Gibson v. Pelkie
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Mason. Assumpsit. The facts are shown in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
The right Gibson asserts is based solely on an alleged special agreement entitling him to collect so much as he might of a specific judgment and to retain one-half of the sum collected. According to his own statement of his case, the judgment was the exclusive subject-matter of the agreement relied on. No other demand or form of demand entered into the bargain. The parties had nothing else in their minds. They did not assume to contract about an unliquidated claim or an unadjudicated cause of action, the enforcement of which in Pelkie’s name might involve him in a much larger liability than…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Allen v. HammondSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- Hazard v. New England Marine Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1832
- Sherman v. BarnardNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Silvernail v. ColeNew York Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sherwood v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Paine v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1892
- Gordon v. City of Warren Planning & Urban Renewal CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
- Farhat v. RasseyMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
- Griffith v. Sebastian CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.