Legal Opinion

Hillman v. Schwenk

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 26, 1888PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Error to Berrien. (Smith, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.

This is an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note made November 4, 1882, by John O. Schwenk and Barbara Schwenk, his wife, to John Weigers, for $200, payable in two years from date, with interest at 6 per cent. The interest is indorsed paid, the last indorsement being in 188$. The note was drawn to the payee or order, and appears to have been indorsed by him.1 The declaration was upon the common counts, and the plea the general issue, with notice that defendant would show, upon the trial, that Mrs. Schwenk signed the note as surety for her husband, and never received any consideration…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. JennesMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
  2. Mercer v. WrightWisconsin Supreme Court · 1854
  3. City of Chicago v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
  4. O'Rourke v. O'RourkeMichigan Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. F. Dohmen Co. v. Niagara Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  2. State v. ReillyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Laird v. LairdMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Schultz v. Territory of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Coon v. DennisMichigan Supreme Court · 1897

11 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