Legal Opinion

Tioga Manufacturing Co. v. Stimson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1882PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Mecosta. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, C. J.

The corporation having sued and recovered on the common counts the defendant below asks a review upon writ of error and bill of exceptions. '

According to the plaintiff’s theory of the action what was-demanded consisted of two classes of items, the first an sing-as follows: Both parties were engaged in manufacturing lumber at Big Rapids, — running mills for that purpose; and in the course of their business considerable exchanges of lumber had occurred between them, of which a running-account had been kept, extending from December, 1871, to 1878. This account included a few items besides lumber.

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Tate v. BallardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  2. Reichert v. Negaunee State BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Jacobs v. MorgenthalerMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Adams v. NoelMichigan Supreme Court · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API