Legal Opinion

McDonough v. Heyman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1878PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Eaton. Assumpsit. ■ Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtMarston, J.

Defendant in error brought assumpsit against plaintiffs in error, declaring specially and also upon the common counts. Attached to the declaration was a copy of a draft purporting to be drawn in the name of McDonough & Stevens by D. M. Brock, payable to the order of Heyman and endorsed by him.

*336It appeared upon the trial that the draft was drawn by Daniel W. Brock, claiming to act as the agent of McDonough & Stevens, and it was claimed that this was a variance, in that the initial of the middle name was "W. and not M. Admitting as claimed that there was a variance in this respect, yet it was…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bacon v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Hirshfield v. WaldronMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Vumbaca v. WestSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1910
  4. Smith v. DroubayUtah Supreme Court · 1899

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

Powered by the Exa API