Allen v. Allen
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Clare. (Hart, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. Under the charge the jury were required to find that plaintiff had expressly given defendant his time to entitle him to his earnings, and this was error.
Read the full summary
Error to Clare. (Hart, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. Under the charge the jury were required to find that plaintiff had expressly given defendant his time to entitle him to his earnings, and this was error. It left out of the case entirely inferences the jury had a right to draw from the acts and conduct of the father ; for under the evidence the jury were warranted in finding that the son left home at the age of 16 or 17, with his father’s consent, went into an other state, and there worked by the month and earned the $600 which the father…
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
This is an action of assumpsit, brought by a father against 1ns son. The declaration is upon the common counts, under which a bill of particulars was filed of items aggregating $3,014. The defendant pleaded the general, issue, with notice of set-off, and filed a bill of particulars.
The case was tried by a jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,293. The errors assigned relate to the rulings of the court in the admission of testimony, and refusal to charge as requested, and to the charge as given.
An item in the plaintiff’s bill' of particulars was for “money lent from…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Daly v. Everett Pulp & Paper Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1903
- Potter v. DavidsonOregon Supreme Court · 1933
- Steggall v. SteggallMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
- Emery-Bird-Thayer Dry Goods Co. v. CoomerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901