Legal Opinion

Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. McKittrick

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1891PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Error to Kent. (Burch, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, C. J.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, declaring upon the common counts in assumpsit, and annexing thereto a copy of the following instrument in writing, and giving notice that the instrument, denominated a promissory note, Avould be given in evidence under the money counts, and that it constituted the plaintiff’s sole cause of action, viz.:

*194“$720.00. • Grand Rapids, Mich.,

April 20th, 1888.

“ Six months after date, for value received, I O promise to pay to the order of the Conrad Seipp Brewing Co., Chicago, 111., seven hundred and twenty íz¡ 00-100 dollars, at their office, Chicago,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cayuga County National Bank v. PurdyMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Port Huron & Southwestern Railway Co. v. PotterMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Wilson v. CampbellMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Walker v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. McDonald v. MulkeyWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Kyselka v. Northern Assurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Merchants' National Bank v. GreggMichigan Supreme Court · 1895

5 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