Legal Opinion

Three Rivers National Bank v. Gilchrist

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 14, 1890PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to St. Joseph. (Loveridge, J.) Assiompsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCahill, J.

This action was brought on a promissory note of $300, signed by Sarah A. Gilchrist and her-husband, J. M. Gilchrist. The note sued on was the last of several renewals of a note for the same amount given originally in August, 1884. The defense on the part of Mrs. Gilchrist is that she was a married woman living *254with her husband, and that she signed the noteas surety for her husband. The case was tried before the court without a jury, who found that the original note and its renewals were given by Mrs. Gilchrist for her own debt, and that she did not sign the same as surety for her husband. A…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fechheimer v. PeirceMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Hatch v. SquiresMichigan Supreme Court · 1863

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Miskiewicz v. SmolenskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Wierman v. Bay City-Michigan Sugar Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Beunk v. Valley City Desk Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Bowles v. TrappIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Schaub v. Welded-Barrel Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901

3 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