Legal Opinion

Smith v. Hertz & Hosbach Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1910No. Docket No. 141PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Assumpsit by Joseph M. Smith against the Hertz & Hosbach Company, Limited, for services rendered. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

Plaintiff is engaged in the business of building and remodeling old factories, reconstructing machinery, and installing engines in the city of Detroit. In July, 1907, he was engaged by the defendant to superintend and install an engine in the defendant’s plant. He claims it was agreed that he should charge $6 a day and $3 a half day. To use plaintiff’s words:

" If I went on the job at all, I would charge him a half day, and if I went twice, I would have to charge him a full day.”

Defendant was to furnish the necessary assistance. Plaintiff claims that soon after the work was commenced it was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Henderson v. Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Arnold v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API