Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. Frothingham

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1886PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Mitchell v. Reolds Farms Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Detroit River Transit Co. v. AldrichMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Hamilton v. FrothinghamMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Hayes v. McAraMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Ballweber v. KernNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917

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

Powered by the Exa API