Browning v. Crouse
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Superior Court of Detroit. Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. A satisfaction should be shown by express agreement, Babcock v. Hawkins 23 Yt. 563; 2 Story Cont. 542; Story Prom. Notes 426; a composition must be proven unequivocally and its terms should appear to have been complied with, 1 Addison Cont. §§ 380-400; 2 Dan. Neg. Inst. § 1288; 2 Chit. PL (16th ed.) 288; Chitty on Bills 386; Cumber v. Wane 1 Sm.
Read the full summary
Error to Superior Court of Detroit. Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. A satisfaction should be shown by express agreement, Babcock v. Hawkins 23 Yt. 563; 2 Story Cont. 542; Story Prom. Notes 426; a composition must be proven unequivocally and its terms should appear to have been complied with, 1 Addison Cont. §§ 380-400; 2 Dan. Neg. Inst. § 1288; 2 Chit. PL (16th ed.) 288; Chitty on Bills 386; Cumber v. Wane 1 Sm. L. C. 595; Twitchell v. Shaw 10 Cush. 48; Warren v. Skinner 20 Conn. 561; In re Hatton L. B. 7 Ch. 723; Goldney v. Lording L. E. 8 Q. B. 182; Exp. Batson Mont. D. & DeGr. 289.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
This suit is brought upon promissory notes. The notes, when introduced in evidence, had memoranda on their backs, showing that there had been a compromise between the parties for a settlement of the notes at *490fifty per centum of their amount, and that several payments had been made on the compromise. In the finding of facts in. the case it is recited that the plaintiffs introduced evidence which tended to show that the defendant had compromised with all his creditors; that he had paid them all in full except the plaintiffs; and that he had not made his payments at the time required by the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Nash v. New York Life Ins. Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Burr's Damascus Tool Works v. Peninsular Tool Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Rasmussen v. State Nat. BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
- Harrison v. GambleMichigan Supreme Court · 1888