Millar v. Cuddy
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to the Superior Court of Detroit. Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. Verdict -will not be set aside merely because the jury were allowed to take to the jury-room a paper setting out a computation of the amount claimed, Hill v. Robbins 22 Mich. 475; Shipman v. Seymour 40 Mich. 274; Comstock v. Smith 20 Mich. 345; Continental Ins. Co. v. Horton 28 Mich. 173.
1Opinion of the CourtMarston, C. J.
We have been unable to discover any error in this case. The conversation that took place between Brace and one of the plaintiffs was clearly admissible in evidence. It was the commencement and a part of the conversation or negotiations which led to the employment of the defendant in error. It had a tendency to show that a fixed amount was to be paid, and was admissible in any view of the case. On the other hand the defendants below denied that any sum was agreed upon, but that they were to pay him what they thought he was worth to them. This could not mean that they could, after the services…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Tubbs v. Dwelling-House InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Joseph F. Hogan v. Wilbur C. Wright, D/B/A Wright Construction CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
- In re Parks' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
- Ralston v. TurpinU.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia · 1885
- Sandberg v. Victor Gold & Silver Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1901
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.