Hackley v. Headley
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
Headley sued Hackley & McGordon to recover compensation for cutting, hauling and delivering in the Muskegon river a quantity of logs. The performance of the labor was not disputed, but the parties were not agreed as to the construction of the contract in some important particulars, and the amount to which Headley was entitled depended largely upon the determination of these differences. The defendants also claimed to have had a full and complete settlement with Headley, and produced his receipt in evidence thereof. Headley admitted the receipt, but insisted that it was given by him under…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Harmony v. . BinghamNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Silliman v. United States. United States v. SillimanSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Spaids v. BarrettIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Scholey v. . MumfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- First National Bank v. WatkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by94 opinions
- Rory v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
- Hartsville Oil Mill v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Willett v. HerrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Oliphant v. MarkhamTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Transcontinental Leasing, Inc., and Hussein Z. Keilani, Cross-Appellants v. Michigan National Bank of Detroit, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.