Von Eherenkrook v. Webber
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Montcalm. (Smith, J.) Argued January 3, 1894, and resubmitted September 25, 1894.' Decided April 17 and November 7, 1894. Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
McGrath, O. J.
Defendants are bankers. Plaintiff, in October, 1890, borrowed upon a mortgage of her individual property, and deposited with defendants, the sum of 1475.25, taking therefor a certificate of deposit. Her husband had been a partner of the firm of E. Curtis & Co., but that firm had dissolved in August, 1890. Curtis & Co. were indebted to defendants upon certain notes, and defendants held a deed of lands as collateral. Plaintiff had recently entered into partnership with her husband’s brother, under the firm name of George B. Eherenkrook & Co.; and her claim is that the said…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Simpson v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Comstock v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Willett v. ShepardMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Walters v. ShortIllinois Supreme Court · 1848
3Cited by2 opinions
- First National Bank v. FordWyoming Supreme Court · 1923
- People v. PurmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1921