Legal Opinion

Pratt v. Bates

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1879PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Kalamazoo. Assumpsit. The facts are in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.

Defendants in error sued Pratt to recover a debt due from tbe Michigan Chair Company, which it was claimed he had become liable to pay them. The transaction set out in the declaration was that on the 1st of September, 1875, Lucius B. Kendall, Henry E. Hoyt and Albert Arms were stockholders of the company, *39which was then indebted to Bates & Co., and Pratt, in consideration that these gentlemen would transfer to him 360 shares of stock, agreed he would pay that debt, and they made the transfer. That afterwards, in consideration that Bates & Co. would take no legal steps against the chair…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Green v. BrookinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  2. Welch v. MarvinMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  3. Corkins v. CollinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Brown v. HazenMichigan Supreme Court · 1863

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Barbour v. ThomasDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1933
  2. Hayes v. KnoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Lee v. BurrellMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Reid, Murdoch & Co. v. Northern Lumber Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1909
  5. Simon v. Short (In re Oakland Physicians Med. Ctr., L.L.C.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2019

3 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