Legal Opinion
Peck v. Freese
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided June 26, 1894PublishedCited by 8 opinions
Error to Van Burén. (Buck, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
Defendants are copartners, doing business as Ereese & Rohde. On March 22, 1892, they gave an order in writing on plaintiff, who resides at Cortland, N. Y., for a cash register. The order was procured by plaintiff’s agent, O. W. Port, at Paw Paw, this State, and was for a register similar to the sample shown defendants, and for which they agreed to pay $45. The register, by the terms of the order, was to be delivered f. o. b. at Cortland, N. Y. It was stated in the order:
“ This order is given subject to your approval, and it is expressly agreed that it shall not be countermanded.”
The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Challenge Wind & Feed Mill Co. v. KerrMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by8 opinions
- Birznieks v. CooperMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
- B. T. Moran, Inc. v. First Security Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1933
- Night Commander Lighting Co. v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Lloyd & Elliott, Inc. v. ParkeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- J. B. Colt Co. v. ElamSupreme Court of Virginia · 1924
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.