Legal Opinion

Solomon v. Kirkwood

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 16, 1884PublishedCited by 20 opinions

Error to Marquette. (Grant, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, C. J.

The plaintiffs, who are, in the city of Chicago, dealers in jewelry, seek to charge the defendants, as partners, upon a promissory note for seven hundred and ninety-one -jW dollars, bearing date Nov. 9, 1882, and signed “Hollander & Kirkwood.” The note was given by the defendant Hollander, but Kirkwood denies that any partnership existed between the defendants at the date of the note.

The evidence given on the trial tends to show that on July 6, 1882, Hollander & Kirkwood entered into a written agreement for a partnership for one year from the first day of the next ensuing month, in the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Skinner v. DaytonNew York Supreme Court · 1822
  2. Vernon v. Manhattan Co.Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
  3. Halliday v. McDougallNew York Supreme Court · 1838
  4. Ketcham v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1810
  5. Graves v. MerryNew York Supreme Court · 1827

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Karrick v. HannamanSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. People v. IrwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Lawyers Title Ins. Co. v. Lawyers Title Ins. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  4. State v. GrantSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
  5. Culligan v. AlpernMichigan Supreme Court · 1910

15 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