White Sewing Machine Co. v. Dakin
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Saginaw. (Edget, J.) Assicmpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, C. J.
This is an action on a bond given by Milo H. Dakin as principal, and Aaron T. Bliss and Anthony Byrne as sureties, to the plaintiff, to secure any indebtedness incurred by Dakin to the plaintiff while acting as its agent in selling sewing-machines.
In January, 1888, Mr. Yan Ness, an agent of the plaintiff employed to procure dealers in the White sewing-machines, made a contract with the defendant Dakin by which Dakin was ¿iven the exclusive right to deal in White sewing-machines within certain territory. It is the custom of the plaintiff to require dealers to give a bond to secure the company…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bigelow v. StilphenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1863
- Bishop v. FreemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Terry v. HazlewoodCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863
- Collins v. MakepeaceIndiana Supreme Court · 1859
- Van Brunt v. EoffNew York Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by13 opinions
- State ex rel. Trent v. SimsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1953
- First Trust Co. v. Airedale Ranch & Cattle Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1939
- County of Oakland v. Central West Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
- Clyde S. S. Co. v. WhaleyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1916
- Anderson v. DonatoMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.