Legal Opinion

Potter v. Brown

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1877PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Eaton Circuit.

1Opinion of the Court

Campbell, J.:

Brown recovered judgment against Potter upon a claim that Potter had failed in the performance of an undertaking to become co-signer' of a note and to pay the note at maturity, in consideration of which promise Brown signed it.

The note was a joint and several note signed by Brown with two other makers, Thomas Shively and H. J. Maynard, dated at Charlotte, June 2, 1874, and payable in ninety days, at the First National Bank of that place, to the order of the cashier. Brown had to pay it after judgment.

The object of the note was to raise money for the machinery of a mill which…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Minick v. HuffNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Rose v. WollenbergOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Haak v. KelloggMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Hartley v. SandfordSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1901
  5. Monroe Lumber Co. v. BezeauMichigan Supreme Court · 1916

1 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