Waterman v. Waterman
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kalamazoo Circuit. to the point that under the bill of particulars evidence of the loan by plaintiff to defendant of a United States bond was not admissible, cited: Green’s Prac., § 1042 and cases there cited; and upon the irrelevancy of the evidence as to the pecuniary ability of the plaintiff to have made the loans claimed, cited: 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 52; Hilton v. Scarborough, 5 Gray, 422; Wheeler v. Packer, 4 Conn., 102; State v. Penly, 27 Conn., 587.
1Opinion of the Court
Marston, J:
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Joseph D. Waterman against his father, for money loaned to him, money paid for his use and benefit, money received by defendant for plaintiff, United States bonds loaned to defendant, for the value of certain personal property, and for one-half the proceeds and one-half the value of a certain livery bam.
The first and most important question relied upon by plaintiff in error in this court was, that from the relationship of the parties the larv would not imply a promise to pay, and their conduct and treatment of each other shows that no…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hill v. ChambersMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by6 opinions
- Boyd v. OlveyIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Price v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1933
- Mahiat v. CoddeMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Broughton v. JonesMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Sager v. TupperMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.