Legal Opinion

Harris v. Sweetland

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1882PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Kalamazoo. Assumpsit. Cross-actions. Defendant Harris brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, C. J.

October 11, 1877, Sweetland sued Harris by summons and twenty days later Harris retorted by suing Sweetland by attachment.

December 15, 1877, Sweetland proceeded to declare in assv/m/psit. His declaration contained three special counts and the usual irndebitatnis counts. The latter were not used. By the special counts damages were claimed for alleged breaches on the part of Harris of a written agreement made between the parties on the 27th of November, 1876, whereby Harris was to sell to Sweetland certain lumber at Clam Lake and ship it on orders, and Sweetland was to pay therefor through…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kelsey v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
  2. Thompson v. ShepherdNew York Supreme Court · 1812
  3. Dunning v. Bank of AuburnNew York Supreme Court · 1837

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of MeredithMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Harper v. StumpffSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  3. Westgate v. AdamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
  4. House v. Sterling Fire Ins.Utah Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Snyder v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1887

1 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