Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict v. Bishop
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Debt by Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict against A. Oushman Bishop, as principal, and Robert E. Hull and O. Edward Richmond, as sureties, upon an appeal bond. From a judgment awarding a set-off to defendant Bishop, plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
The plaintiff in this cause, a corporation, sued defendant Bishop upon a claim assigned to it by the firm of Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict against Bishop, and obtained judgment. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court by Mr. Bishop, and the judgment of the court below was affirmed. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict v. Bishop, 98 Mich. 352. When Mr. Bishop appealed the case, he gave a bond signed by himself as principal and by Mr. Hull and Mr. Richmond as sureties, conditioned, among other things, to pay the judgment and costs if the judgment of the court below was affirmed. The judgment and costs…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict v. BishopMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Shipman v. CoryellMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by6 opinions
- Garfield v. Peerless Motor Car Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Marshall v. Canadian Cordage & Manufacturing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1911
- Kirkhof Manufacturing Corporation, a Michigan Corporation v. Sem-Torq, Inc., an Ohio CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1963
- Haynes Auto. Co. v. Woodill Auto Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Funk v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.