Hogle v. Meyering
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Murphy, J. Assumpsit by George Hogle against John H. Meyering and another for fraud and deceit. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendants on writ of error.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
This is an action of assumpsit. The declaration consisted of all the common counts, and a special count seeking to recover damages for the fraudulent conduct of the defendants in the premises as alleged, in assumpsit, under the provisions of section 10421, 3 Comp. Laws. There was a bill of particulars containing two items besides interest, to wit, amount received by defendants in excess of amount at which property was purchased by defendants for plaintiff, $890; commissions wrongfully claimed by defendants, and to which they were not enti*474tied by reason of their fraudulent conduct, $200. The…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- People ex rel. Plugger v. Township Board of OverysselMichigan Supreme Court · 1863
- Scribner v. CollarMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Leathers v. CanfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Ames v. Port Huron Log Driving & Booming Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1863
- Flint & Pere Marquette Railway Co. v. DeweyMichigan Supreme Court · 1866
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Stephenson v. GoldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
- Kingsley Associates, Inc., Cross-Appellee. v. Del-Met, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Sweeney & Moore, Inc. v. ChapmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
- Wilson v. WhiteMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Kirker v. LarsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.