Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. Winona Salt & Lumber Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 21, 1893PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Iosco. (Simpson, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.

Plaintiff sues' as indorsee of six bank checks drawn by defendant upon J. II. Schmeck & Co., bankers, at East Tawas. Five of the- checks are dated December 5, 1890, and one, December 10, 1890. The bank suspended at noon, December' 11, 1890, at which time defendant had on deposit more than sufficient to pay the checks.

Plaintiff resided at Tawas City, two miles from East Tawas. A recovery was had on the check dated December 10, which* was presented on December 11, and payment thereon refused. None of the other checks were presented for payment at any time, but plaintiff based her recovery for…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Miller v. HackleyNew York Supreme Court · 1810
  2. Holmes v. RoeMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Parsons v. DickinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  4. Newberry v. TrowbridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Aebi v. Bank of EvansvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Haggerty v. BaldwinMichigan Supreme Court · 1902

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

Powered by the Exa API