Tompkins v. Hitchcock
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Oakland. (Moore, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamrlin, J.
This case was before us at the January term, 1888 (69 Mich. 121, 36 N. W. Rep. 742), when the judgment was reversed, and a new trial granted. Another *124trial has been had, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $102.25.
The declaration alleged that the plaintiff had been for 15 years engaged in the business of buying and selling furniture in the city of Pontiac, Oakland county, and in other cities throughout the State of Michigan.
“That by reason of the experience, skill, and knowledge of the furniture business, gained and acquired by the said plaintiff in and about said…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Tompkins v. HitchcockMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rucker v. Wyandotte Savings BankMichigan Court of Appeals · 1967