Legal Opinion

Hangsterfer v. Shafer

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1902No. Docket No. 92Published

Error to Wayne; Rohnert, J. Assumpsit by J. William Hangsterfer against Charles A. Shafer and Wilber S. Peck for a breach of the terms •of a lease. From a judgment for defendants on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

This suit was brought in the circuit court. A bill of particulars was filed, which stated, after the formal heading:

“Take notice that the following is a bill of particulars of the plaintiff’s claim, for which suit is brought:
“ The following articles of furniture, fixtures, including soda fountain, purchased under the terms of contract sued upon:

Soda fountain__________1..............'.......— $2,200 00

William Wright & Co., bill of fixtures------------- 791 20.”

Then followed 20 other items for fixtures and equipments connected with the soda fountain, the total of the items being about $4,500.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Thompson v. HowardMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Foster v. RowleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Merrill v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Thomas v. WattMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Horner v. FellowsMichigan Supreme Court · 1843

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

Powered by the Exa API