Purvis v. Butler
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Macomb. (Canfield, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts ■are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, C. J.
The plaintiffs were fishermen carrying on their business around Duck Island, where they resided.
0. W. Gauthier had, prior to 1889, been engaged in *250purchasing fish of the fishermen at Duck Island and West Selkirk, Manitoba, and Ephraim K. Roberts and Milton H. Butler had advanced him money to a large amount in his business, and held mortgage security upon his property. Carlos E. Warner also held mortgage security upon some of Gauthier’s property. On the 8th day of February, 1889, an agreement was entered into between Charles W. Gauthier of the first part, Butler and Roberts of the second part,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Beecher v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Leggett v. . HydeNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Cumpston v. McNairNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Chaffee v. ChaffeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by4 opinions
- Michigan Savings Bank v. Estate of ButlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Dinkelspeel v. LewisWyoming Supreme Court · 1936
- Whitla v. Estate of ButlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Dinkelspeel v. LewisWyoming Supreme Court · 1936