Legal Opinion

Goodspeed v. Wiard Plow Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1881PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Error to Ingham. Assumpsit. Defendant Goodspeed brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

Goodspeed and Fales prior to February 13, 1879, were partners in business, and on the 21st day of January preceding the dissolution, Fales, in the name of the firm, but in the absence of Goodspeed, and without his knowledge or authority, gave to an agent of the Wiard Plough Company an order in writing for a large number of articles connected with their business to be shipped on the first day of April thereafter. On the 13th of February the firm was dissolved, and on the same day the agent was informed of the dissolution. The price of the articles ordered was shown to be above $500. On the…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. HubertMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  2. B. T. Moran, Inc. v. First Security Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Night Commander Lighting Co. v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Bauscher v. GiesMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  5. J. B. Colt Co. v. ElamSupreme Court of Virginia · 1924

5 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