Legal Opinion

Wardle v. Hudson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1893PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

The plaintiff company, of which Mr. Wardle is receiver, organized and began doing business in 1879 by virtue of Act No. 82) Laws of 1873, and the amendments thereto. From its organization up to 1884, its membership grew to about 2,000, at which time the company became insolvent, and failed to collect assessments from many of its members. The insolvency becoming apparent, the Commissioner of Insurance of the State served upon the officers of the company a notice to close up its affairs unless, within 60 days, they collected assessments and paid up its losses and debts. The company failed to do…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bangs v. . DuckinfieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
  2. Vermont & Canada Railroad v. Vermont Central RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1873
  3. Union Mutual Fire Ins. v. SpauldingMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Bigelow v. LibbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Roland Electrical Co. v. BlackCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1947
  2. Master Financial, Inc. v. CrowderCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
  3. Mattare v. CunninghamCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
  4. Greene Tree Home Owners Ass'n v. Greene Tree AssociatesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  5. Swing v. BristerMississippi Supreme Court · 1905

7 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