Legal Opinion
Choate v. Stevens
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided March 1, 1898PublishedCited by 20 opinions
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by Rufus M. Choate against Frederick D. Stevens and Frederick J. Todd upon promissory notes. From a 'judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The defendants have appealed from a judgment upon two written instruments, substantially alike, of one of which the following is a copy:
“ $115. Detroit, July 25, 1893.
“For value received, March 16, 1895, after date, I promise to pay to the order of Low’s Art Tile Soda-Fountain Co. one hundred and fifteen dollars, with interest 6 per cent.
“ The consideration of this and other notes is the sodadraught apparatus described in contract of same date as this and other notes, which soda-draught apparatus the undersigned has received of said Low’s Art Tile Soda-Fountain Co. Nevertheless it is…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Harkness v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Chicago Railway Equipment Co. v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Brooke v. StruthersMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Wright v. IrwinMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by20 opinions
- Atkinson v. JapinkMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Bunday v. Columbus Machine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906
- John Deere Plow Co. v. MowryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- Kimpton v. Studebaker Bros.Idaho Supreme Court · 1908
- National Cash Register Co. v. PaulMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.