Busch v. Pollock
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Tuscola. Assumpsit on tbe common counts by Pollock against Busch and Lane for logs sold to them, work done for them, and money paid on their account. Defendants pleaded the general issue with notice of set-off. Plaintiff recovered and defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtMarston, J.
As to a part of plaintiff’s claim in the court below there was a dispute as to whether he was a contractor in putting in the logs or was acting merely, as foreman for defendants. Upon cross-examination of the plaintiff he was asked to give, as near as he could approximate the same, the amount of capital he had when he made the bargain with Busch. This was' objected to and the objection sustained. It is claimed that this inquiry, if permitted, would have elicited a reply tending to show that plaintiff could not have been a contractor, because he did not have the necessary means to operate as…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Tuuk v. AndersenMichigan Court of Appeals · 1969
- Smith v. JenningsMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Carmack v. DrumWashington Supreme Court · 1903
- In re West Michigan Distributing Co.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1967