Legal Opinion

Hirshfield v. Waldron

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1884PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Muskegon. (Russell, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

Plaintiff was engaged in business as a retail dealer in clothing, in the city of Muskegon. Three doors from him on the same street the defendant was engaged in business as a retail dealer in boots and shoes,. The parties had business transactions with each other, which resulted in an action brought by plaintiff against defendant to recover the value of goods sold and delivered. Defendant pleaded set-off. A trial was had which resulted in a judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appealed to the circuit court. On the trial in that court the defendant admitted the items of plaintiff’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kornemann v. MonaghanMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  2. Reynolds v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  3. Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. PolhemusMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  4. McDonough v. HeymanMichigan Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Boice-Perrine Co. v. KelleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
  2. Halle v. BrooksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
  3. Clark v. MurphyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
  4. Bonnazza v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Held v. WalkerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1905

2 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