Legal Opinion

Boyce v. Barker

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1899Published

Error to Bay; Maxwell, J. Assumpsit by Jonathan Boyce against Columbus C. Barker for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for plaintiff for less than the amount claimed, he brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the purchase price of a quantity of logs. The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $846.70, but has brought error, and insists that he was entitled to receive nearly $4,000, but failed because of erroneous rulings of *158the trial judge. The chief controversy arises over the scale of the logs. The plaintiff, by a written contract, agreed to sell, and defendant agreed to purchase, at least 5,000,000 feet of logs. It was agreed that e'ach of the parties should furnish a good, reliable, and competent scaler, each at his own expense, to scale by…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Busch v. KilborneMichigan Supreme Court · 1879

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

Powered by the Exa API