Neib v. Hinderer
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Berrien. Assumpsit by Hinderer and Ghristner, who had constituted the firm of C. Hinderer & Co., for the value of' a bakery, fixtures and stock of groceries which they had sold to Neib. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs on the report of a referee, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
Marston, G. J.
The questions presented in this case arise upon a referee’s report. The claim is that the referee did not find facts sufficient to'support any judgment.
1. That the referee did not find the cost price of the things purchased.
The referee finds that the defendant purchased from the plaintiffs “a bakery and stock of groceries agreeing to pay therefor the cost price.” “ That the value of said *453groceries, as appears from Exhibit ‘A,’” after making certain deductions, was $1,151.15. The point made is that he here finds the value, but not the cost price. . He finds the value, as appears…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Peabody v. McAvoyMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by4 opinions
- City of Detroit v. JeppMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Hart v. DoyleMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Schelske v. Township of OrangeMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- Rivergate Toyota, Inc. v. HuddlestonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998