Stockman v. Michell
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by Gustavus Stockman against Carl H. Michell for services rendered. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
Plaintiff brought an action of assumpsit to recover for services rendered to the defendant. Plaintiff’s testimony tended to show that defendant, on engaging in the grocery business in 1889, employed the plaintiff, and agreed to pay him a stated salary, and, in addition, 2 per cent. of.the profits of the business; that for the first year the 2 per cent, was paid to the plaintiff; but that after that time no inventory was made showing profits, and no payment on account thereof was made to the plaintiff. The circuit judge directed a verdict for the defendant, holding that the agreement…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Beecher v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Warren v. HolbrookMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Canton Bridge Co. v. City of Eaton RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Clarke v. PierceMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Wilcox v. MatthewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by4 opinions
- Georgia Casualty Co. v. HoageDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1932
- Carpenter v. LennaneMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Stockman v. MichellMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Goodin v. PittNevada Supreme Court · 1913