Legal Opinion

Baer v. Minock

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1901Published

Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by John D. Baer against John K. Minock for rent. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

The plaintiff advertised his store building-in Detroit for rent. The defendant replied thereto .by letter. As a result, Mr. Minock came to Detroit, looked over the premises, and with Mr. Baer drove around the vicinity of the store, and after some conversation, according to the claim of the plaintiff, offered him $10 “for the rent of the building at $25 a month for the first six months, payable in advance,” providing that plaintiff build a barn on the premises for use in the hay and feed business, which Mr. Minock contemplated conducting in connection with a meat and grocery store, which offer…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Scott v. BeecherMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Battershall v. StephensMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Wagner v. EglestonMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Scanlan v. HodgesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1892
  5. Ranney v. HigbyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1856

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API