Legal Opinion

McConnell v. Harrell & Nicholson Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 19, 1914No. Docket No. 78PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Wayne; Van Zile, J. Assumpsit by Edward J. McConnell against Harrell & Nicholson Company for breach of contract. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtBird, J.

Plaintiff seeks compensation in this suit for defendants refusal to accept and pay for certain ice which he claims it contracted for to be delivered in the year 1910. In the year 1909 plaintiff was engaged in the business of farming and putting up ice at or near Waterford, a short distance from the city of Detroit. In November of that year he claims to have entered into a contract with defendant to furnish it ice to supply its retail trade in the city of Detroit. Letters which passed between the parties are relied upon to establish an enforceable contract. On October 20, 1909, defendant wrote…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mississippi & Dominion Steamship Co. v. SwiftSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1894
  2. Wardell v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Central Bitulithic Paving Co. v. Village of Highland ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Gates v. NellesMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dohrman v. SullivanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1949
  2. Michigan Broadcasting Co. v. ShawdMichigan Supreme Court · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API