Legal Opinion

Rose v. Jackson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1879PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Kalamazoo. Assumpsit. The facts are in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.

Jackson recovered general damages againt Eose upon a declaration in assumpsit containing, first, three special counts; second, the common counts consolidated into one for causes of action alleged to have been derived by assignment from Cyrus S. Higgins; and, third, the common counts consolidated into one for causes of action alleged to have accrued directly from Bose to Jackson. . Eose alleges error. A number of points are made *31specifically, but there are others which the .objections particularly taken require to be noticed., The record appears not to contain all the evidence which was given,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Picard v. McCormickMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
  2. Jackson ex dem. Murray v. HazenNew York Supreme Court · 1807
  3. Nelson v. SwanNew York Supreme Court · 1816

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Goppelt v. BurgessMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Cilley v. Van PattenMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Gates v. ComstockMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  4. McKnight v. LowitzMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Master Spark Co. v. HickersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1920

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API