Whitten v. Wright
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Van Burén Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit to recover the purchase price of certain goods sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendant, and upon a promissory note made by A. A. Hough and endorsed by defendant and delivered by the latter' to. plaintiffs as collateral to the payment, of the purchase price of said goods. The plaintiffs failed to protest the note-when it fell due. Defendant recovered judgment below,, and the plaintiffs brought error.
1Opinion of the Court
Marston, J:
The arguments in this case were quite elaborate, especially those of counsel for defendant, who also cited a largo number of authorities in support of the ruling of the court below. We do not deem it necessary to’enter into an extended discussion of the principles involved in this case .or to review or attempt ‘ to harmonize the authorities cited, as the questions raised must be considered as settled in this state by the previous decisions in Jennison v. Parker, 7 Mich., 355, and Phœnix Ins. Co. v. Allen, 11 Mich., 501.
A distinction is sought to be created between a failure to.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Phœnix Insurance v. AllenMichigan Supreme Court · 1863
- Jennison v. ParkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1859
- Rose v. LewisMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by7 opinions
- Nevada Bank v. Portland Nat. BankU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1893
- Coleman v. LewisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Easton v. German-American BankU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1885
- Semple & Birge Manufacturing Co. v. DetwilerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- First National Bank v. ParkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.