Legal Opinion

Atkinson v. Weidner

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1890PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are. stated in the opinion, and in the former report of the case.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, C. J.

This case was before this Court at the January term, 1890, and is reported in 79 Mich. 575. We refer for a statement of facts to the opinion in that case.

In the opinion then handed down, it was stated that the defendants' claims on the trial were—

“1. That the defendants did not understand that the paper signed by them was a promissory note.
“2. That there was a contemporaneous parol agreement that the note should not be payable according to its terms.
*413“ 3. That there was a trust created; and, in view of such trust, which will be outlined hereafter, defendants'’ liability upon this note can only…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Atkinson v. WeidnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Jones Et Ux. v. GriffinSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
  2. Bank of Corning v. Consolidated School District No. 6Missouri Court of Appeals · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API