Legal Opinion

Neyens v. Worthington

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 6, 1908No. Docket No. 116PublishedCited by 24 opinions

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

  1. People v. . Horn Silver Mining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1887
  2. Florsheim Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. LesterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Hirschfeld v. McCullaghOregon Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Rex Beach Pictures Co. v. Harry I. Garson ProductionsMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Knapp v. Bullock Tractor Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1917
  4. Power Specialty Co. v. Michigan Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Standard Fashion Co. v. CummingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1915

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API