Legal Opinion

Gibbs v. School-District No. Ten

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1891PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Mecosta. (Palmer, J.) Debt. Defendant brings error. Tbe facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtOhamplin, C. J.

This action was brought to recover • the amount of a certain bond issued by defendant school-district, as follows:

“No. 1. Issue oe Three Hundred Dollars. $300.00.
“ State of Michigan, County of Mecosta.
“School-district No. 10, Fractional, oe the Township oe Coleax.
“School-district No. 10, fractional, of the township of Colfax, county of Mecosta, State of Michigan, hereby acknowledges itself indebted in the sum of three hundred dollars, lawful .money of the United States of America, bearing interest at the rate of eight per cent, per annum from the date hereof, payable annually, and said sum of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Spitzer v. Village of BlanchardMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. County of OaklandMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Thompson v. Village of MecostaMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Flagg v. School District, No. 70North Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Schmid v. Village of FrankfortMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Bloomfield Village Drain Dist. v. KeefeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API