Legal Opinion
Charles Bakrow & Co. v. Totten
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 1, 1906No. Docket No. 87PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Error to Saginaw; Beach, J. Assumpsit by Oharles Bakrow & Company in justice’s court against Frank M. Totten upon certain promissory notes. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendant appealed to the circuit court. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
This cause originated in justice’s court, and a special appeal was taken by the defendant. The following is a copy of the return of the justice, viz.:
“Buena Yista, June 30th, 1904. “Charles Bakrow & Co. v. “Frank M. Totten.
“9 a.m. Cause called at my office in the township of Buena Yista.
“The plaintiff appeared by Casper W. Ulrich, agent for said company, and by Lincoln E. Bradt, his attorney. The defendant appeared in person, the plaintiff declares, orally on all the common counts and assumpsit and. specially on two promissory notes executed by the said defendant to the said plaintiffs upon…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Grand Rapids Chair Co. v. RunnelsMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Mudge v. YaplesMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Talbot v. KuhnMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Township of Fruitport v. DickermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by2 opinions
- Scott v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Moore v. FrederickMichigan Supreme Court · 1917