Legal Opinion

Thomas v. Greenwood

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 6, 1888PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Bay. (Green, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

The defendants were, in 1886, doing business at Duluth, Minnesota, under the firm name of G. C. ■Greenwood & Co.

The plaintiff on the ninth' of February, 1886, wrote to defendants from Bay City, Michigan, as to the purport of which letter we are not informed.

Defendants replied February 11, 1886, as follows:

“Duluth, Minn., February 11, 1886.

-“Mr. H. H. Thomas,

“No. 9 Munger Block, Bay City, Michigan.
“ Dear Sir: We are just in receipt of yours of the ninth inst., in reference to Hercules powder. Beplying, would say that we have the following in stock: 600 lbs. No. 2, £ inch; •3,800 ibs. No. 3, 1J…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Gannon v. StansfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Armstrong v. AndrewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Guyan Coal & Coke Co. v. Wholesale Coal Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API