Legal Opinion

Bulen v. Granger

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 28, 1885PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Jennison, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.

The plaintiff in this case brought suit in assumpsit against the defendant upon an instrument which he gave to Millie M. Granger, his former wife, and which is as follows:

Detroit, May 16, 1SS2. Received of Mrs. Millie M. Granger $175, to be paid when store number 20, Monroe avenue, is sold, or money borrowed on the same. [Signed! J. I-I. Granger.

*275On the back of the instrument is indorsed the following :

For value received, I hereby sell, assign, and transfer to George D. Bulen the within instrument, and all rights of action thereunder, and right to recover the money therein mentioned, but at…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
  2. O'Donnell v. SegarMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
  3. New York Iron Mine v. First National BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Chandler v. AllisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1862

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. DellabondaMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  2. D. Cleghorn v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1901
  3. McCall Co. v. JacobsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Munn v. Michigan State Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API