Legal Opinion

Pitkin v. Harris

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1888PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Menominee. (Grant, J.) Assumpsit, Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

This suit was brought to recover on a note for $114.51 and interest, made by defendant to plaintiffs, and not disputed. But defendant claims it was paid' in this -wise, according to his statement, which, however, was substantially denied in many respects:

That defendant had been getting out wood, and upon being asked by Mr. Pinch, plaintiffs’ attorney, to secure it, offered to give him a mortgage on the wood, — enough to cover the amount.

“ The agreement was that I was to deliver the wood on the bank, and he to dispose of the wood.- He was to sell the wood, and give me credit for it. That was…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Luckehe v. First Nat. Bk. of MarysvilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. State Bank v. ByrneMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Jersey Shore Trust Co. v. Owosso Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Wees v. PageWashington Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Schafer v. OlsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912

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

Powered by the Exa API