Legal Opinion

Austin v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 19, 1939No. Docket No. 109, Calendar No. 40,747PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtButzel, C. J.

Charles E. Austin and Margaret Austin, his wife, filed a bill of complaint in which they alleged that, as owners of certain shares of stock in the Sunny Service Oil Company and other companies, they entered into negotiations for the sale of the stock with the Hickok Oil Corporation of Ohio and A. S. Hickok, acting for themselves and the Socony Vacuum Oil Company, a New York corporation, Sun Oil Company, a New Jersey corporation, and Pure Oil Company, an Ohio corporation. Plaintiffs claim that at the time they did not know that these latter companies were being represented as undisclosed…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Teft v. StewartMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Thatcher v. Detroit Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Timmerman v. BultmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Hillman v. HulettMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Schweyer v. JonesMichigan Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Union Guardian Trust Co. v. EmeryMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Love v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Basinger v. Provident Life & Accident InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
  4. Hoffman v. BurkhammerMichigan Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Christian v. PorterMichigan Supreme Court · 1954

3 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