Legal Opinion

Arbuckle v. Reaume

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1893PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Monroe. (Kinne, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant Peter 'Donnelly brings error. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

This action was brought to recover upon two promissory notes, dated February 4, 1889, and executed and delivered to the plaintiffs’ agent in this State, but payable at plaintiffs’ office, at Toledo, Ohio. The defendant Peter Donnelly pleaded the general issue, and denied the execution of th‘e notes. The other defendants did not appear, and were defaulted:

It was admitted that, while the notes bore date as of *244Monday, they were in fact executed and delivered to the agent of the payees, in this State on Sunday. The court below ruled that, though the notes were executed and delivered in this State…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tucker v. MowreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
  2. Adams v. HamellMichigan Supreme Court · 1845

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Alexander v. WeishuhnMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  2. International Textbook Co. v. OhlMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Havey v. PetrieMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

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

Powered by the Exa API