Stevenson v. Robinson
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Superior Court of Detroit. Assumpsit by Mrs. Stevenson against Bobinson and Brooks who were claim agents, for bounty and back-pay due her on behalf of her son and collected by them. The general issue was pleaded with notice of the statute of limitations. Defendants had judgment below and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMarston, J.
The first question of importance in this case is whether the claim at the time action was brought, was not barred by the statute of limitations. It clearly was, unless there was a fraudulent concealment within the meaning of Comp. L„ § 7159.
There is no pretence whatever that either of. the defendants made any representations in relation to this claim, or that they or either of them concealed any fact from plaintiff’s knowledge. The claim is that one Pease, who was a clerk in the office of defendants and had charge of the collection of this claim, fraudulently concealed from her the fact that…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Hayden v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Cangemi v. Advocate South Suburban HospitalAppellate Court of Illinois · 2006
- International Union United Automobile Workers v. WoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
- Coombes v. GetzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Wood v. WilliamsIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.