Legal Opinion
Hillman v. Schwenk
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided March 2, 1888PublishedCited by 9 opinions
Error to Berrien. (Smith* J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The-facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
The plaintiff brought this suit to recover the amount of a paper writing as follows:
“New Buréalo, Mich.*, Oct. 12, 1881.
“One year after date we promise to pay to the order of John Weigers three hundred dollars, per value received, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum from date; and it is agreed that, if the interest is not paid when due, it shall be added to the principal of this note, and bear the same rate of interest. John O. Schwenk.
“ Daniel Miller.”
Indorsed: “ John Weigers. X ”
Interest was also indorsed as paid up to and including 1885.
The declaration was upon the common…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Penny v. CroulMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Bailey v. HoldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- In Re Svitojus' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
- Latourette v. McKeonMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Hillman v. SchwenkMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.