Smedley v. City of Grand Haven
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Ottawa; Padgham, J. Assumpsit by Charles O. Smedley and Benn M. Cor-win, copartners as Smedley & Corwin, against the city of Grand Haven, for professional services. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiffs bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
This is an action of assumpsit to recover for legal services claimed to have been performed by Charles O. Smedley for the city of Grand Haven, and such claim assigned to plaintiffs. The case was tried before a jury, who returned a verdict of no cause of action, by direction of the court. The bill of particulars is set out in the record. About $130 of the claim is for services rendered the city in the case of Bishop v. Baar, mayor of defendant city, in the circuit court for the county of, Ottawa. The balance of the claim is for legal services rendered by Mr. Smedley in this court, the two…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Barnert v. Mayor of PatersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1886
- City of Louisville v. MurphyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
- Wiley v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1894
- Smedley v. KirbyMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Baar v. KirbyMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
3Cited by8 opinions
- City of Warren v. DannisMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
- Exeter Township Clerk v. Exeter Township BoardMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
- Wayne County Sheriff v. Wayne County Board of CommissionersMichigan Court of Appeals · 1992
- McKim v. Green Oak Township BoardMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
- Waigand v. City of NampaIdaho Supreme Court · 1943
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.