Legal Opinion

Hitchcock v. Davis

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 9, 1891PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to" Wayne. (Brevoort, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

The plaintiff, as assignee of Theodore *631Romeyn, deceased, brought suit in the Wayne circuit court based upon the following contract:1

“It is agreed between Samuel H. Davis, Thomas B. Rayl, and David W Davis, of the first part (jointly and severally), and Theodore Romeyn, of the second part, as follows:
“First. The contracts of the 2d September, 1879, and all obligations resting upon or springing from them, are relinquished.
“Second. The said first parties having settled their difference with George H. Hammond, of Detroit, and he having agreed to pay to them certain sums on conditions and at the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Davis v. HammondMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bunce v. Mc MahonWyoming Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Russell v. North American Benefit Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1898

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API