Legal Opinion

Pudas v. Mattola

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1912No. Docket No. 149PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Houghton; Streeter, J. Assumpsit by Matt Pudas against Andrew Mattola on an account stated. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMcAlvay, J.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment in the circuit court for Houghton county against defendant in an action of assumpsit upon an account stated, from which defendant has appealed by writ of error.

The following are the facts in the case: The record shows that the plate glass front of plaintiff’s place of business had been broken. Plaintiff claimed that defendant was one of the parties who wrongfully committed this damage. Complaint was made before a justice of the peace against defendant (as the justice testifies) for malicious destruction of property. The defendant was arTested and taken to the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Vanbebber v. PlunkettOregon Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bosson v. BrashIndiana Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Rolette State Bank v. Rolette CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Pelavin v. Fenton, Davis & BoyleMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Johnson v. StillwellOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Bittner v. Boyajohn & Barr, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API