Redmond v. Stansbury
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Jackson Circuit. The testimony of Sharp, referred to in the opinion, was given under objection, and was to the effect that he was informed and believed that the plaintiff was the Stansbury ■Oyster Co., and did business in that name; that he received the note for collection from one who represented himself to be James E. Stansbury; that he only knew the plaintiff «or the Stansbury Oyster Co. by hearsay.
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
Stansbury sued Redmond before a justice, and declared upon the common and money counts, and filed the following instrument as a cause of action:
“ $64.20. Toledo, 0., November 15, 1870.
Thirty days after date I promise to pay to order of the Stansbury Oyster Co. sixty-four dollars and twenty cents at the First National Bank, Jackson Michigair. Value received.
(Signed) “Thomas H. Redmond.”
Across the face was written: “Accepted November
17, 1870.” (Signed) “Thomas H. Redmond.”
The justice rendered judgment in favor of Stansbury, which was afterwards affirmed in the circuit court on certiorari.
If…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Capitol Hill State Bank v. Rawlins National BankWyoming Supreme Court · 1916
- Gale v. MayhewMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Witt v. Campbell-Lakin Segar Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Spinning v. SullivanMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Bellis v. LyonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.