Legal Opinion

Meads v. Martin

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1890PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Error to Eaton. (Hooker, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, C. J.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff, who is a physician, a druggist, and grocer, to recover for medical services, drugs and medicines, and groceries furnished to”the defendant.

It appeared upon the trial that the defendant was a married moman living with her husband, and that they had six children, all under 21 years of age. The action was upon an open account, which, by the bill of particulars, appears to have originated in 1876, and to have extended down to the time of the commencement of suit, a period of nearly or quite 14 years. The plaintiff showed that he, at or…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hirshfield v. WaldronMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Lacas v. Detroit City Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Bolthouse v. De SpelderMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Brogden v. BaughSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  4. City of Detroit v. EiseleMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Barber v. Eberle's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1902

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API