TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Johnston Gravel Co. v. Borck

Johnston Gravel Co. v. Borck.

Johnston Gravel Co. v. Borck, 201 N.W. 224 (Mich. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 10, 1924
Docket
No. 108.
Judges
Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Wiest
Citations
201 N.W. 224229 Mich. 641924 Mich. LEXIS 842

Opinion of the Court — Clark

Clark, C. J.

Plaintiff sold and delivered to defendant 1,021 yards of gravel and 575 yards of sand at the price, it claims, of $2 per yard, or $8,192. Defendant contends that the agreed price was $1.50 for gravel and $.75 for sand, a total of $1,962.75, and he tendered into court that sum and the costs. The issue was submitted to a jury, who found for defendant, and plaintiff brings error, urging that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence and that the motion for a new trial therefore ought not to have been denied.

A witness, managing plaintiff’s business, testified that the agreed price was “$2 straight.” Another witness, who heard a conversation between plaintiff’s manager and defendant, said that he heard defendant ask the price of gravel and the manager reply “$2.” Defendant testified squarely in support of his contention as stated. Some rather unsatisfactory testimony of “current or running” prices of sand and gravel in that locality was adduced by both parties. There was no other evidence worthy of note. The disparity in number of witnesses sworn by the parties does not determine the question. We determine it after careful consideration of all the evidence. We think the judge was right in denying the motion.

*66 A witness, in the gravel business, testified that he knew the “running price of * * * gravel at that time,” and he was permitted, over objection, to state what it was. On cross-examination it was developed that he was not qualified so to testify, and on motion of plaintiff the testimony was stricken. We are not impressed that the incident requires reversal.

We find no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

McDonald, Bn®, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1940: 11948: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Trafamczak v. Anys31 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. 1948)
  2. Dewey v. Perkins295 N.W. 332 (Mich. 1940)

Most recent

  1. Trafamczak v. Anys31 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. 1948)
  2. Dewey v. Perkins295 N.W. 332 (Mich. 1940)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list