Richardson v. McGoldrick
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Alpena. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. Evidence •of the value of work is admissible as tending to show the agreed price, Allison v. Horning 22 Ohio St. 138; Bauch v. Scholl 68 Penn. St. 234.
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
McGoldrick sued Eichardson for a balance due him for wages of himself and wife, declaring on the common counts as well as on an agreement. ■On the trial upon appeal from a justice to the circuit court for Alpena county, McGoldrick swore that there was an express agreement to pay $35 a month, and Eichardson swore there was an agreement for $25. Both swore to an express agreement. McGoldrick was -allowed under objection to show by his own testimony and by other testimony what the value of his services was according to going wages at that time. This is the only question requiring consideration,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Campau v. MoranMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by15 opinions
- Valley Lumber Co. v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Misner v. DarlingMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Welland v. WilliamsNevada Supreme Court · 1892
- Banghart v. HydeMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Hes v. Haviland Products Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1967
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.