Legal Opinion

Bunday v. Columbus Machine Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1906No. Docket No. 144PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Error to Clinton; Stone, J. Assumpsit by Fred P. Bunday against the Columbus Machine Company for breach of a contract for the sale of a certain engine. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

Plaintiff and defendant, in August, 1903, entered into a contract having the form of a proposal and acceptance, in the following terms:

“Columbus Machine Co.,

‘ ‘ Columbus, Ohio,

“ Manufacturers of Gas and Gasoline Engines.

“Mr. E. P. Bunday,

“St. Johns, Mich.

“We propose to furnish and deliver f. o. b. cars Columbus, Ohio, one 40 H. P. gasoline engine, specified as follows:

“Horse Power. The engine shall be of 40 actual horse power, and shall be tested at our works before shipment, and 40 actual horse power shall be developed.

“ Supplies. There shall be furnished by us with each gasoline engine one…

2Cases cited11 opinions

Harkness v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
Chicago Railway Equipment Co. v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
Choate v. StevensMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
Ryan v. WaysonMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
Pettyplace v. Groton Bridge & Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by19 opinions

M. H. Walker Realty Co. v. American Surety Co. of New YorkUtah Supreme Court · 1922
Lasky v. Economy Grocery StoresMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
John Deere Plow Co. v. MowryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
National Cash Register Co. v. PaulMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
Federal Commercial & Savings Bank v. International Clay MacHinery Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1925

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