Dennis v. Vinton
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Mandell, J. Assumpsit by Frederick W. Dennis, administrator of the estate of Arthur S. Dennis, deceased, against Warren Jay Vinton for services rendered. .Judgment for defendant on a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff declared in assumpsit upon the common counts and upon a special count for money due plaintiff under and by virtue of “a written contract,” reading: “Warren Jay Vinton, “Detroit, Michigan.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Mandell, J. Assumpsit by Frederick W. Dennis, administrator of the estate of Arthur S. Dennis, deceased, against Warren Jay Vinton for services rendered. .Judgment for defendant on a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff declared in assumpsit upon the common counts and upon a special count for money due plaintiff under and by virtue of “a written contract,” reading: “Warren Jay Vinton, “Detroit, Michigan. “March 17, 1916. “Mr. Arthur S. Dennis, “Detroit, Mich. “Dear Sir: I hereby agree to pay you the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500,00) in…
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
{after stating■ the facts). Circuit Court Rule No. 23, § 6, provides that any statement of fact set forth in a notice added to a plea shall be treated as an admission by the defendant and need not be proved by the plaintiff. The plea and notice are a part of the record, and it is unnecessary to formally introduce them in evidence in order to make available for plaintiff any admissions they contain. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 126 Mich. 217 (85 N. W. 576); Buckeye Brewing Co. v. Eymer, 157 Mich. 518 (122 N. W. 124); Irwin v. Wolcott, 183 Mich. 92 (149 N. W. 1035). Plaintiff is not bound by a claim…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Carpenter v. CarpenterMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Buckeye Brewing Co. v. EymerMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Irwin v. WolcottMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rolland Township v. PakesMichigan Supreme Court · 1924