Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Godkin

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1906No. Docket No. 177PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Bay; Shepard, J, Assumpsit by Ira Wilson against John Godkin for work and labor. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

This cáse is before us for the second time. *632See 136 Mich. 106. The contract between the parties and the issues involved are there fully stated. The case was reversed, and a new trial had. The court instructed the jury fully and fairly in accordance with that opinion, and a verdict, for the third time, resulted for the plaintiff for $29.32.

We find no error in the instruction of the court, or in the refusals to give any of the requests preferred on behalf of the defendant. The deduction of railroad fare and the price of the six days’ labor was made under the direction of the court in accordance…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wilson v. GodkinMichigan Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hollingsworth v. CorbinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API