Legal Opinion

Cox-James Co. v. Haskelite Manfg. Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1931No. Docket No. 121, Calendar No. 35,800PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

In. this action in assumpsit, plaintiff claims for certain material and equipment installed in defendant’s factory $1,700.

In a trial without a jury there was judgment of no cause of action. Plaintiff has appealed.

After a study of the record and a consideration of the briefs and argument, we accept the opinion of the trial judge:

“In the fall of 1929 defendant company decided to install a conveyor system in its plant for the removal of waste, dust and refuse in place of the blower system then in use. There were two sources of this refuse material; one, the waste and dust from sanding machines;…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Dunn Road MacHinery Co. v. Charlevoix Abstract & Engineering Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Burge Ice MacHine Company, an Illinois Corporation v. George J. Weiss, George J. Weiss v. Burge Ice MacHine Company, an Illinois CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1955
  3. Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Service Conveyor Company, a Michigan Corporation v. Shatterproof Glass Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1955
  5. Automatic Welding MacHine Co. v. Lauer & Associates, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API