Legal Opinion

Bicknell v. Van Hellen

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 1942No. Docket No. 55, Calendar No. 41,960Published

1Opinion of the CourtButzel, J.

The receiver of the Bank of Saginaw brought suit against defendants, claiming Russell O. Van Hellen was liable on a renewal note for $14,822 given to the bank and the others were also liable because on May 1, 1930, they jointly and severally guaranteed the payment of the original Van Hellen note of like amount, and renewals thereof. The note on which suit is brought is the ninth renewal of the note given at the time the guaranty was given. Th,e judge correctly decided the simple questions involved' in the case and entered judgment for the full amount claimed with interest against those…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Anderson v. EngardMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Palmer National Bank v. Van DorenMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  3. MacCrone v. EckertMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Nimmo v. SupernawMichigan Supreme Court · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API