Legal Opinion

Pierson v. Spaulding

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 1886PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Error to St. Joseph. (Pealer, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in head-note 1.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.

This is an action of assumpsit begun by attachment as upon a special contract, but with a declaration merely on the common counts. A bill of particulars was demanded and filed under the statute, which dates the contract as of June 17, 1885, and is:

“ To the price and value of a stock of hardware, tinners’ tools, and fixtures, sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant at his request, - - $4,500
“ To interest on the same,.....300

$4,800”.The attachment was sued out immediately after the al*93leged sale, and levied on the same property. Defendant pleaded the 'general issue, and also, by notice,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Begole v. McKenzieMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
  2. Gage v. MeyersMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Miner v. O'HarrowMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Dikeman v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Davis v. GerberMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Jones v. JerniganNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Dikeman v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Applebaum v. GoldmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1909

6 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