Legal Opinion

Ten Broek v. Jansma

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1910No. Docket No. 86PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to the superior court of Grand Rapids; Stuart, J. Assumpsit by Henry W. Ten Broek against Fred Jansma upon a promissory note. A judgment for defendant is reviewed by plaintiff on writ of error.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

The plaintiff having appealed from a judgment of no cause of action, and the statement of facts in his brief not being questioned by defendant’s counsel, we treat it as correct under the rule.

The action was brought on a promissory note for $160 given to a solicitor for the Central Life Assurance Company of the United States. The solicitor, who is the plaintiff, solicited defendant for insurance and wrote an application for a policy of $10,000, and the defendant signed it. It contained the following provision:

*598“Fill in the kind of premium desired, and if the first year’s premium is paid other…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Michigan Pipe Co. v. Michigan Fire & Marine InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Zimmermann v. Dwelling-House InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Gauntlett v. Sea InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Faughner v. Manufacturers' Mutual Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Lewis v. CarrAppellate Court of Illinois · 1899

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Nashville State Bank v. WeiserSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925
  2. Struve v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
  3. Janndorhas Enterprises LLC v. Walker Insurance Agency IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API