Legal Opinion

Sleight v. Swanson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 1901PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Gogebic; Haire, J. Assumpsit by Richard Sleight and others against Samuel Swanson on a promissory note. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

The statement of facts is taken from the brief of counsel for appellants:

“ The plaintiffs in this case, who are all nonresidents of the State of Michigan, came into justice’s court in the city of Ironwood, Michigan, and commenced the above-entitled suit against Samuel Swanson, the defendant, who was also a nonresident of the State of Michigan, by short summons, and at the same time instituted garnishment pro*437ceedings against the Hayes Mining Company, as garnishee of said Samuel Swanson; tho Hayes Mining Company being then a corporation doing business at Ironwood, Michigan. The garnishee…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cofrode v. GartnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Haywood v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Newland v. ReillyMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Atkins v. BorstlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  5. State Bank v. MaxsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Daniels v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Olympia Mining & Milling Co. v. KernsWashington Supreme Court · 1911

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

Powered by the Exa API