error to Ingham. (Howell, J., presiding.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in note, page 315.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
In this case the plaintiff brought assumpsit to recover of the defendant the amount due on the following due-bill:
“ $541. Lansing, October 31, 1882.
“ Due Sarah E. Dart, on demand, five hundred and forty-one dollars.
“James J. Baird.”
The following payments were indorsed on this instrument: December 25, 1882, $30, and December 28, 1882, $97.41. Also appears indorsed thereon the following:
“ For a valuable consideration to me paid by Ira E. Ban-ff all, I hereby assign to him the within note, and hereby give him authority to collect the same in his own name, and to do all things necessary therefor,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rawlings v. FisherMichigan Supreme Court · 1896