Legal Opinion
Sherman v. Burton
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided March 31, 1911No. Docket No. 194PublishedCited by 13 opinions
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by Andrew T. Sherman against George E. Burton on a special contract. A judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court is reviewed by plaintiff on writ of error.
1Opinion of the CourtBlair, J.
Plaintiff brought this suit to recover the amount alleged to be due upon the following agreement in writing:
“Detroit, Mich., March 14th, 1906.
“I, Geo. E. Burton of the city of Detroit, do hereby agree as follows with Dr. A. T. Sherman of the same place. I will pay to the said Dr. A. T. Sherman for professional services, one-third of any sum which I may receive from the Detroit United Railway, as damages, arising out of an injury to me on said D. U. R. Dec. 7th, 1905.
“And I further agree to pay to said Dr. Sherman the sum of ninety dollars ($90.00) in addition to the above-mentioned one-third…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thomas v. CaulkettMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by13 opinions
- Swafford v. HarrisTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Overman Cushion Tire Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1937
- Wright v. CorbinWashington Supreme Court · 1937
- Conklin v. ConklinMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Miller v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.