Legal Opinion

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Baker

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1894PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Jackson. (Peck, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts; are stated in the opinions.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

This action was brought to recover the, purchase price of a binder. The order for the binder is set out in the declaration, and is as follows:

“ ORDER POR OSBORNE HARVESTING MACHINE.
“Dated at Concord, July 9, 1892.
“ Messrs. D. M. Osborne & Co.,
“'Chicago, 111.:
“ I have this day ordered of Jacob Eosenbrook, your *248agent, one of your machines, described as ‘Number New Binder, 6 feet right-hand rear gear/ to be delivered at Concord, Jackson county, for which I agree to pay the sum of $105, and freight and charges from Chicago, 111., in manner as follows:
“An approved note, due October 1, 1892,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Snody v. ShierMichigan Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gadd v. StonerMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. People v. CallahanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API