Legal Opinion

Fosdick v. Van Arsdale

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1889PublishedCited by 22 opinions

Error to Kalamazoo. (Buck, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

This suit .was brought to recover upon a promissory note dated at Alamo, Mich., June 7, 1886, for $110, payable seven months after its date, to plaintiff or bearer, at 10 per. cent, interest. The note was executed jointly and severally by the defendants'as makers.

The defense was that the note was made without any consideration to them, and was given for the sole purpose of procuring the release of one James Wheeler, who was in jail at Paw Paw upon a criminal charge, at the complaint of plaintiff; that the plaintiff obtained the note by fraud; and that he received it for the purpose of…

2Cited by22 opinions

  1. Washington v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1923
  2. Zucker v. KarpelesMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Stanard v. Sampson Et Ux.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  4. Guider v. SmithMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Knickerbocker v. WorthingMichigan Supreme Court · 1904

17 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