Worden Grocer Co. v. Blanding
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Montcalm; Davis, J. Assumpsit in justice’s court by the Worden Grocer Company against William A. Blanding and James Blanding on a promissory note. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed to the circuit court. A judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court is reviewed by plaintiff on writ of error.
1Opinion of the CourtBlair, J.
This cause was commenced in justice’s court, where the plaintiff declared orally “ on the common counts in assumpsit, and especially upon a note made by the defendants herein named in favor of Fred Soules,” etc., which note was filed with the justice. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of special defense. A copy of the note in question is as follows, viz.:
“$150.- Coral, Mich., April 2, 1903.
“ Sixty days after date, for value received, we promise to pay to the order of Fred Soules, one hundred and fifty dollars, at the bank of O’Donald & Scott at Howard City, Michigan,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Choate v. StevensMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Bunday v. Columbus Machine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Sloan v. McCartyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Van Den Bosch v. BouwmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Wright v. TraverMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- John Deere Plow Co. v. MowryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- Central National Bank v. HubbelMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Toledo Scale Co. v. GogoMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Mishawaka Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. StantonMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Gidden Motor Co. v. JohnstonMississippi Supreme Court · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.