Neyens v. Worthington
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Livingston; Miner, J. Assumpsit by Leonard M. Neyens against John W. Worthington on a promissory note. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoAlvay, J.
This is an action in assumpsit upon a promissory note given by defendant to Acme Food Company, plaintiff’s assignor, August 12, 1904.
“$100.00. Oak Grove, Michigan, August 12, 1904.
“On or before six months afterdate, for value received, I promise to pay to the Acme Food Company (a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois) or order, the sum of One Hundred and no-100 Dollars, with interest at the rate of seven per cent, per annum from date hereof until paid.
‘ ‘ Payable at the City National Bank, Lansing, Michigan. The indorsers, sureties and guarantors severally…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. . Horn Silver Mining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Florsheim Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. LesterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
3Cited by24 opinions
- Hirschfeld v. McCullaghOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Rex Beach Pictures Co. v. Harry I. Garson ProductionsMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Knapp v. Bullock Tractor Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1917
- Power Specialty Co. v. Michigan Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Standard Fashion Co. v. CummingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.