Hudson v. Roos
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Gartner, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts, as also t\i& points of counsel passed upon by the Court, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
This case was here in the October term, 1888, and a judgment in favor of plaintiffs reversed for errors occurring on the trial before Hon. George Gartner, circuit judge, without a jury.
The case is reported in 72 Mich.-(40 N. W. Rep. 467), where the main controversy at that time as to the large pier-glass or mirror is outlined.
The cause was again tried in the Wayne circuit before a jury, who found a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $173.82. It is now here for review.
On this last trial the claim of the plaintiffs, as submitted by their counsel to the jury, was as follows:
Sundries..........…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Howard v. PatrickMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Hudson v. RoosMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- Muilenberg v. Upjohn Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1988
- Dolph v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907