Watson v. Andrews & Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Davis, J., presiding. Assumpsit by Eugene Watson against Andrews & Company for an amount due on an account. Judgment for plaintiff on a directed verdict. Defendant brings error. The plaintiff is a resident of Flint, Michigan. The defendant is a stockbroker maintaining an office for the transaction of business in the city of Chicago.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Davis, J., presiding. Assumpsit by Eugene Watson against Andrews & Company for an amount due on an account. Judgment for plaintiff on a directed verdict. Defendant brings error. The plaintiff is a resident of Flint, Michigan. The defendant is a stockbroker maintaining an office for the transaction of business in the city of Chicago. During the years 1914 and 1915, plaintiff transacted considerable business with defendant in the way of buying and selling stocks. As a result of his various transactions with defendant there was on October 21, 1915, according to a statement…
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
(after stating the facts). There is no disputed question of fact in the case. The only assignment of error requiring consideration is that the court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff and in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant upon its claim of set-off and recoupment. The action of the court in admitting evidence of the fact that defendant had sold the 10 shares of Saxon stock to the estate of Harry W. Watson is urged as reversible error.
We think it was competent for plaintiff to show, in answer to defendant’s claim of set-off and recoupment, that defendant in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wilkinson v. HeavenrichMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Willebrandt v. Sisters of MercyMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
3Cited by1 opinion
- MFRS. NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT v. SutherlandMichigan Court of Appeals · 1969