Legal Opinion

Linn v. Gilman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 12, 1881PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Superior Court of Detroit. Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.

Some account of the origin of this controversy and of its character, is necessary at the outset. The plaintiffs were wholesale grocers at Detroit and in January, *6321871, they hired the defendant, Gilman, as an agent to travel for them and make sales and collections. He was to-receive a salary and have his expenses borne. He continued until the year 1878 but the terms underwent variation. The-particulars are not now important. The course pursued by mutual acquiescence and assent was for the defendant to-make trips occupying a few days and on his return report a gross sum as paid for expenses…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. White v. CampbellMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Murray v. SmithThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
  3. Lewis v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  4. Odiorne v. WinkleyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1814
  5. Gouge v. . RobertsNew York Court of Appeals · 1873

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bullinger v. GremoreMichigan Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Detroit Wabeek Bank & Trust Co. v. City of AdrianMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Detroit Wabeek Bank & Trust Co. v. City of AdrianMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
  4. In re Estate of Hull, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco1894
  5. Mason County Civic Research Council v. Mason CountyMichigan Supreme Court · 1955

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API