Legal Opinion

Bishop v. Dodge

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 1917No. Docket No. 63PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Van Burén; Des. Voignes, J. Assumpsit by Maggie L. Bishop, doing business as the Bishop1 Jewelry Company, against Thomas F. Dodge on a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff on a directed verdict. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSteere, J.

Plaintiff brought this action against defendant in the circuit court of Van Burén county on a promissory note for $600 given by the latter to the former, reading as follows:

“$600. Lawton, Mich., April 22, 1909.
“On or before six months after date I promise to pay to the order of Bishop Jewelry Company six hundred dollars, with interest at 7 per cent, per annum, value received.
“Thomas F. Dodge.”

Plaintiff declared upon the common counts in as*233sumpsit with a copy of note attached to the declaration and notice that the same, constituting the sole cause of action, would be introduced in evidence…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hatch v. HatchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
  2. Clink v. ThurstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Limited, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1974
  2. National Equipment Rental, Ltd v. MillerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. Gardiner v. GardinerIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Moslander v. BeldonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1928
  5. Wagner v. RychwalskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1945

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API