Legal Opinion

Rott v. Goldman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1926No. Docket No. 16PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

Defendants are- bankers at Detroit. They were engaged by plaintiff to transmit a deposit of money to the Savings Bank of Petrograd, Russia. To forward the deposit two correspondent banks were employed. Plaintiff received of defendants a memorandum of the engagement, which in form is like that set forth in Karnov v. Goldman, 229 Mich. 551. It is dated July 15,1917, conceded to be Sunday. Plaintiff and a companion, who was with him at the time, testified that the contract was made on Sunday. Defendants’ clerk testified that, though dated on Sunday, it was made on the previous Saturday night.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Allen v. DuffieMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Witte v. HobolthMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Tucker v. MowreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
  4. Karnov v. GoldmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Simpson v. WaldbyMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Wolfram v. Shifflet, Cumber & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Zitomer v. KelmensonMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Bradt v. AmsdenMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  4. School District No. 9 v. McLintockMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Smith v. KeenerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928

4 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