Duffield v. Holmes

Michigan Supreme Court

Duffield v. Holmes

1 McGrath 1007, 3 McGrath 544

DecidedJuly 1, 1855

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 1007 (Duffield v. Holmes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duffield v. Holmes, 1 McGrath 1007, 3 McGrath 544 (Mich. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

To compel respondent to pay to relator such sum as he was entitled to as bolder of some of tbe circulating notes of tbe Government Stock Bank, out of tbe avails of tbe stock deposited witb tbe treasurer.

Granted 1855.

Held, tbat an averment tbat such notes were issued by tbe bank necessarily implied that they were first duly countersigned [1010]*1010as required by the bank charter, and that circulating notes are not such claims as required proof at their presentation to the treasurer within the provisions of the charter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

To compel respondent to pay to relator such sum as he was entitled to as bolder of some of tbe circulating notes of tbe Government Stock Bank, out of tbe avails of tbe stock deposited witb tbe treasurer.

Granted 1855.

Held, tbat an averment tbat such notes were issued by tbe bank necessarily implied that they were first duly countersigned [1010]*1010as required by the bank charter, and that circulating notes are not such claims as required proof at their presentation to the treasurer within the provisions of the charter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 1007, 3 McGrath 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duffield-v-holmes-mich-1855.