Legal Opinion

Citizens' National Bank v. Cade

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 1889Published

Error to Macomb. (Canfield, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant Hiram M. Cade brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.

The first three defendants, composing the firm of R. E. Cade & Co., made their note payable to the order of defendant Hiram M. Cade at the bank of the plaintiff for 81,700 three months after date, and dated March 17, 1887. Hiram M. Cade indorsed the note, which was subsequently indorsed by a Mr. Reed, and the note was then negotiated to the plaintiff. The note, not being paid when due, was protested, and suit against the above-named defendants brought thereon.

The only question needing consideration here is whether the notice • of non-payment and protest was properly served on the defendant…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Sweet v. WoodinMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

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

Powered by the Exa API