Legal Opinion
Dayton v. Stone
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 18, 1896PublishedCited by 9 opinions
Error to Ingham; Person, J. Assumpsit by Sarah M. Dayton against William B. Stone for the breach of a contract for the sale of goods. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, C. J.
The parties entered into the following contract:
“Agreement made this day, January 5, 1895, between S. M. Dayton and W. Stone & Company. She, S. M. Dayton, sells her entire stock of goods, fixtures, and store furniture situated at 222 Washington Avenue North, Lansing, Michigan, at wholesale cost price, except goods that are damaged, to W. Stone & Company,—the damaged goods at prices agreed upon,—and is to take in pay for said goods what notes W. Stone & Company now hold against George M. Dayton as part pay; and five (5) houses and lots on Center street (Lansing), now owned by W. Stone &…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gault v. StormontMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Wardell v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Gates v. GambleMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by9 opinions
- Varney v. . DitmarsNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Calhoun County v. Blue Cross Blue ShieldMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012
- Holtz v. OldsOregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Ebert v. CullenMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Raisler Sprinkler Co. v. Automatic Sprinkler Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Delaware · 1934
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.