Legal Opinion

Judd v. Judd

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 1915No. Docket No. 122PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to Kent; Perkins, J. Assumpsit by Edwin E. Judd, administrator de bonis non of the- estate of George E. Judd, deceased, against Peternella Judd to recover the amount due on a promissory note. -Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtBird, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant in assumpsit to recover the amount due on a $1,000 note, dated Feb*613ruary 2, 1897, and payable 10 years thereafter. Defendant pleaded the general issue and gave notice of set-off. Subsequently several amendments were made to the plea and notice, but the final one was an affidavit denying that the defendant knowingly executed the note. The matter came on for trial before a jury, and plaintiff produced the note, gave evidence that the signature was the plaintiff’s and showed the amount due upon the note. Plaintiff’s proofs disclosed that the defendant was a married woman…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fechheimer v. PeirceMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Pries v. Ashland Light, Power & Street Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Fisk v. MillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  4. National Lumberman's Bank v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Detroit Lumber Co. v. CleffMichigan Supreme Court · 1910

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hayes v. SkemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Koengeter v. HolzbaughMichigan Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Monroe State Savings Bank v. OrloffMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Collateral Liquidation, Inc. v. ManningMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Dowagiac National Bank v. MaierMichigan Supreme Court · 1938

4 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