Legal Opinion

Philpott v. Bechtel

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1895Published

Error to Saginaw. .(Wilber, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts ■are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

Plaintiffs were copartners engaged in publishing a newspaper. Plaintiff Philpott made an agreement with defendant for advertising in the paper. Defendant was a merchant, and it- was agreed that Mr. Philpott’s bill at his store should be credited on the amount •due for advertising. Defendant presented a bill of $29, which was allowed,' but left a balance of $19.85, for which ■this suit was brought. Defendant claimed that the cost of *80advertising should not exceed $20. When the agreement-was made nothing was said about the copartnership of plaintiffs. The bill was made out and presented in the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. McDonnell v. FordMichigan Supreme Court · 1891

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

Powered by the Exa API