Maas v. White
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Marquette. Assumpsit for damages sustained from the failure of defendant • to fulfill his agreements with plaintiffs. The facts are in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
In the summer of 1874 the plaintiffs in error controlled and were interested in a quantity of pig iron lying at Marquette for shipment, and the defendant in error being about to ship a quantity which he owned, it was agreed that he should likewise ship that of plaintiffs in error. On the basis of the arrangement thus made, the defendant in error sent the iron belonging to' himself and that of plaintiffs in error to Rhodes & Co. of Cleveland, Ohio. The whole was sent in his name and on his account.
Rhodes & Co., through one of the firm, Mr. Hanna, had just previously informed defendant in error…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stone v. . FlowerNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Strong v. SaundersMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Clark v. McGrawMichigan Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by8 opinions
- Guilmet v. CampbellMichigan Supreme Court · 1971
- Conely v. McDonaldMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- McKenzie v. SykesMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Harty v. TeaganMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- Belknap v. BelknapSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.