Legal Opinion

Throop v. Russell

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 1906No. Docket No. 59PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Wayne; Rohnert, J. Assumpsit by William A. Throop against Frank P. Russell on certain promissory notes. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMcAlvay, J.

Plaintiff brought suit March 2, 1905, .against defendant in the Wayne circuit court upon three •certain promissory notes and interest at the rate of 7 per cent., made and executed August 13, 1892, as follows: One for $500 due one year after date; one for $740 due two years after date; and one for $729 due three years after date. On the $500 note there were several indorsements of $10 each, the last of which is dated September 20, 1894. No payments were made on the two other notes. Defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of the statute of limitations. It is admitted that the notes…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Eyck v. WingMichigan Supreme Court · 1848
  2. Halladay v. WeeksMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Rumsey v. Settle's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1899

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Adams v. City of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. Glass v. DrieborgMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Adams v. City of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999
  4. LePine v. RosenbaumDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020
  5. Rodgers v. RobsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1907

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

Powered by the Exa API