Legal Opinion
Tufts v. D'Arcambal
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided April 17, 1891PublishedCited by 14 opinions
Error to Kalamazoo. (Buck, J ) Eeplevin. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
This is an action of replevin. In March, 1888, plaintiff’s agent took of defendant an order for certain soda-water apparatus replevined herein, which order was as follows:
“Kalamazoo, Mich., March 7, 1888.
“Jambs IV. Tufts,
“ Boston, Mass.:
“ Forward the following described soda-water apparatus, and on receipt of bill of lading I will honor .sight draft for 8-. The balance I promise to pay in monthly sums, as follows: May 10, 825, and 825 per month, with interest at 4 per cent, from date of shipment with each payment, and for such balance and interest will execute and deliver contract notes of…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Blackford v. NeavesArizona Supreme Court · 1922
- Atkinson v. JapinkMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- In re Bettman-Johnson Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
- McDaniel v. ChiaramonteOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Richards v. W. H. Hellen & SonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.