Comstock v. Norton
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent Circuit. upon the question of the admissibility in evidence of the contract between defendant and Johnson & Co., cited: People v. Jenness, 5 Mich., 307; People v. Doyle, 21 Mich., 221; Clark v. Me Or aw, 14 Mich., 139; Stephen's Dig. of Fv., 14; 1 Greenl.
Read the full summary
Error to Kent Circuit. upon the question of the admissibility in evidence of the contract between defendant and Johnson & Co., cited: People v. Jenness, 5 Mich., 307; People v. Doyle, 21 Mich., 221; Clark v. Me Or aw, 14 Mich., 139; Stephen's Dig. of Fv., 14; 1 Greenl. Fv., § 31; and to the point that the statute of frauds was not applicable to the case made by the plaintiff’s evidence: Browne, § 188, and cases cited in note 3; Mersereau v. Lewis, 23 Wend., 243; Weld v. Nichols, 17 Pick., 338; Aldrich v. Ames, 9 Gray, 76; Alger v. Scoville, 1 Gray, 391; Pratt v. Humphrey, 22 Conn., 317.…
1Opinion of the Court
Graves, J:
During the lumber season of 1875 Comstock was carrying on banking at Clam Lake, and Norton was engaged in lumbering near there.
Norton had two lumber camps, one of which was managed by a foreman named Boseley, and the other was controlled and conducted under a written contract with Norton, by Orrin L. Johnson and W. P. Miller, who assumed the firm style of O. L. Johnson & Co. March 29, 1875, Boseley issued to one Burns a ticket indicating that Burns was entitled to ihirty-threo dollars and ninety cents from Norton, for labor done. It was directed to Norton. Burns, however, endorsed…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Railway Co. v. WynantIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- People v. RichMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
- Holbert v. StaniakMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
- Slater v. WalterMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- McKine v. SydorMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.