Legal Opinion

Pierson v. Spaulding

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1888PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to St. Joseph. (Pealer, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in the former report of the case, found in 61 Mich. 90.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

Since this case was before us on a former occasion (61 Mich. 90), the declaration has been amended by filing two special counts, in the first of which it is averred that, in consideration of $1,500, — to be paid as follows: $1,500 in money, and the balance in conveying a farm of 63 acres, — the plaintiff agreed to sell, and did sell and deliver, to defendant, his stock of hardware, tinners’ tools, and store fixtures, excepting whatever said stock should inventory over and above $1,500, to be paid by defendant upon delivery thereof to him; which delivery the plaintiff avers was made on the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pierson v. SpauldingMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dikeman v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Williams v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894

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

Powered by the Exa API