Hamilton v. Frothingham
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Washtenaw. (Jennison, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
Plaintiff sued defendant for services in a sale of a printing establishment at Ann Arbor. The claim which was presented was that defendant agreed to give plaintiff all that he should receive beyond $8,000, and that the property was sold for the sum of $9,000. The facts show that on the final arrangement a sale was made for a consideration which included some lands in Minnesota, which *255were called by the purchaser as worth $4,000, and which at that rate would bring the whole price up to $9,000. The parties are directly at issue upon the fact of any agency of plaintiff by defendant’s employment…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Mitchell v. Reolds Farms Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
- Detroit River Transit Co. v. AldrichMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Hamilton v. FrothinghamMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Hayes v. McAraMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Ballweber v. KernNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917