Christopher v. Hechheimer
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Carpenter, J. Assumpsit by Martenus Christopher against Emanuel Hechheimer and another for salary as traveling salesman. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
The plaintiff is a traveling salesman. In May,-1897, he entered into the employ of defendants, who are manufacturers of clothing, to sell their goods. The contract was in writing, and continued for a year. It is the claim of the plaintiff that he entered upon his work for the second year under an agreement that the contract was to continue for a second year. He brought suit to recover $500, which he claimed was due him. Defendants deny that the contract was renewed at the end of the first year, and claim they had overpaid plaintiff, so that, instead of being in debt to him, he in fact owed…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Graham v. CourtrightSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Williams v. BaileyMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Cooper v. HarlowMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- In re Noon's WillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- Old Kent Bank & Trust Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.