Legal Opinion

Collar v. Collar

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1891PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Error to Ingham. (Peck, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in a former opinion, reported in 75 Mich. 414.

1Opinion of the Court

Ohamplin, 0. J.

On a former trial of this case the defendant prevailed, the trial court holding that upon the showing then made there could be no recovery upon any theory, either as for money had and received, or upon an account stated, or upon the special count, unless the contract was proven. TTpon a writ of error to this Court the judgment was reversed, and a new trial ordered. 75 Mich. 414.

Another trial has been had, and the plaintiff has recovered a judgment, and we are asked to review the proceedings which led to that result. Thirty-one errors have been assigned, only a few of which…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Trask v. GreenMichigan Supreme Court · 1861
  2. White v. CleaverMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Collar v. CollarMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Bitely v. BitelyMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Ely v. Commissioner of State Land-OfficeMichigan Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Logan v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  2. Miskiewicz v. SmolenskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Church v. Anti-Kalsomine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Longe v. KinneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Stewart v. YoungMichigan Supreme Court · 1929

12 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