Legal Opinion

Hakes v. Macklin

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 1912No. Docket No. 11PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Mecosta; Palmer, J. Assumpsit by Elisha H. Hakes against Daniel Macklin and others upon three promissory notes. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtBird, J.

The defendants were sued as makers of three promissory notes for $600 each. A jury in the trial court gave plaintiff a verdict for the full amount of his claim, and the defendants have assigned error thereon in this court.

The notes in question were joint and several obligations, and were executed by 18 residents of Mecosta and Isabella counties and delivered to one Russell lams for the purchase price of a Percheron stallion. The notes were dated March 27, 1902, and made payable on September 1, 1903, 1904, and 1905. An association known as the Millbrook Percheron Horse Breeding Association was…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hubbardston Lumber Co. v. BatesMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Craig v. BradleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
  3. Dunks v. FullerMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  4. Farrington v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Dailey v. KingMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Draft v. HesselsweetMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Cole v. OatmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Engel v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1918

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

Powered by the Exa API