Lamson v. City of Marshall
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Calhoun; Smith, J. Assumpsit by Daniel A. Lamson and David Crowley, copartners as Lamson & Crowley, against the city of Marshall, to recover a balance due for the construction of a sewer. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The plaintiffs recovered judgment in the court below for $4,241.75, an unpaid balance claimed to be due them for the construction of a sewer system for the defendant corporation. Defendant insists that the court below should have directed a verdict in its favor, because: First, before suit was commenced plaintiffs assigned their entire claim against defendant to the Commercial Savings Bank; second, plaintiffs never obtained a certificate showing the completion of the work and the satisfaction of all claims for labor and material, which, by *254the contract, was a condition precedent to the right…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kihlberg v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Sweeney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Chicago, Santa Fé & California Railroad v. PriceSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Jaquith v. HudsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
- Hanley v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- State Mutual Life Assurance Company of America v. Deer Creek Park, Burnac Mortgage Investors, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- City St. Improvement Co. v. City of MarysvilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Friederick v. County of RedwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Moore v. St Clair CountyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- Board of Commerce v. Security Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.