Legal Opinion

Monroe v. Hickox, Mull & Hill Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1906No. Docket No. 210PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Grand Traverse; Mayne, J. Assumpsit by John Monroe and' others, copartners as the Traverse City Sprayer Company, against the Hiekox, Mull & Hill Company for the breach of a contract to manufacture certain machines. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtBlaib, J.

In February, 1904, the plaintiffs, copartners under the name of the “ Traverse City Sprayer Company,” entered into an agreement with the defendant, a 'Corporation, for the manufacture by it of 100 spraying machines. The contract contained, among other clauses, the following:

“We hereby propose to enter your order for 100 of your spraying machines complete, which includes attachments for both fruit trees and potatoes, as per sample submitted, at a price of thirty-two dollars ($32.00) each, net cash 30 ■days after date of shipment, it being understood that we, will make any changes without…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. McGraw v. FletcherMichigan Supreme Court · 1876

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hall v. Duplex-Power Car Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Twin City Creamery Co. v. GodfreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  3. American Varnish Co. v. Globe Furniture Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Potter v. ShieldsMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Rockwood & Co. v. Parrott & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1933

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API