Tioga Manufacturing Co. v. Stimson
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Tate v. BallardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Reichert v. Negaunee State BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
- Jacobs v. MorgenthalerMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- Adams v. NoelMichigan Supreme Court · 1926