Crotser Lumber & Fuel Co. v. Mahoney

Michigan Supreme Court

Crotser Lumber & Fuel Co. v. Mahoney

233 N.W. 399, 252 Mich. 516, 1930 Mich. LEXIS 875

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1930

DocketDocket No. 41, Calendar No. 35,198.

StatusPublished

This text of 233 N.W. 399 (Crotser Lumber & Fuel Co. v. Mahoney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crotser Lumber & Fuel Co. v. Mahoney, 233 N.W. 399, 252 Mich. 516, 1930 Mich. LEXIS 875 (Mich. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant, declaring on all the common counts in assumpsit, and filed a bill of particulars showing $1,022.55 due from defendant to plaintiff. The case was tried without a jury and a judgment of $1,333.67 rendered for plaintiff against defendant. Defendant brings error. Defendant ordered plaintiff to furnish lumber and mill work for a 31-family apartment to be built by defendant. Plaintiff furnished certain material, and the labor and material by and from which was manufactured other milled material. Defendant refused to carry out the contract and neglected to pay plaintiff. Defendant objected to the introduction in evidence of the contract.

*517 Recovery may be had under the count for work done and materials furnished though the value of the work was fixed by special contract, especially where the defendant prevented its full performance. Mooney v. York Iron Co., 82 Mich. 263; Hemminger v. Western Assurance Co., 95 Mich. 355; Howell v. Medler, 41 Mich. 641. Under the undisputed facts plaintiff was entitled to recover for the labor done and material furnished in pursuance of the written order of defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant, declaring on all the common counts in assumpsit, and filed a bill of particulars showing $1,022.55 due from defendant to plaintiff. The case was tried without a jury and a judgment of $1,333.67 rendered for plaintiff against defendant. Defendant brings error. Defendant ordered plaintiff to furnish lumber and mill work for a 31-family apartment to be built by defendant. Plaintiff furnished certain material, and the labor and material by and from which was manufactured other milled material. Defendant refused to carry out the contract and neglected to pay plaintiff. Defendant objected to the introduction in evidence of the contract.

*517 Recovery may be had under the count for work done and materials furnished though the value of the work was fixed by special contract, especially where the defendant prevented its full performance. Mooney v. York Iron Co., 82 Mich. 263; Hemminger v. Western Assurance Co., 95 Mich. 355; Howell v. Medler, 41 Mich. 641. Under the undisputed facts plaintiff was entitled to recover for the labor done and material furnished in pursuance of the written order of defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 N.W. 399, 252 Mich. 516, 1930 Mich. LEXIS 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crotser-lumber-fuel-co-v-mahoney-mich-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack