Hoar v. Merritt
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Marquette. (Grant, J.) Case. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion and summarized in head-note.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
Defendants are husband and wife.
Mrs. Merritt is the owner of lots Nos. 12 and 13 in Hew_ itt’s addition to the city of Marquette. Upon, these lots, in 1880, Daniel H. Merritt erected a large stone house. He-employed an architect, who prepared the plans and directed and superintended the work. His position was that of foreman or overseer. He was employed by the month. The-defendant Daniel H. Merritt furnished all the materials, and he gave directions to the superintendent whenever occasion *389required. The superintendent hired all the men except the painters.
When the building was ready for the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Coughtry v. . Globe Woolen Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Donaldson v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by20 opinions
- VanDusen v. LetellierMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Brown v. GilchristMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Livingstone v. Saginaw Plate Glass Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Porth v. Cadillac Motor Car Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.