Dikeman v. Arnold
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to St. Joseph. (Loveridge, J.) 'Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion and in the former report .of the case.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
This is the second appearance of this case in this Court. The facts and the matters in controversy were quite fully stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice •Champlin when the case was here before, see 71 Mich. 656 (40 N. W. Rep. 42), and will not here be referred to *457again, except in so far as it shall be found necessary to a proper understanding of the questions here discussed.
Upon the second trial in the court below, the plaintiffs recovered judgment for $8,900.67. A motion for a new trial was made, and upon such motion it was ordered that, unless plaintiffs consented to a deduction of $799.30…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Johnson v. Van VelsorMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Hourtienne v. SchnoorMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Nugent v. TeachoutMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Dikeman v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Pierson v. SpauldingMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Way v. RootMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Eicholtz v. GrunewaldMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
- Donohue v. VosperMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Rothstein v. WeeksMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Elizabeth A. Dodson and Edward L. Dodson v. Imperial Motors, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, and Stewart R. DevriesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.