Legal Opinion

Sweet v. Woodin

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1888PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Kent. (Montgomery, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. Tbe facts are stated in "the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

Plaintiffs, -who were partners under the name of M. L. Sweet & Co., sued defendants on a promissory note, which ran as follows:

“$600. Grand Rapids, Mich., Dec. 31, 1885.
“Thirty days after date I promise to pay to the order of George Powers six hundred dollars, at the Fourth National Bank, value received; interest at ten per cent, after maturity R. H. Woodin.”

Indorsed as follows:

“Pay Old National Bank, Grand Rapids, Mich., or order. M. L. Sweet.
“G. W. Powers.”

The maker, Mr. Woodin, made no defense. Mr. Powers defended on the ground that he received no notice of dishonor. This plea was sworn…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Greusel v. HubbardMichigan Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mellen-Wright Lumber Co. v. McNettMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Citizens' National Bank v. CadeMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

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

Powered by the Exa API