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

  1. Rawlings v. FisherMichigan Supreme Court · 1896

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

Powered by the Exa API