Legal Opinion

Ward v. Doane

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1889PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Gratiot. (Hart, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant Doane brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

This controversy grows out of an attempt to collect a Bohemian oat note now owned by the firm of W. S. Turck & Go., said firm consisting of Gerrit S. Ward, William S. Turck, Ammi W. Wright, Charles E. Webster, and Joseph H. Seaver. The plaintiff is the *330collecting agent of the firm, and sues as such; the note being indorsed over to him for collection.

The note bears date of September 25, 1885, payable 15 months after date to J. E. Parkinson or bearer, and is for the sum of $500, with, interest at 7 per cent, after January 1, 1886. The note was executed at Forest Hill, Gratiot county, by the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McNamara v. GargettMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Sutton v. BeckwithMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. McCarty v. KepretaNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Goodrich v. McDonaldMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Knight v. LinzeyMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Helms v. DouglassMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

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

Powered by the Exa API