Legal Opinion

Waterman-Waterbury Co. v. School District No. 4

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 1914No. Docket No. 58PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Error to Montcalm; Davis, J. Assumpsit by the Waterman-Waterbury Company against school district number 4 of Cato township, Montcalm county, for the contract price of a heating system. Judgment' for defendant on a directed verdict. Plaintiif brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSteere, J.

Plaintiif brought this action in the circuit court of Montcalm county, to recover the contract price of a heating and ventilating system which it installed in defendant’s schoolhouse during the fall of 1911. Upon the trial of said cause in the circuit court before a jury the court directed a verdict for defendant on the ground that plaintiif had mistaken its remedy. Plaintiff’s declaration was in assumpsit upon the common counts, with a special count upon a written contract alleged to have been entered into between the parties and set forth at length. Defendant pleaded the general issue, and,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Up River Ice Co. v. DenlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. State v. New Haven & Northampton Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1877
  3. Coffin v. Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. People ex rel. Reeder v. Treasurer of WexfordMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Waterman-Waterbury Co. v. School District No. 2Michigan Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Cochrane v. ForbesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
  2. McLeod v. State Board of CanvassersMichigan Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Miller v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Hall v. Ira TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Hill v. State Highway CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1969

10 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