143 Mich. 350 | Mich. | 1906
The defendant has appealed from a judgment of $1,197.50, entered against it, upon a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor. The suit was brought to recover an unpaid balance upon an account for labor. The defendant .had taken a contract to do grading, etc., for the Michigan Central Railroad Co. Plaintiffs had done some of this work by contract with Tench, a subcontractor under the defendant, after the completion of which they did some work for the defendant. The claims of the plaintiffs are few and plain. They are:
(1) That they graded 289 yards on Jackson cut, at
16f cents per yard............................. $47 68
(2) 855 yards on Shanty cut, at 164 cents......... 58 57
(8) At Lawton job, 5,200 yds., at 30 cents........ 1,560 00
(4) Day work at Mattawan...................... 186 48
(5) Cost of transportation....................... 108 00
(6) Freight on tools............................. 52 80
$2,013 53
Credit, cash..................................... 773 13
$1,240 40
“ They paid me in all $719 in cash and horse and mules.
“ Q. Do you have a record or book account of it anywhere ?
“A. Yes, sir; it might be $729.
“ Q. $773.13 your bill of particulars says.
“A. It is in that neighborhood, if I write anything down and have a record of it I don’t try to remember it. I copied my bill of particulars right from the books. I don’t have it here. It is copied right from the timebooks.
*353 “ Q. Whatever is upon your bill of particulars you have received ?
“ A. Yes, it is something over $700.
“ Q. There is the bill of particulars.
“A. $773.13 is what they have paid.
“ Q. How much do you claim is now due, or was, on the 26th of October, 1904 ?
“ Mr. Stewart: I object to his swearing from a bill of particulars, that is mere pleading. If he has any account he can make up here I have no objection to it.
“ The Court: He may state. (Counsel for defendant excepted.)
“ A. $1,240.40 they owe, after deducting $773.13.”
Error is assigned upon this. It was obviously a proper examination.
“Ithink he would also be entitled to recover what it cost him to freight his goods to Lansing, inasmuch as that would be less than it would cost to freight to Ann Arbor.”
The court refused to allow defendant to introduce a letter from Applegate, its bookkeeper, to its president. It was not admissible.
The judgment is affirmed.