Hinchman v. Weeks
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent. (Grove, J.) Case. Defendant brings error. The' facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
This is an action of trespass on the case for fraudulent representations, by which it is alleged the defendant procured from the plaintiffs merchandise of the value of $1,202.61, and for the value of which they had verdict and judgment in the court below, less the dividend of 15 per cent, which had been paid by the assignee of the defendant. Defendant brings error.
The declaration states—
“That the firm of T. H. Hinchman & Sons [composed of the above named plaintiffs] are wholesale dealers in groceries, drugs, etc., in the city of Detroit, county of Wayne, and State of Michigan, and that they…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eaton, Cole Burnham Co. v. . AveryNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Genesee County Savings Bank v. Michigan Barge Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by9 opinions
- Mina v. General Star Indemnity Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1996
- Kingkade v. PlummerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Laird v. LairdMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Dime Savings Bank v. FletcherMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Humphrey v. Eddy Transportation Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.