Garlock v. Motz Tire & Rubber Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by Edward A. Garlock against the Motz Tire & Rubber Company for damages for breach of a contract of agency. Judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court. Plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
(after stating the facts). It is unnecessary to cite authority to support the proposition that promises may be a good consideration for promises, and that a contract evidenced by mutual promises may be valid. And acceptance by the agent of a proposal made by the principal may be shown by performance by the agent to the knowledge of the principal of the things which the proposal exacts. A promise to do what it is proposed shall be done may be implied from acceptance of the proposal. Mueller v. Spring Co., 88 Mich. 390 (50 N. W. 319); Emerson v. Packing Co., 96 Minn. 1 (104 N. W. 573, 1 L. R.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Carnig v. CarrMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Willcox & Gibbs Sewing MacHine Co. v. EwingSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Franklin Telegraph Co. v. HarrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Emerson v. Pacific Coast & Norway Packing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Alderton v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Bushwick-Decatur Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
- Plastray Corporation v. ColeMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
- Davis v. McKinneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957
- Atlas Brewing Co. v. HuffmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
- Green Bay Auto Distributors, Inc. v. Willys-Overland Motors, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1951
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.