Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fell v. Newberry

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1895Published

Error to Emmet; Adams, J. Assumpsit by Sylvester O. Fell against Jay L. New-berry for work and labor, and for damages in being prevented from performing a sawing contract. Plaintiff brings error from a judgment in his favor for less than the amount claimed.

1DissentGrant, J.

This is an action of assumpsit to recover for work and labor performed in repairing a shingle mill for the defendant, and to recover as damages prospective profits which plaintiff claims he might have made if he had been permitted to run the mill for six months under a parol contract made with the defendant.

The contract, as stated by the plaintiff, is as follows:

“The arrangement was that I was to go up to Germfask, and see to getting the mill into running order, and, after it was ready to run, I was to run the mill by the thousand, for six months. I was to hire my own help, and he was to pay…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Allis v. McLeanMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  2. John Hutchinson Manufacturing Co. v. PinchMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Talcott v. CrippenMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Petrie v. LaneMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Petrie v. LaneMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API