Legal Opinion
Roney v. Healy
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided May 3, 1912No. Docket No. 56PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Error to Wayne; Mandell, J. Assumpsit by William E. Roney against Daniel J. Healy for services rendered as defendant’s broker in procuring a loan. A judgment for plaintiff for less than the amount claimed is reviewed by him on error.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
The action is assumpsit; plaintiff having declared upon the common counts and filed a bill of particulars of his demand, reading:
“ To the reasonable value of services rendered by plaintiff to defendant in procuring a loan for defendant of $135,000 ...............$5,000.”
When the cause came on to be tried, plaintiff was sworn ’ as a witness in his own behalf, and while giving his testimony his counsel asked counsel for the defendant for a certain bill, rendered by plaintiff to defendant, and was informed:
“ We have not it. I think Mr. Hally has those papers; I understand he has.”
Thereupon…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McNaughton v. EvertMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Geddis v. Wayne Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. BurbyMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
- Christophersen v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- People v. EamausMichigan Supreme Court · 1919