Ross v. Loescher
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon; Davis, J., presiding. Assumpsit by George R. Ross against Otto Loescher for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendant brings error. The defendant was overhauling the interior of his residence, and in June, 1905, he made a contract with plaintiff for certain building material to be used in finishing the interior. The contract rested in parol.
Read the full summary
Error to Muskegon; Davis, J., presiding. Assumpsit by George R. Ross against Otto Loescher for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendant brings error. The defendant was overhauling the interior of his residence, and in June, 1905, he made a contract with plaintiff for certain building material to be used in finishing the interior. The contract rested in parol. Plaintiff produced a statement of the material proposed to be furnished. It was not signed by either party, and ■ no price was mentioned. Subsequently $825 was the price…
1Opinion of the Court
Grant, 0. J.
(after stating the,facts). The court held that the $20 per day was a penalty, and could not have been considered by the parties in the nature of compensation. This presents the most important question in the case. It is ably and fully discussed by Christiancy, J., in Jaquith v. Hudson, 5 Mich. 123. It was there said that “there is some conflict and more confusion in the cases.” But the principle is there established that courts will “disregard the express stipulation of parties, only in those cases where it is obvious from the contract before them, and the whole subject-matter,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Ward v. Hudson River Building Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Jaquith v. HudsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
- Myer v. HartMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Daily v. LitchfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
- Hennessy v. MetzgerIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co. of Mich.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- Curran v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
- Moore v. St Clair CountyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- Central Trust Co. v. WolfMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
- Wilkinson v. LantermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.