Armitage v. Saunders
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Brevoort, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in tbe opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants to recover a balance due on account for services rendered as a blacksmith.
The defendants are keepers of a livery stable, the present firm having succeeded to the firm of Oloss & Co., which firm was composed of one of the present members and one Oloss, who retired in February, 1889, at which date the other two defendants were admitted to the firm. At this date the firm of Oloss & Go. was owing plaintiff a balance of $72.95. This balance was carried into the account of the new firm, which was treated as the successor of the old, and bills…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stevens v. TullerMichigan Supreme Court · 1857
- Chappell v. BarkleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by3 opinions
- White v. CostiganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Grand Rapids Realty Co. v. RogersMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
- P. Hoffmaster Sons Co. v. HodgesMichigan Supreme Court · 1908