Detroit Shipbuilding Co. v. Comstock
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Brooke, J. Assumpsit by the Detroit Shipbuilding Company against Andrew W. Comstock and another upon a promissory note. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
The declaration of the plaintiff contained the common counts in assumpsit, with notice, and *517copy, of a promissory note. Plaintiff’s case was made by introducing the note in evidence and testimony of the amount due thereon. With the plea, defendants gave notice of special matters of defense and filed a bill of the particulars of their set-off and recoupment. There was a jury trial, and a verdict for plaintiff. Motion for a new trial was denied.
■ The note sued upon represented a part of the purchase price of a steam boiler, manufactured and sold by plaintiff to defendants under a written…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Picard v. McCormickMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
- Kost v. BenderMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- McCray Refrigerator & Cold Storage Co. v. Woods & ZentMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Maxted v. FowlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Peck v. JenisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Salzman v. MaldaverMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
- Truman v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. CataldoMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Linderman Machine Co. v. Shaw-Walker Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
- John D. Gruber Co. v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.