Legal Opinion

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Cusack

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 1898PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Kent; Grove, J. Assumpsit' by the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company against George M. Cusack for the purchase price of a binder. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, in an action of assumpsit, to recover the price of a binder. The circuit judge directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

*648' The testimony on the part of the plaintiff was substantially as follows: Mr. Grutsch, a traveling salesman for plaintiff, visited defendant, and urged him to sign an order for a harvesting machine. The witness said:

“I had my order drawn up, ready, trying to have him sign the order, and sell him the machine; showed him the contract, and everything; and he broke out of the binder conversation, and wanted to know if we handled corn…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ganson v. MadiganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Yockey v. NornMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. National Cash Register Co. v. DehnMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Brown v. SniderMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Richardson v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1905
  4. Hansen v. RolisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API