Legal Opinion

Allis v. McLean

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1882PublishedCited by 32 opinions

Case made from Bay. Assumpsit. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.

The question in this ease is one of damages for the non-performance of a contract within the agreed time. The facts are found by the circuit judge.

From the finding it appears that in January, 1880, the defendants were proprietors of a saw-mill iii general good order and condition at Bay City, and on the tenth day of that month made an agreement with the plaintiff, a manufacturer of mill machinery, whose place of business was at Milwaukee, in the state of Wisconsin, for the manufacture by him for use in their mill of a piece of machinery known as a “ wrought feed friction works,” to be shipped…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Booth v. . Spuyten Duyvil Rolling Mill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. James & Mitchell v. AdamsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Howe Machine Co. v. BrysonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
  4. Salvo v. DuncanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Frazer v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1871

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. C. W. Hunt Co. v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  2. Lorenz Supply Co. v. American Standard, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. Caffey v. Alabama MacHinery & Supply Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1922
  4. Oliver v. PerkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Mississippi Power Co. v. HarrisonMississippi Supreme Court · 1963

27 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