Legal Opinion
Kulenkamp v. Groff
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 19, 1888PublishedCited by 36 opinions
Error to Washtenaw. (Kinne, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant Groff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
The plaintiff, brought suit in justice’s; court upon the following promissory note:
Ҥ116.00. Freedom, March 30, 1886.
“ One year after date I promise to pay to CharlesKulenkamp, or bearer, the sum of one hundred and sixteen dollars, for value received, at the People’s Bank, at. Manchester, with use at seven per cent.
“F. Joseph Lerg.
“John Groee.”
He obtained judgment. The defendant Groff thereupon appealed to the circuit court for the county of' Washtenaw. Upon the trial in said circuit the defendant Groff gave evidence tending to establish the following facts:
On the day the note was executed…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Bank of United States v. DunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- State v. JohnstonTennessee Supreme Court · 1847
- Manistee National Bank v. SeymourMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Davis v. RandallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Martin v. HamlinMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- First State Bank v. KellyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Bushnell v. ElkinsWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
- Phelps v. AbbottMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Colbert v. First Nat. Bank of ArdmoreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Johnson v. BrattonMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.