McEwen v. Bigelow
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. Assumpsit. The facts are in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
The parties to this suit appear to have had a controversy over a plumber’s bill, which has resulted in two suits, one of which is now before us.
The following facts may be taken as conceded by the parties. McEwen had made a contract for doing certain work at the price of $144. He had also sold Bigelow gas fixtures at the price of sixty dollars. It is not disputed that McEwen performed his contract, but he claimed to have done considerable extra work and furnished extra materials for which he demanded payment. Bigelow disputed this bill for extras. He had, however, paid McEwen $258.32, which…
2Cited by23 opinions
- City of Fort Wayne v. CoombsIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1902
- Griffin v. WallaceIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Stevens v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Forgey v. First National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.