Deuches v. Grand Rapids Brass Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.
(after stating the facts). Plaintiff’s counsel insists that the language used in the indorsement is not established beyond dispute. Plaintiff did not read it and does not undertake to testify on the subject. • Having destroyed the documentary evidence an unfavorable presumption arose against him. Pitcher v. Rogers’ Estate, 199 Mich. 114. The witnesses who testified on the subject were of course obliged to speak from memory and, while they did not at all times use the precise words quoted above in ■giving their testimony, the substance of the indorsement is established beyond question. Nor can…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ryan v. Progressive Retailer Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Smith v. BondIllinois Supreme Court · 1924
- Beck Electric Construction Co. v. National Contracting Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Shaw v. United Motors Products Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927
- Hull v. H. A. Johnson & Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hoerstman General Contracting, Inc v. HahnMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
- Fuller v. Integrated Metal Technology, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986
- DMI Design & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Adac Plastics, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1987
- Lafferty v. ColeMichigan Supreme Court · 1954
- Thayer v. SmithWyoming Supreme Court · 1960
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.