Houghteling v. Gogebic Lumber Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent; Perkins, J. Assumpsit by James L. Houghteling, William R. Stirling, Augustus S. Peabody, Alexander Smith, and James L. Houghteling, Jr., copartners as Peabody, Houghteling & Company, against the Gogebic Lumber Company for breach of a special contract. A judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court is reviewed by plaintiffs on writ of error.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, C. J.
The suit is brought to recover damages for breach of a contract which is declared upon specially. The common counts in assumpsit are in the declaration. Upon the testimony introduced for plaintiffs, and upon the motion of defendant in that behalf, the court below directed a verdict for defendant, upon the ground that the contract sued upon was usurious.
We consider, first, a question of practice. The defendant pleaded the general issue to a declaration filed June 25, 1909. It advised plaintiffs’ attorneys, by mail, on April 8, 1910, that it would ask for leave to amend the plea and intended to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- George N. Fletcher & Sons v. Alpena Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
3Cited by11 opinions
- Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1943
- Paul v. U.S. Mutual Financial Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1986
- Osinski v. YowellMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
- Continental National Bank of Chicago v. FlemingMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. TuohySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.