Legal Opinion

Prussia v. Bailey

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 26, 1916No. Docket No. 56PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Shiawassee; Miner, J. Assumpsit by Franklin O. Prussia against Orla Bailey and another on a promissory note. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtStone, C. J.

This is an action of assumpsit, the declaration being upon the common counts, to which was attached under the usual notice a copy of a promissory note reading as follows:

“500.00 'Detroit, Mich., June 1, 1910.
“Seven months after date we promise to pay to Ruth E. Benjamin or order five hundred dollars at-, value received, with 5 per cent, interest per annum from above date.
“Orla Bailey,
“Robert Bailey.”

Indorsed on back of note the following:. “Ruth E. Benjamin, May 5, 1911, received interest on this note to date.

“Franklin O. Prussia.”

Under the plea of the general issue the defendants gave notice…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Neal v. NealMichigan Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Detroit Life Insurance v. LinsenmierMichigan Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API