Legal Opinion

Child v. Detroit Manufacturing Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1888PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Reilly, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the declaration.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.

The plaintiff entered into a written contract with the defendant for his services for one year, as traveling salesman, in selling a certain patent cooking crock, and other articles of the defendant’s manufacture. The following is a copy of the written contract between the parties:

“ Detroit, Mich., April 18, 1887.
“Mr. Robert D. Child,
“Baltimore, Md.
“Dear *Sir: We desire to employ you as a traveling *625salesman for a period of one year from this date, at a salary of twenty-four hundred dollars ($2,400) per annum, payable semi-monthly, in amounts of $100 each. We also will allow your expenses on…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Champlain v. Detroit Stamping Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cleveland v. RothschildMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  2. J. Richardson & Co. v. NobleMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Bly v. BradyMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Robinson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Degen v. Manistee, Filer City & East Lake Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API