Lamb v. Henderson
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kalamazoo. (Mills, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion. Proof of usage is admitted either to interpret the meaning of the language of the contract, or to ascertain its nature and extent, when the meaning is equivocal and obscure, or in the absence of expicss stipulations: Cutter v. Powell, 6 T. R. 320; Vallance v. Dewar, 1 Campb. 503; Noble v. Kennoway, 2 Doug.
Read the full summary
Error to Kalamazoo. (Mills, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion. Proof of usage is admitted either to interpret the meaning of the language of the contract, or to ascertain its nature and extent, when the meaning is equivocal and obscure, or in the absence of expicss stipulations: Cutter v. Powell, 6 T. R. 320; Vallance v. Dewar, 1 Campb. 503; Noble v. Kennoway, 2 Doug. (K. B.) 510; 1 Greenleaf, Ev. § 292. As to right to prove custom as affecting the contract in •question, see Reg. v. Stoke, 5 Adol. & El. (N. S.) 303; Grant v. Maddox, 15 M. & W. 737;…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
Plaintiff sued defendants, who are the firm of C. M. Henderson & Co., for a balance of pay as traveling salesman. He was a resident of this State before and •during his employment, and defendants did business in Chicago. The record does not show the character of their business, unless from some indirect allusions we may infer it included some kinds of leather, and possibly India-rubber goods.
Plaintiff was employed under this written agreement:
Chicago, December 21,1883.
“It .is hereby understood and agreed that C. B. Lamb is to *304give his services and best efforts to the interests of C. M.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harvey v. CadyMichigan Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by12 opinions
- Pennell v. Delta Transportation Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Tatro v. Baker-Fisk-Hugill Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Eaton v. GladwellMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Munro v. Boston Insurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1963
- Greenwich Ins. v. WatermanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.