Wierman v. Bay City-Michigan Sugar Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Bay; Shepard, J. Assumpsit by Frank Wierman against the Bay City-Michigan Sugar Company for work and labor done and for rent. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, C. J.
The claims on which plaintiff sues grow out of the raising of a crop of beets by one James Wierman, plaintiff’s brother. There are three claims — one for labor of plaintiff, and two for rent of land owned, respectively, by David Gary and George Hinbaugh, both assigned to plaintiff for purpose of suit. In February, 1902, James Wierman entered into an arrangement with the defendant company for the raising of 51 acres of beets, executing a contract in two parts, which read, so far as is material to this issue:
“1. Said first party agrees to plant the seed furnished by said second party; that he…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- President, Directors & Co. of Mechanics' Bank v. New-York & New Haven RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Busch v. WilcoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Holland v. HoytMichigan Supreme Court · 1866
- Bond v. Pontiac, Oxford & Port Austin RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Gore v. Canada Life Assurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Marx v. KingMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Dispatch Printing Co. v. National Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Mally v. Excelsior Wrapper Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
- A. C. Nelsen Auto Sales, Inc. v. TurnerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1950
- Anderson v. PattenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.