Legal Opinion

Mansfield Machine Works v. Common Council

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 1886PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Error to Kent. (Montgomery, J.) Assumpsit, Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract, on the twenty-sixth day of December, 1884, for the sale by the former and purcháse by the latter of a steam fire-engine and attachments.

The first portion of the contract consists of a minute description of the engine and its machinery, not necessary to be set out for any purpose involved in the decision of the ease. The latter part of the contract is as follows :

“ The price of said engine to'be fifteen hundred dollars, and to sell three hundred feet of 24-inch 4-piy rubber hose for $40, and proper couplings, all to be delivered on…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cole v. Common Council of HomerMichigan Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Berk v. Gordon Johnson CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1964
  2. Frankfort Marine Accident and Plate Glass Insurance Co. v. California Artistic Metal and Wire Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
  3. Hair Associates, Inc. v. National Hair Replacement Services, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1997
  4. Thompson v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1951
  5. United States Electric Fire-alarm Co. v. City of Big RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

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