Miner v. Vedder
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus to compel the payment of certain village orders. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
In the October term of this Court, 1885, the relator petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the respondent.
1 See Loomis v. Armstrong, 63 Mich. 357 (head-notes 12, 13), and note.
*102He claimed to be the owner and lawful holder of two 'village orders for §700 each, issued, one July 13, and the other September 6, 1882, to the order of W. W. Van Akin, drawn upon the treasurer of the Tillage of Hudson, and signed by the recorder of said village. They were regularly indorsed to him, as appeared upon them. They were drawn in payment for work and materials done and furnished by said Van Akin, under a…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. HubbardIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Goose River Bank v. Willow Lake School TownshipNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
- Board of Com'rs v. SherwoodCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
- Morrison v. Austin State BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
- Field v. Village of Highland ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.