Legal Opinion
Henneberger v. Matter
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided November 20, 1891PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Error to Kent. (Burch, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
Plaintiff brings suit upon the following promissory note:
“$750.00. G-rand Rapids, February 5, 1889.
“ Six months after date I promise to pay to Fred Kaltenbeck, or order, seven hundred and fifty dollars, at the office of Nelson, Matter & Go. Value received.
“Elias Matter.”
The note is indorsed as follows:
“Fred Kaltenbeck.
“W. M. Starlet.
“T. Winter.”
The cause was tried by the court, who found for the defendant, and plaintiff 'appeals. The court presented the following findings:
“ The plaintiff is a commission merchant, residing at Mt. Pleasant, Westchester county, N. Y., and having his office at…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Detroit Trust Co. v. HartwickMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
- Island Mill Lumber Co. v. City of AlpenaMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Samson v. WardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Hilles' EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Bucks County · 1934