Legal Opinion

Strutz v. Brown

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1896PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Saginaw; Wilber, J. Assumpsit by Fred C. Strutz against Addison T. Brown upon certain promissory notes and .for services rendered. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the Court

Long, O. J.

This action was commenced in the circuit court by filing a declaration on the common counts, with a copy of two promissory notes set out under proper notice; also a further notice was given, as follows:

“Thatthe following is a true copy of the particulars of plaintiff’s demand under the common counts of said declaration, viz.:
“To balance due for services as bookkeeper from October 16, 1894, to December 26, 1894, $50.
“ Interest on same,-.”

This was signed by plaintiff’s attorneys.

Defendant demanded a further bill of particulars, which was not furnished, and his default was entered for…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. PeckMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Township of Buckeye v. ClarkMichigan Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Close v. Ann Arbor RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Vanderhoef v. Parker Bros. Co., Ltd.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API