Legal Opinion

Fetters v. Atkinson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 1894Published

Appeal from Wayne. (Lillibridge, J.) Bill for an accounting. Complainant appeals. jThe facts are stated in the opinion, and in 79 Mich. 575, and 83 Id. 412.

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, C. J.

This proceeding grows out of Atkinson v. Weidner, 79 Mich. 575, 83 Id. 412. Complainant was one of the defendants in that suit, and now seeks to restrain the appropriation of the surplus remaining after* the satisfaction of the Booss & Co. judgment. Defendant Swift was the attorney for Booss & Co., and he alone answers, setting up that—

“The defendant Atkinson, as the legal owner of the demand note hereinbefore referred to, had a right to collect the same, and to authorize this defendant to collect the same, and had a right to agree with this defendant to pay him ■ for his services in the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Atkinson v. WeidnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

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

Powered by the Exa API