Legal Opinion

Stockman v. Michell

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1899PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to'Wayne; Donovan, J. Assumpsit by Gustavus Stockman against Carl H. Michell for services rendered. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

This case has been before the court, and is reported in 109 Mich. 348. On the second trial the plaintiff was sworn as a witness, and his counsel attempted to prove by him what the profits of the business of the defendant were during the period of plaintiff’s employment. The court refused to permit the testimony, on the ground that this court had, in its previous decision, indicated that the case was a proper one for reference to an auditor to state the account, but offered to permit the plaintiff to take the verdict of the jury as to whether the contract declared upon really existed. The…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Stockman v. MichellMichigan Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Veazey v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API