TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gartner v. Beller

George Gartner v. Jacob Beller

Gartner v. Beller, 20 N.W. 65 (Mich. 1884)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 25, 1884
Judges
Campbell, Other
Citations
20 N.W. 6554 Mich. 3331884 Mich. LEXIS 580
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Bill rendered no evidence of value. A lawyer sued his client for the balance of his bill, and put in testimony as to the value of his services. Defendant produced a bill rendered. Held proper to charge the jury that defendant had given no evidence of value, and that if they were satisfied with the testimony given they might base their verdict on it.
Summary
Error to Wayne. (Chambers, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Campbell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant for a balance due for professional services. He described the services and gave his own testimony as to their value. He also swore other witnesses who gave evidence on what we think was fairly within the same theory, and who substantially agreed with him. The defendant gave testimony as to the services rendered, but put in no proof of value, but did introduce a bill rendered on which part payment, had been made.

The court below called the attention of the jury to the fact that no evidence of value had been given by defendant, and instructed the jury in substance that they might use the testimony given as a ground for basing a verdict upon, if they were satisfied with it, and they so found.

We can find no reasonable ground for objection to any of the rulings below, which seem to us entirely proper, and the only ones which could have been given. There is nothing worthy of discussion.

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1888: 218882026peak 1888 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Turnbull v. Richardson37 N.W. 499 (Mich. 1888)
  2. Kelley v. Richardson37 N.W. 514 (Mich. 1888)

Most recent

  1. Turnbull v. Richardson37 N.W. 499 (Mich. 1888)
  2. Kelley v. Richardson37 N.W. 514 (Mich. 1888)

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