Cleveland Refining Co. v. Dunning
Michigan Supreme Court
Case made from Menominee; Stone, J. Assumpsit by the Cleveland Refining Company against Alonzo Dunning and others for goods sold and delivered. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants assign error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The defendants executed an instrument, of which the following is a substantial copy:
April 7, 1893.
Cleveland Repining Co.
Ship to Dunning Bros. •
P. O., Menominee. County,-. State, Michigan.
F. O. B. Cleveland. Time, April 30,' ’93.
Route,--.
10 bbls. 15 cold test black oil.
Dunning Bros. & Co., Purchaser. No.-. Terms, 60 da. M. J. Walsh, Agent.
This instrument was a blank form presented by plaintiff, and duly filled, as above. The goods having been, shipped and refused, action was brought to recover the price. The defendants sought to show that the blank order was filled out at the solicitation of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ware v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Phelps v. AbbottMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by19 opinions
- Heitmann v. Commercial BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
- New Prague Flouring Mill Co. v. Hewett Grain & Provision Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1924
- Smith v. MathisMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Reiner v. CrawfordWashington Supreme Court · 1901
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.