Legal Opinion

McFadden v. George C. Wetherbee & Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 28, 1886PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Jennison, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. As to waiver by defendant of breach of contract (see headnote 1), see Moore v. Detroit Locomotive Works, l4 Mich. 266-7, and cases cited; Bowman v. Teall, 23 Wend. 306.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

This cause was originally commenced in justice’s court. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, a corporation doing business in Detroit, had refused to carry out a certain contract, by which refusal he had suffered damage. He declared orally, as appears from the justice’s return, in an action of assumpsit upon the common counts,—

“Claiming damages for a violation of special contract, by which defendant agreed to buy of plaintiff a quantity of wooden blocks at $1.50 per load, which defendant violated, and plaintiff was obliged to sell said blocks to other parties at a less price, to…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Kupfer v. Michigan Clothing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Stearns Salt & Lumber Co. v. Dennis Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Habicht v. GallagherMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Henningsen v. Tonopah & Goldfield RailroadNevada Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Wooten & Co. v. Bain-Adams Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1920

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