Holmes v. Bronson
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Superior Court of Detroit. Assumpsit by Holmes and Webster against Mrs. Bronson upon a contract for a furnace placed by them in her house.
Read the full summary
Error to Superior Court of Detroit. Assumpsit by Holmes and Webster against Mrs. Bronson upon a contract for a furnace placed by them in her house. The evidence showed that defendant’s husband had ordered the furnace, and had given his note for it; that the plaintiffs had granted him several renewals, and that he had paid the interest and part of the principal; that after the last renewal' note had been given the plaintiffs found that the house had belonged to Mrs. Bronson, and had thereupon returned the husband’s note, and after demanding payment sued the defendant. The court below directed…
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
We are unable to make any distinction in principle between this case and Morrison v. Berry 42 Mich. 389.
Bo far as any difference is discoverable in the- facts, it is not to the advantage of the plaintiffs in error. And see Newcomb v. Andrews 41 Mich. 518; Vanneman v. Powers 56 N. Y. 39; Woodruff Iron Works v. Adams 37 Conn. 233; Wright v. Hood 49 Wis. 235.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Morrison v. BerryMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Newcomb v. AndrewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Woodruff & Beach Iron Works v. AdamsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1870
- Vanneman v. . PowersNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Wright v. HoodWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fechheimer v. PeirceMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Detroit Lumber Co. v. CleffMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Popp v. ConneryMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Minot Plumbing & Heating Co. v. BachNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1919
- Armstrong v. BackusMichigan Supreme Court · 1917