Legal Opinion

Eames v. Barber

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1916No. Docket No. 111PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Berrien; Bridgman, J. Assumpsit by Milo D. Eames and another against Herbert O. Barber and others for the recovery of an installment of rent. Judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court. Plaintiffs bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.

(after stating the facts). 1. The statute of the State of Texas defines interest as:

“The compensation allowed by law or fixed by the parties to a contract for the use or forbearance or detention of money.” Article 4973, Revised Civil Statutes.

*14So by the statute of New York:

“The rate of interest upon the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or things in action, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be six dollars upon one hundred dollars, for one year, and at that rate, for a greater or less sum, or for a longer or shorter time.”

Consolidated Laws of the State of New York (1909), vol. 2,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Lentz v. Teutonia Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Hughes v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. People v. PalmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Fisher v. HooverCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1893
  5. Bowsher v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Christensen v. Hennepin Transportation Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
  2. Township of Pontiac v. FeatherstoneMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Balch v. Detroit Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Leith v. Citizens Commercial & Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Lyford v. FosterMichigan Supreme Court · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API