Legal Opinion
Waterman-Waterbury Co. v. School District No. 2
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 2, 1914No. Docket No. 8PublishedCited by 10 opinions
Error to Kent; McDonald, J. Assumpsit by the Waterman-Waterbury Company against School District No. 2 of the, township of Wyoming for the price of a furnace. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
The parties entered into the following contract:
“The Waterman-Waterbury Company,
“Lansing, Michigan.
“Gentlemen:
“Please install in our schoolhouse, in district No. 2, township of Wyoming, county Kent, State of Michigan, one Waterbury heating and ventilating system, style C, size 24, for which on January 10, 1913, we agree to pay the sum of $120 or issue a school warrant on January 10, 1913, drawing 6 per cent, interest.
“We agree to transfer the Waterbury system from the freight depot to the schoolhouse, to furnish a man to assist the regular setter in installing the Waterbury system, and to see…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Avery v. BurrallMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Keystone Manufacturing Co. v. ForsythMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
3Cited by10 opinions
- Waterman-Waterbury Co. v. School District No. 4Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Cretors v. TroyerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
- Juvland v. Wood Brothers Thresher Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- R G Moeller Co. v. Van Kampen Construction Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1975
- Verran v. BlacklockMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.