Watkins v. Ford

Citation69 Mich. 357,37 N.W. 300
PartiesWATKINS v. FORD.
Decision Date13 April 1888
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

69 Mich. 357
37 N.W. 300

WATKINS
v.
FORD.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 13, 1888.


Appeal from circuit court, Kent county; ROBERT M. MONTGOMERY, Judge.

Assumpsit by Irvin C. Watkins against Chester S. Ford, to recover balance due for constructing a building. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

[37 N.W. 300]

Earle & Hyde, for appellant.

Smith & Stevens, for appellee.


CHAMPLIN, J.

Plaintiff was a member of a copartnership doing business under the firm name of William D. G. Quigley & Co., and in August, 1886, claiming to have acquired the interest of his copartner by assignment, brought a suit against defendant in justice's court, and declared orally in assumpsit. The defendant also pleaded orally the general issue, and gave notice of set-off and recoupment. A trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the circuit court for the county of Kent. The plaintiff there filed a declaration in writing as an amended declaration, and abandoned the one put in before the justice. This declaration contains a single count in assumpsit, and alleges that in June, 1886, defendant became and was indebted to the copartnership firm of William D. G. Quigley & Co., composed of William D. G. Quigley and the plaintiff, in the sum of $200, for money then and there found to be due from said defendant to said William D. G. Quigley &

[37 N.W. 301]

Co. on account stated between them; that afterwards Quigley sold, assigned, and transferred to the plaintiff all of his right and interest in and to the claim against defendant; and that thereupon defendant became and was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $200, for money then and there found to be due from said defendant to said firm of William D. G. Quigley & Co. on an account stated between them. Upon the trial, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove that the firm of William D. G. Quigley & Co. constructed a building for defendant in the years 1884 and 1885, under a contract, for $2,000; that some extra work was performed in the construction of the building, and that on or about the 21st day of May, 1885, the parties looked over an account presented by the contractors, and a settlement was reached, by which there was found to be due from defendant to said firm the sum of $122.80; that the firm were owing Wagon & Callahan $80.50 for materials used in the building, and it was agreed that defendant should pay Wagon & Callahan that amount, and the balance he should pay to the firm. The account that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT