Legal Opinion
Bullock v. Ueberroth
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided September 19, 1899PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Error to Bay; Maxwell, J. Assumpsit by Dorus A. Bullock against Christopher H. Ueberroth for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
The plaintiff commenced suit in justice’s *294court against defendant by summons, in which he described himself as Dorus A. Bullock, doing business as D. A. Bullock & Co. The summons was personally served. The plaintiff declared orally upon all the common counts in assumpsit, and specially for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to defendant. Upon demand a bill of particulars was furnished, which was stated to be as follows:
“Order for the County of Bay.
“D. A. Bullock & Co.: You are hereby authorized to publish for me one copy of ‘The County of Bay,’ according to promises made in your…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Dustan v. . McAndrewNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Pollen v. . Le RoyNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Bement v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- People ex rel. Gorman v. Judge of the Newaygo Circuit CourtMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Mason v. . DeckerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Catanzano v. JacksonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Plefka v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Foster v. WatsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
- Yeiter v. CampauMichigan Supreme Court · 1913