Legal Opinion

Dean v. Crall

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1894PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Error to Berrien. (O’Hara, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant Orall brings error. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinions.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

One Samuel W. Bishop executed to the plaintiff two promissory notes for $200 each. To these notes he forged the name of the defendant Crall. For this crime it appears Bishop was convicted, and sent to the penitentiary. Plaintiff and his attorney went one night, about 11 o’clock, to the house of the defendant Orall, and, under threats then made by them, he was induced to pay the notes. Orall afterwards sued plaintiff to recover the money so paid, on the ground that it was obtained from him by duress, and recovered judgment. Plaintiff then asked to have that judgment against him set aside,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Heirs of Wood v. NichollsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1881
  2. Palmer v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
  3. Warder v. BaldwinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Clauser v. JonesIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Carpenter v. LippittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Renackowsky v. Board of Water CommissionersMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Thomas v. WattMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Goldberg v. Cities Service Oil Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Hunter v. Village of DurandMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Stolte v. Krentel.Michigan Supreme Court · 1935

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API