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

  1. Detroit Trust Co. v. HartwickMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Island Mill Lumber Co. v. City of AlpenaMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Samson v. WardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Hilles' EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Bucks County · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API